Darley Australian Cup (Flemington R8)

This race is up for discussion but don't just leave a tip. Please include an explanation as to why you think a horse will or won't win. For good early fixed odds we recommend betting with Centrebet. You can click here to open an account now an receive a FREE $200 bet.

you gotta be kidding me mate?

Toptipster you miss the point .. the stewards informed the owners after race declarations and Hall admitted that Zipping needed to be whipped that many times to get him to the line that is why he has been penalized under the whip rules .. the owners had every right to protest and this should have been done after the stewards viewed the replay and then informed the owners that they can lodge a protest before they declare the race ..Zipping did not win fair and square as you say he won only because as Hall stated the horse was not responding and needed more strokes of the whip than necessary ..is it ok for some to obey the whip rules and some to take advantage of it at any cost to win..Chilli made a fair statement and it is the most stupid rule ever enforced on a race track any where in the world.

In Hong Kong, the stewards, if they think they may be anything that could change the race result, they will HOIST THE INQUIRY SIGN. They then determine if anything is amiss, and if there is they formally hold a hearing, and the connections are then advised and they can decide whether they too want to protest.

It's just impossible to expect the connections of SirMeOne to be counting whips of another horse while they are rooting for their own to win.

The stewards should have been alert to all this before they declared correct weight.

And as philone says, a jockey can completely ignore the whip rules, win the race and just cop a $1000 fine. PEANUTS!

It's just so unprofessional.

DeanJohn

One further point. If Zipping had not been flogged twice the number of allowable cuts before the 200, then, if you listen to jockey Hall, he would not have won because he may have been ONE LENGTH, maybe even TWO LENGHTS FURTHER BEHIND than what he was at the 200.

And then he would NOT have won!

Seeing the margin was a nose, was it?, then it could be argued it made all the difference!

RAFFERTY'S RULES if you ask me!

DJ

Only giving my opinion philone.........and it happens to coincide with the Chief Steward..........the issue is not that Nick Hall infringed the whip rule. What has to be determined is whether that infringement affected the outcome of the race. Terry Bailey rightly points out that the number of times a horse is hit before the 100m cannot conclusively be shown to determine, one way or the other, the final outcome of any race........it will never be the basis of a successful objection.........

On the whip rules as they stand..........I agree with everyone on this site that they are ill conceived and frankly bl#%dy stupid. Excessive use of the whip has always been against the Rules of Racing, but to try to refine that rule in the way the racing authorities have done is impossible.....

........and, no, I'm not kidding you chilli..........

The whip affected the outcome of the race because the horse would not have won without it's use. If the horse ran better without the whip it would not have been used. It seems like the rules assume that trainers/jockeys don't know their horses and it should assume the opposite.
I also thought jockeys were meant to ensure every action they take is to make the horse go faster/try to win (give it every possible chance) or to maintain safety. Either Hall hit the horse to go quicker or to avoid an accident, I'm pretty sure it was the former.

I can see the jocks in the protest room......
Steward : "You hit your mount 37 times from the 400m to the 200m, did it affect the outcome of the race?"
Jockey : "No Sir. That was to make it go slower sir, not faster"

I know it sounds like a silly idea but why can't the stewards have faith that the jockeys are all trying to win? Therefore when a jockey wins by a bee's and breaks the whip rule the rules assume the horse improved under hard riding?

It's just a bad rule but it must be obeyed whilst it is still in the rulebook. Some horses just respond better to the whip than others. I think if the whip rule wasn't there and both jockeys whipped the horse as much as they needed to for their horse to win Zipping still would have won, but in this case Hall broke the rules and you can't do that.

dr.whiz
wrote Today at 7:04pm2010-03-16 08:34:59

"The whip affected the outcome of the race because the horse would not have won without it's use."

That comment is an opinion..........not a fact. It is something which can never be proven........and that's the dilemna that this stupid rule has highlighted. No one has denied that Nick Hall broke the whip rule........but no one can categorically say that his illegal use of the whip affected the outcome of the race........

Even if the connections had objected.........the stewards would not have been able to award the race to Sirmione because it cannot be proven that Zipping wouldn't have won the race if Nick Hall had only hit Zipping the 5 times allowed before the 100m instead of the 10 times he actually did............

Bart Cummings has accepted the situation, whilst stating that the current whip rules should be scrapped....a position which we all share...........

I see your point TopTipster and agree they should kick the rules to the kerb .. is this the only place in the racing world that this rule applies to the whip ..if so than why apply it because than are not proving anything and I think the Jockeys have enough common sense to use it correctly as taught in very early years of racing.

The stupid whip rule is just another pathetic attempt to appease the animal welfare lobby that wants to ban horse racing in any form.........these people are zealots and shouldn't be given any consideration when racing is reviewed from time to time.

Take jumps racing as an example.........to appease these nutters, dangerous hurdles were introduced to jumps racing here which encouraged horses to run through them contemptuously and thereby increase the speed at which they run...........this magnified errors in their jumping and caused more spills and fatalities. Now jumps racing is threatened with obliteration here whilst it continues throughout the winter months in the UK and Ireland culminating in the current Cheltenham festival........

I almost despair whenever animal welfare is used as an excuse to curtail an activity that has been proudly enjoyed by countless horse loving racing enthusiasts............we ALL love the magnificent animal that is the racehorse...........and we ALL hate to see them harmed in any way.......... As the great Bart Cummings recently said........let common sense prevail (or words to that effect)!!!!

Question is.......? why would he bother to whip it twice whats allowed before the 100m if he didnt think it would make a difference to its performance toptipster obviously he thinks it will make a difference or he wouldn't of even bothered, he didnt do it to any other horse on the day... Its a know brainer.

I don't think it didn't make a difference BUT if he hadn't of whipped it EARLY then in theory wouldn't there have been alot more in the tank LATE and quite possibly finished over the top of the field anyway.

Why wouldn't you whip the sh*t out of it, knowing you are going to win a GROUP ONE Race worth MEGA BUCKS .... and only get fined $1000.

That is only a fraction of his riding commission, and it would only be a round of drinks to Zipping's wealthy owner.

It is a half baked rule, blatantly disregarded by jockeys in the big races!

PS No worries about counting whips at Happy Valley tonight. The stewards there expect a jockey to show the horse a bit of STICK!

If you have never been racing in Hong Kong, its on TVN tonight!

DJ

Obviously he did podo.....I am making one point and one point only...........NO ONE can prove categorically that hitting a horse10 times or 50 times before the 100m mark, rather than the 5 times allowed under the rules, makes any difference to the outcome of a race..............the stewards know this and therefore it can never be the basis for a successful objection.........

Steels.....your point is valid, and would be one of many arguments any competent legal practitioner would make when appealing to a court/tribunal in the unlikely event of a successful objection............

A few others might include.........

1) What's so significant about 5 strikes of the whip before the 100m..... and then flogging the animal as often as you like between the 100m and the finish.........?
2) Do 5 strikes of the whip harm the horse more or less than 6,7,8.........etc?
3) Do the unlimited number of strikes with the whip allowed after the 100m do less harm than the 5 allowed before the 100m.....?
4) Should jockeys who don't strike their horses 5 times before the 100m be charged with failing to give their horse every chance to win?..........perhaps they have an arrangement with a bookie or laying punter..........Lol!!!
5) Is any allowance made for how hard the whip is used........by a relatively weak jockey vs a jockey with a strong upper body...........?

I'm sure there are many other arguments which could be used against this crazy and ultimately useless whip rule.........the sooner it is abolished the better........

of course .... you could just ban the whip completely and then those little monkeys on top wouldn't have to count

Well why would he whip it if that theory was write... was he trying to get it beat are you saying. I backed neither horse so i am not one sided i just think he whipped it excessively for a reason, you think it would be to get more from the horse or why would he bother.

I totally agree with you toptipster it would be impossible to guarantee a different result but isn't that the same for most protests you could never guarantee a different result even if it seems obvious to most. How many times do you see interference during a race, next minute there's a protest, the whole racetrack share a different opinion on the protest being dismissed or upheld i've even seen bookies bet on the outcome. There will always be that "what if factor" in any protest, the decision normally goes to the best talker in the room not necessarily the horse that should of, could of or would of one if the "what if factor" didnt happen. My point being there will never be a guarantee that the result would have definitely been different will there.

For me the question is why would he whip it so many times if he didnt think it was going to help the horses efforts.
This rule was put in place for a reason ( albeit Stupid ) so the fine for breaching it has to be significant enough so that it will never be broken Or get rid of the stupid rule.
Form analysis will have to take into account the jockey who is rich enough not to give a rats about a fine.

Aren't stewards now obligated to do no more than just fine jockeys $1000 that do it, and the results over the line should always stand.... but do you think that will happen.....?

I would hate to be on the second horse this time and then next time it happens be on the winner and be done cause of an upheld protest for excessive whip use before the 100m mark, guaranteed to happen one day to some poor punter.

So many questions eh podo???.............

To answer your question about USUAL protests lodged by jockeys,connections,and occasionally the stewards.......you have to go to the REASON why the protest is lodged. They are ALWAYS lodged because the alleged actions of 1 (or sometimes more than 1) jockey has IMPEDED THE PROGRESS of a rival horse, and that this interference (which now controversially includes "intimidation"....) has cost the rival horse the race........this has always been the case. In these situations the stewards can quite accurately assess the the distance the horse interfered with lost by and determine whether or not the result should be varied.............

The whip rules were introduced because of PERCEIVED harm being inflicted on horses by using the whip excessively..........NOT because any excessive use of the whip causes any INTERFERENCE to rival horses which are running their own races........The excessive use rule has been in place for as long as I can remember, and jockeys can be penalised if they breach it. But this always occurred AFTER correct weight was declared and was NEVER used as a basis for an objection.......

The current MODIFIED whip rules put a focus on jockeys use of the whip BEFORE the 100m and specify the number of times the whip may be used. This has had the effect of most punters, connections, etc now being more aware of the issue and trying to suggest that the outcome of the race would have been different if the jockey had not breached the whip rules..............

If Nick Hall had breached the rules by striking his mount 6 times instead of 5 would people still be insisting his actions had any effect on the outcome of the race...........or if the jockey of Sirmione had also hit his horse 10 times before the 100m.............are people suggesting that both the 1st and 2nd horses should be the subject of a protest by the 3rd and 4th place getters?????.............

I Totally understand the rules you pointed out new and old, i read he hit it twice as many times as allowed, my point is not that i feel the decision would have been different if he didnt use excessive whipping, cause like you said that would be hard to be sure about. What i feel is if the stewards are serious about this rule enough to have put it in place then they should have larger penalties to rub it out like disqualification for excessive use of the whip. 1 extra whip 2 extra whips show some leniency maybe, but Hall clearly showed no respect for the rules of racing and $1000 will not stop him or anyone else from doing it again which leaves the decision to abide by the rule or not up to the individual jockey, therefore making the reasons for the whip rule being in place look ludacris. ( as its still being inhumane to the horse.... but not any other horses in the world just thoroughbreds). PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEASE!

I have been brought up with the industry and realize the many many different ways of losing your money both as a punter and owner but to me Hall blatantly disrespected the rules by doing what he did and by doing so has created another way for more innocent victims to lose out in the industry. ( unless you own/backed Zipping).

Dont get me wrong i have nothing against Hall for doing it cause if i owned the horse i would have nothing but praise for getting it to the line, Hall put winning the race as his top priority and did what he had to do for his connections and thats what owners and punters would love to see happen all the time.

So in hope for fairness across the board F@CK THE STUPID WHIP RULE OFF all together, and never let the oxygen thieves that call themselves " Animal rights activists" have a say again its ruining owe industry.

THE END.