2016 Preakness & Black-Eyed Susan

[tucktaway]

[QUOTE=Rackonteur;8673591]
Didn’t they say something about Nyquist and the conditions? (rain, sloppy track)? I thought Guttierez wanted to get him out in front so he wouldn’t have mud thrown all over him if he wasn’t used to it.

But what do I know? :)[/QUOTE]

I don’t know if they said it, but that was exactly what I was thinking when I watched. I assumed their strategy was to not test his tolerance/take the risk for mud in his face and they felt confident there was enough in the tank to get it done.

[Hannahsmom]

[QUOTE=rascalpony;8673742]

I have had to explain to non-horsey people that when I smack my horse with a whip once, it’s negative reinforcement. Then I ask them what they do to their puppy when it pees on the carpet or does something it’s not supposed to, like jump on someone. They usually understand better after that. Whipping in racing is obviously a different story, but it would be good for everyone (eg. the NTRA) to keep in mind that the super-casual viewer probably has a different image of a crop than an equestrian.[/QUOTE]

Guess what? That is very old school and dog trainers don’t do that anymore unless they are not smart enough to figure how to motivate dogs. I think of TBs as the Border Collies of the horse world. They are motivated to run. But money motivates to win. Thus the whip. I’m sure I will be corrected but this was not inspirational. No discredit to the horse, I had hoped Exaggerator would have been more of a threat in the Derby.

[Drvmb1ggl3]

[QUOTE=Hannahsmom;8673936]
Guess what? That is very old school and dog trainers don’t do that anymore unless they are not smart enough to figure how to motivate dogs. I think of TBs as the Border Collies of the horse world. They are motivated to run. But money motivates to win. Thus the whip. I’m sure I will be corrected but this was not inspirational. No discredit to the horse, I had hoped Exaggerator would have been more of a threat in the Derby.[/QUOTE]

The majority of horses will respond to the whip by increasing their pace and lengthening their stride. Several hundred years of racing have proven this. There are a small minority of horses that respond negatively to use of the whip.

The question then becomes how much use of the whip is acceptable. This question has been asked and debated quite a bit in the last 20 years, and governing bodies around the world have been quite proactive in dealing with it. Unfortunately the US is lagging behind on this.

For example, here are the rules in GB… http://www.thepja.co.uk/members-info/regulatory/useofwhip/
You’ll see they have a limit on the total number of times the whip can be used in the race and it’s clearly stated that the horse must be “shown” the whip first and given “time to respond”, which is spelled out as 3 strides, before the whip is used. They also spell out how you can use the whip (you can’t use it backhanded) and what part of the horse you can and can’t hit and you can’t use it on consecutive strides. These are all easy to keep track of, for both the jockey and the stewards, so there’s not much debate when you have broken the rules. There are other rules that are a bit more nebulous, like “excessive force” and when a horse is “out of contention”, that are more in the eye of the observer.

Desormeaux’s use of the whip, while not that excessive by US standards, would have resulted in a pretty quick fine and suspension in many places.

[rascalpony]

Guess what? That is very old school and dog trainers don’t do that anymore unless they are not smart enough to figure how to motivate dogs.

You know that when a dog steps outside of its boundaries, there is negative reinforcement, whether it’s a sharp “NO”, a tug on the leash & training collar, or something else.

I am not saying that excessive whip use is acceptable. What I am trying to say is that non-horsey people automatically assume that the whip is abusive (and it can be, used incorrectly, as one could argue there are many examples of). You and I know that as a training tool, the whip is not abusive and is used as negative reinforcement to tell a horse what NOT to do.

A few smacks down the homestretch if a horse is distracted or goofing off is acceptable in that frame. However, the whipping down the stretch in the Derby last year and the Preakness this year were visually not pleasant. We don’t know if every strike hit the horse, or if they were fanning the whip. Jockeys have been quoted as saying some horses shut down when they’re hit with the whip, and others respond, so generally I leave it to their discretion. In general though, yes I support limits on whip use, because there is such a thing as excessive use, and because an everyday person does not understand the crop as a training aid.

Edit: I do think we should be following GB’s lead on this, as I think the rules and regulations on whip use are pretty clear.

[RhythmNCruise]

[QUOTE=rascalpony;8674020]
You know that when a dog steps outside of its boundaries, there is negative reinforcement, whether it’s a sharp “NO”, a tug on the leash & training collar, or something else. [/QUOTE]
Try going to the dogforum.com and saying that. They’ll reeducate you really quickly and tell you that the only way to train a dog is through positive reinforcement. They’ll cite research, studies, expert +R trainers, and their own personal stories. Trust me, I’ve gone there and tried to argue that some punishment is necessary in training a dog, and they’ve (politely) stood me down every time. They’re nice people, but they are strong in their philosophies regarding training dogs. ESPECIALLY house-training a puppy. The old rubbing his nose in it and giving him a swat on the butt then tossing him outside is very “old school” and is no longer the acceptable way.
Now, having said that, horses and dogs are completely different anyway.