Why the whip rules could make punters the ultimate losers-again!!

[Quartu SE]

The new whip rules have many facets to appease the anti's but as usual the ultimate sufferers are likely to be punters when it comes to the disqualification ammendments.Even the bookies are voicing their concerns which for a change are actually in line with how punters may be affected.For years punters have benefitted from double result payouts from most books but this may well signal the end of this concession as bookies are concerned about the length of time it may take in terms of Stewards deciding on a disqual in the event of whip overuse,it has been hinted that the double result may be dropped

There are plenty of points to debate but it seems like the industry has caved in and as Mark Johnston hinted at years ago it is only a matter of time before the anti's find something else to undermine the sport with,seems they are being helped in their cause by the current agenda of perception rather than hard facts,the BHA et al hell bent on appealing to the minorities of  the country,most of whom have no real interest in the sport.

Ironic that today Sir Mark Prescott states in the RP that the rules were fine as they stood,just had to be enforced,in the next breath he says the changes did not go far enough.Sticks in the craw that somebody like him thinks it is ok for greyhounds to rip apart hares for his own passion of hare coursing (just because it is banned has not changed his view btw) but sticks up for the anti's when it comes to the "Whip".The pro cush bears no resemblance to a whip and he further confounds with asking why there should be nine strikes over jumps and eight on the flat,states it should be the same under both codes.He does not appear to understand the difference between a 5F sprint and a three mile chase,we regularly see horses trying to go around the wings of an obstacle,drift left or right etc toward the end of a jump race and the riders having to use the "whip" to correct their mount

Certain courses have kinks that can cause a horse to veer of the intended line at the end of a race,Newbury being a prime example,most will remember The Champ doing exactly this before miraculously straightened at the last second.So begs the question of disqualification for overuse,do they expect a jump jockey to keep a few hits in reserve just in case their horse veers up the run in? The backhand is no use in straightening a swerving horse and as well as running out there are occasions when a horse is in danger of swerving across other runners.Will a jockey be penalised for taking action to prevent any amount of scenarios to avoid causing danger to others because they breached the 9 hits rule,will his horse be disqualified?

A can of worms imo that not a single voice from the industry has even mentioned.

[Quartu SE]

2 hours ago, Quartu SE said:

The new whip rules have many facets to appease the anti's but as usual the ultimate sufferers are likely to be punters when it comes to the disqualification ammendments.Even the bookies are voicing their concerns which for a change are actually in line with how punters may be affected.For years punters have benefitted from double result payouts from most books but this may well signal the end of this concession as bookies are concerned about the length of time it may take in terms of Stewards deciding on a disqual in the event of whip overuse,it has been hinted that the double result may be dropped

There are plenty of points to debate but it seems like the industry has caved in and as Mark Johnston hinted at years ago it is only a matter of time before the anti's find something else to undermine the sport with,seems they are being helped in their cause by the current agenda of perception rather than hard facts,the BHA et al hell bent on appealing to the minorities of  the country,most of whom have no real interest in the sport.

Ironic that today Sir Mark Prescott states in the RP that the rules were fine as they stood,just had to be enforced,in the next breath he says the changes did not go far enough.Sticks in the craw that somebody like him thinks it is ok for greyhounds to rip apart hares for his own passion of hare coursing (just because it is banned has not changed his view btw) but sticks up for the anti's when it comes to the "Whip".The pro cush bears no resemblance to a whip and he further confounds with asking why there should be nine strikes over jumps and eight on the flat,states it should be the same under both codes.He does not appear to understand the difference between a 5F sprint and a three mile chase,we regularly see horses trying to go around the wings of an obstacle,drift left or right etc toward the end of a jump race and the riders having to use the "whip" to correct their mount

Certain courses have kinks that can cause a horse to veer of the intended line at the end of a race,Newbury being a prime example,most will remember The Champ doing exactly this before miraculously straightened at the last second.So begs the question of disqualification for overuse,do they expect a jump jockey to keep a few hits in reserve just in case their horse veers up the run in? The backhand is no use in straightening a swerving horse and as well as running out there are occasions when a horse is in danger of swerving across other runners.Will a jockey be penalised for taking action to prevent any amount of scenarios to avoid causing danger to others because they breached the 9 hits rule,will his horse be disqualified?

A can of worms imo that not a single voice from the industry has even mentioned.

Having had a further read of the changes there appears to be a lack of detail as to when a horse is disqualified e.g is it placed second or last? After all if the Stewards deem that it has won because of overuse of the "whip" it stands to reason that it has beaten the entire field because of the breach and not just the runner up.Huge implications for the betting markets including the exchanges as to the places they pay out on.Also noticed that it is 8 strikes over jumps and 7 on the flat,another indicator that Prescott should keep his own counsel?