Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dunbar
I don't doubt that that's possible, Danzig. But there's a lot of room between hand-riding and whipping 19 times.
I honestly don't understand why the pro-whip majority feels SO strongly about it. They seem to think racing wouldn't be fair or bettable without whips. Wouldn't it still be a level playing field if no jock had a whip?
I agree that some (probably most) horses need a whip to run their fastest. I'm sure some of those horses could run faster still with a strong buzzer or other "aids".
If all horses were hand-ridden, there would still be horses that were faster than others, and they would still be handicappable. Phrases like "she showed determination" would have more meaning, too.
--Dunbar
|
Anyone who thinks whips are unnecessary simply doesnt understand racehorses. Not saying that as a knock but the whip is a vital part of the game simply because of the nature of horses. Not to mention the fact that without them many races will look shady because of that same nature of racehorses. Not only is the whip used for encourgement, it helps get the attention of a scared horse back on the rider, can be used a cue to switch leads and to keep a horse from drifting out or in. You really need to get ahold of one of the new whips to understand how light they are. People who are turned off of the sport because of whipping arent going to be around long anyway not to mention are usually rarely the type that bets anyway. If you watched that race and the whipping was what jumped out at you, you probably are watching the wrong sport.