Mr.J Darling
Your blog promoting a new rules is hypocritical at best
A) WELFARE OF THE HORSE: you race on racetracks in USA where urging is allowed
B) HOLDING LINES: every driver knows that it`s safer to hold lines with a one hand and
tap the horse with another

Wich bring me to a point of my coment . 95% of your callegues are against the new rule
is because you are twisting the facts,in your blog,TV speaches ETC...ETC..and mostly is a BAD RULE!
Darko Vukovic

I want to thank Trevor Ritchie and Randy Waples for speaking their minds and stating unequivocally that the new whipping rules makes driving unsafe and puts every drivers life at stake. I challenge Jack Darling to find any one driver at WEG who will come out in print and state that the new whipping rule makes driving safer like Jack maintains in his rebuttal on the safety issue. There is no question that every major driver is against the new whipping rule as it makes driving unsafe and puts everyone's life at risk. If Jack Darling isn't prepared to put his life on the line every night driving he shouldn't be questioning Trevor Richie and Randy Waples safety concerns on the new whipping rule.

As far as the betting public is concerned judging by the numerous postings on stardbredcanada they are 10 TO 1 against the new whipping rule. However, In Jack Darlings world the betting public (customer) doesn't exist. Jack has never acknowledged in his blog the many postings of bettor's turned off by the disqualification Angostora because of the new whipping rule that they no longer bet the WEG product. I'm talking about the customers who actually bet on the races and are responsible for 100 per cent of the purses that the horseman race for. In Jack Darling world what they think is irrelevant.

It is abundantly clear that the driver colony at WEG and betting public is dead set against this whipping rule. To pretend like Jack Darling does that there is some sort of consensus among the racing community supporting the whipping rule is an outright lie. I hope that owners and drivers and the betting public put pressure on WEG and the ORC to change the rule before more people leave the harness game in disgust.

Unintended consequences. As was stated earlier I was in favour of a change to the whipping (not urging) rules however this doesn't include the rules we've been saddled with now. Penalize the heck out of the worst offenders, force them to change or leave the sport. I knew going into this process that whatever rule was reached there would be unintended consequences as was the last change to the whipping rules years back that led to the pushing/tail pulling/whip between the legs result. My feeling and correct me Jack if I am wrong that many of the drivers who were involved in the process didn't want any change period so their thinking was why should we be the only ones having to suffer with these new changes. Make this rule so untenable to all that it will have to be scrapped. If the owners, breeders and betting public voice enough opposition the O.R.C. will have to re-think their policy and change it. Wouldn't surprise me if there have been discussions in the drivers' room amongst some perhaps jokingly that what if we all one-handed in a race one night, what are they going to do? DQ us all? Refund all the money wagered? As I stated back to the drawing board on this issue would show leadership and a willingness to respond to our customers and participants. The ball is in your court O.R.C. what will it be? Double Fault? or advantage horse racing.

The new whipping rules are failing our industry terribly. Are we attempting to protect the horse, or are we throwing darts at a board in an attempt to stop the tailspin our sport is in?

What was intended to curve whipping abuse, a perceived achilles heel on fan appeal, has undoubtedly seen a reverse effect come about over one mainstream incident. I have the utmost respect for the animal, and believe those drivers who utilize what should be a tool (the whip) in the manner of a weapon should be punished. In saying this, I do not believe we should punish the majority who respect the rules.

Most if not all the drivers have raised concerns about safety issues. While one would be able to discount some opinions under the belief they just wish to abuse the whip, there are many drivers who have for a number of years driven on ability and talent, while utilizing the whip in a tactful manner, and their opinions should be held in high regard. This is how they make their living, and we are infact jeopardizing their livelihood.

We have added a severe element of risk to our owners and trainers alike with these new placing rules. All horses must have a driver, and in doing so the trainer/owner must list a driver, and have full confidence that they will remember to adhere to the new rules. While one could say they should only list drivers who will abide by the rules, Im sure Trevor Ritchie would have been one of the first drivers anyone would have listed. It was a simple mistake he admitted to, but one that has no ultimately punished the owners considerably. While it took money away from these owners to reinvest, it has gone to other owners to reinvest. The question becomes, will these owners be turned off by this and liqiudate from our industry? (something we do not need to lose).

Further ramifications will be felt in years to come as the trickle down effect of this placing will be felt from a breeders standpoint. The placed filly will not have a Peaceful Way stakes elim. win on her resume, and possibly a top 3 finish in the final on her profile as well. Along with that she will have significantly decresed earnings. One could also go further to say it could have been a builiding block towards a potential O'Brien Award at the end of the year should she win Canada's biggest 2yo filly trot which she surely was to have a good shot at. Not only do the owners suffer, but those holding the papers to her dam and sisters suffer with what could have been increased black type pedigree helping to drive up siblings and sibling offsrping values. Now we have affected breeding.

A bigger concern can also be the effect we have had on bettors, a key component of the industry's survival. As can be seen on SC comments and other industry discussion boards, there have been quite a few bettors turned off and intending to no longer support our product. This will not bode well for us now, or in the future. When slots are gone, and even while they are here, we rely on bettors to help fund our sport. These people should be our focus, along with new owners, in which we are trying to attract. Im sure the majority of bettors would say they just want see an honest effort for the money they bet which would involve the drivers trying to encourage their horses with the tools they have. This does not mean that abuse of the whip should be allowed, but proper encouragement that is enforced.

If nothing else this unfortunate incident has generated a vast amount of talk throughout the industry, which at the very least is a good step in helping to improve it. There have been what would appear as a minority who have stood behind what they believe in to support the new rules. While I am not in support, I applaud them for atleast standing for something, as many fail to voice any type of opinion at all.

My one thought was the conflicting message I have received from the supporting group. From those who I have talked to they mention how much faster the racing has got without the use of the one-handed whipping. (ie Sportswriter's world record, etc) Then, they contradict themselves by saying that Trevor gained an "unfair" advantage by one-handed tapping Angostura. The old saying "you cant suck and blow at the same time" applies here. What way do you want it?

Horses have no ability to talk and with that in mind they can not tell us whether whipping (as it was intended by the old rules) hurts or not. They also fail to tell us whether they like racing or not which could be the next step in animal welfare. Im all for the welfare of the horse, but where does it start and where does it end? Common sense must prevail.

all i have to say is did the drivers get asked on what they thought did anybody send a letter asking them what they thought did all angles get looked at thourely if drivers like randy waples and trevor ritchie say this is unsafe who have made huge impacts on the game and are a couple of the best drivers in the world maybe we should step back and actually look at this rule

No need to worry about me. I will NOT BET ANOTHER RACE from Ontario tracks. Boys - just look out for yourselves. The bettor means nothing. Eliminate the handle and who's left?

FYI to Carlo Renon, Jim Tropea, and Lewis Saunders - there is no one-handed whipping allowed in Lexington. Kentucky made this ruling before Ontario implemented their rules, as have Florida, Indiana, and the Maritime Provinces.

Interestingly, Jack's Blog on the rules creation explanation - point 4, paragraph 3, indicates who he thinks were involved in the panel to discuss the whipping rule. He outlines ORC officials, judges, lawyers, race track officials, race drivers, and, possibly "others". I presume he classifies Owners in the possibly "others" group.

This gets to the core of the problem. We, as owners, put up the money to help finance the sport but, as always, are an afterthought when it comes to strike decisions, etc., or in rules make-up.

It will be interesting, as the handle, race dates, and subsequently, purses drop, where the money will come from to encourage owners' continued support to pay trainers', grooms', drivers', and others' wages.

I have looked at all of the blogs on this site. I can still see that some people can't understand what Jack darling is trying to explain. He is a good horseman and has put millions in the game. He is only trying to do what is best for all of us. Why can't some of us understand that???

i am really glad that all of the people involved with the (new)whipping rule wont be racing any of there horses in the united states ,ever again until they also change there whipping policies to keep in line with ours!this includes the little brown jug of course!all that had to be done in the first place was to penalize the drivers that abbused the rule that was in place already ,im saying this as a driver that has never had a whipping infraction in 26 years

If the judges had of enforced the whipping rules to start with we would'nt be in this mess!Why can't you make the penaltys tougher for whipping abuse and get some judges that will enforce them on the drivers that do this!When the drivers are saying this new rule is not safe then theres something wrong with it!!! The fans owner and driver of that great filly are the ones that are paying the price she should be racing the final with the best fillies not the consulation she earned her way in with a hard fought WIN!!Thanks i won't bet until this mess is fixed!!!

While I can appreciate the intent of the new whipping rules, I can't help but be a little disappointed in the first two weeks of their enforcement. Trevor's drive aboard Angostura was a perfect example of how an owner, trainer, fellow driver, bettor, enthusiast, novice or activist, would like a horse to be handled. Minimal urging, bit snug in the mouth, and FULL control of his horse. This is the type of driving that we should be encouraging, rather than shunning, and painting Trevor as a "cheater".

I realize that it's written in black and white, and his whip did clearly touch the horse, but I really hope this serves as a wake up call for the rule to be revisited.

Unfortunately the only black and white rule that carries a heavy penalty, is when the whip comes into contact with the horse while the lines are in one hand. There are numerous other rules involving what is acceptable urging while a line is in each hand, but once again, like the old rules, these are left in the grey area. Are his lines too loose? Was her arm at a 90 degree angle to the track? Did he just bring his whip up to the horse, after hitting the wheel disk, without reseting in the box? All of these questions are now left for interpretation. I understand, and appreciate, that many of these rules are being loosely enforced while we adapt to the change. Warnings and reminders as to what is acceptable, instead of a fine or suspension, but I strongly believe that the new enviroment created leaves a lot to be desired.

The crossing of the lines is not where the problem lies, it's the individuals who continue to press the limits, and abuse the right to carry a whip.

Again, does it not make more sense to just place the horse as "lapped on" if it is viloation of the whipping rule? If there is 4 horses across the track and the winner is deemed to have "whipped" his horse while both lines are in one hand then set that horse back to 4th? Why all the way to last?? The rule needs another look in my opinion....this instance has proved that.

is saying this about Jack Darling's statement...In your OWN words Jack...The Cognitive word is "STRIKE". As I watched the stretch run I did NOT see Trevor "STRIKE" the horse..I certainly saw him "TAP" the horse..BUT NOT STRIKE him.
In my mind there is a significant difference!!
This is where the call is debateable.

In all facets of life, business, government, industry, and proven again here, the worst way to make a decision is by committee. Committees are where voices are heard and recommendations are made. Decisions to implement recommendations are made (and changed) by the leaders of these organizations. Leaders, take the urging rule out.

As a heavy gambler (six figures a year minimum), I was invited a while back to your yearly gaming conference where I was asked my opinion of the urging rule. The primary argument put forth at that point was that perspective young clients would be turned off if they saw the whipping. No evidence was given, nor a single complaint lodged to back this view. My voiced opinion was, as it is now, is that believing the urging rule would have any impact on the appeal to a new generation of patrons is akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

As an aside there are real and better ways to grow your demographic. As a gambler I am interested in increasing and diversifying the wagering pools, if those in the industry are as well, contact me.

The other primary argument put forth is one of treatment or wellbeing of the horses. This argument is better stated as the perception of the treatment or wellbeing of the horse. In most cases the marks left by the hopples are more significant than by the whip. As is said in the barn, his hide is a long way from his heart. I would think that a driver in complete control of a horse is better for both their wellbeing.

I took Monday off but did handicap the Mohawk program. I had selected the triactor in the order it had originally finished. If I had been impacted or am impacted by the rule, I will spend my significant wagering dollar across the border. It will take quite a few phantom new clients to replace me.

Mr. Darling, why would you race at Lexington where your horse could be whipped inhumanely?

If this is the kind of flawed logic that was behind the new rule thenis is little wonder that you have this trouble. To equate everything to cheating is comical. It sounds like you didn't have a committee you had an anti-whipping focus group make the rule. Leave the horse's number on the board, leave the bettor with his money and fine the driver the equilivent of the purse won by the owner if you wish. Now that is a structure that would work but it still doesn't help with the lack of safety you have created for the drivers. Work on that one!

Arguments against those points:

1. A horse that tests positive does so after the fact and the bettors are not penalized only those directly responsible for the offence.

2. A horse causing interference is placed behind the horse that he interfered with not necessarily last. It is direct retribution for impeding the chances of that other horse of winning. How does Trevor's one handed tippy tap impede the chances of any other entrant from winning?

What if we applied other rules with the same broad brush: A horse off stride on the wire is only placed behind a lapped on horse not put to last but did he not "cheat"? He did not maintain the required gait for the entire mile.

3. A horse who goes inside 3 pylons has gained an advantage but one who goes inside two does not?

Trevor gave his horse the most gentle of tappings with the whip, according to this rule a horse could be given a serious beating as long as it is done with the lines in two hands who gained an unfair advantage? There are many who feel that exact scenario happened later the same night and that horse is not disqualified.

The spirit of the rule is good, the verbiage is not. The rule is essentially a generalization; by the ORC's logic keeping the lines in two hands means a driver can't tee off on a horse. It isn't true and doesn't stop that from happening.

Amend the rule. How many changes were made to the pylon rule along the way? Tons. It has gone through many many interpretations and revisions to get where it is today and it still requires interpreting by the judges given the circumstances of what happens.

As usual, very well written and explained. It all makes perfect sense when this particular incident is compared to the others that carry the same penalty. Would I want to be the owner of the horse that is put back, especially in a race of such importance? No, but if my driver, whom I have hired, cheats in any way, I wouldn't want to be the benefactor of a win given that the driver hadn't played by the rules.
This new rule was a reaction to the sad state that we were in regarding application of the old rules and the fact that drivers continuously ignored them with the minor penalties that were handed down. Something had to be done for the welfare of the horse and to improve the reputation of horse racing. Harsh? Maybe. Effective? Time will tell but it certainly will catch the attention of all horsepeople and, hopefully, our sport/industry will improve enough that new fans will fill the stands and have enough faith to start betting again. Maybe even buy into a horse or more.

Thanks again, Jack, for pointing out some of the finer points of this new ruling.

The new rule is here and we may or may not be able to change that, but we can modify it. It can work if it's penalties are not so black and white, which would obviously eliminate scenarios like Danterra and Angostura. This is a filly that has worked hard her entire "short" career, has the opportunity of a lifetime, and within 3 seconds, sees it swallowed up in front of an industry that is, in itself, being swallowed up. If this new rule is to have any "legs", one of two things needs to happen in my opinion. One: There needs to be a certain criteria in which an enquiry follows, in order to determine the penalty warranted. I'm not suggesting that this "checklist" be a mile long, but the judges need to review each infraction on a case by case basis, asking themselves four or five specific questions, ei: Did the driver gain a position by doing this? Did the driver put himself, his horse or his colleagues in an unsafe scenario? Was there malicious intent to "hide" the violation? Etc. This method would allow the judges to fairly determine the severity of the penalty warranted, and act upon it accordingly. Or the second method, a basic one: A first time infraction sees a driver fined and no changes to the horse's finish. A second infraction, the driver is fined heavily and the horse is placed once back. And a third infraction, the driver is severely fined (with or without suspension) and the horse is sent to the back of the finishing field. Yes, drivers must be well-versed on the rules before getting behind any owner's horse, that's their job, and yes, some drivers try to push the envelope with the rules, but there are drivers out there who are honest to the sport and they sometimes make mistakes, and this is why the penalty that's in place will not work.

It would certainly be a start at eliminating what happened Monday at Mohawk, and with the state that the industry is in today, we need to find ways to make it fair, fun and economically feasible for owners, drivers, trainers, the non-betting and the betting public to continue to support the sport and fall in love with it all over again.

Unfortunately, the owner should pay the price. It is unfortunate that it happened in an elimination and I feel for the owners, but in a way, it is probably good it happened in something other than a regular overnight race.

What is going to happen should this occur again. Owner gets very upset. Owner tells trainer don't you ever put this driver on any horse I drive. Trainer, who is not happy himself for losing his share of the commmission, tells the driver that the owner basically fired him. Driver realizes he lost a customer and if he keeps this up, he will lose more customers. This is the best discouragement that can happen.

The funny thing about this whole tempest is that the ones screaming the loudest probsbly never even looked at the rule. They worry about racing losing customers. Why worry about this once in a blue moon occurance when there are many more issues which are chasing customers away. Despite the doomsayers, this rule serves an important role in presevering the long run viability of racing.

One good thing is comming from this tempest. I now know what it must have been liked when the first pacing hopples were introduced.

The safety of our drivers HAS to be the one most important factor above all else. Whether or not a ticket gets cashed, a purse cheque gets earned, or people get angry or turned off of the sport, if ONE driver ever gets seriously hurt because of this rule then it's a bad rule. If Trevor and Randy and Brad Watt and the others that do this for a living speak up and let us know that it's created unsafe conditions, then the rule HAS to be changed NOW.

It will be very interesting to see the quality of racing we are going to see when the standardbreds switch back to Woodbine. Trying to close from a perfect 2nd over trip is difficult enough under maximum urging and now your going to have horses gapping on the outside that will cause breakaways that ruin races.

This new whipping rule is the worst thing that has happened in the history of horse racing. It has totally changed the nature of horse racing. I'm not sure what planet Jack Darling is on when he states," new whipping rule was implemented on September 1st has been excellent." Are you kidding me Jack? Gone is the excitement of the stretch drive. Drivers look passive, tentative, and indecisive in the most important part of the race the stretch drive to the finish line. Horses near the lead at the head of the stretch win 80 per cent of the races. Closers coming of the pace can never get into the mile, as drivers are too tentative to mount a sustained stretch drive. The product has become boring, predictable, sterile and lost all its excitement.

On top of this you have drivers such as Randy Waples and Trevor Ritchie stated in print that the new whipping rule make's driving more unsafe. Most of the drivers hate the new rule.

The hardcore bettors and owners that I know feel alienated by the industry and are just disgusted with this new rule. Many have vowed never to bet another Canadian pari mutuel horse race till the rule changes. I just hope other people in the industry are not in denial like Jack Darling about how bad this whipping rule is and change this rule before more of the customer base becomes more depleted and leave the horse racing game in disgust never to come back.

Mr. Darling , I know you and the committee that included ORC officials, judges, lawyers, racetrack officials Trainers and race drivers tried doing what you people thought was best for the horse and racing in general.

With that being said I did not see THE BETTOR (who are paying for the purses)included in your committee.

If you lose the Bettors and their Opinions, you have no racing, ORC officials, judges, lawyers, racetrack officials, Trainers and race drivers.

I also disagree with you on the Quality of Racing. It looks to me that some drivers are not Trying (Cheating) while others are throwing the lines slashing and banging like its their first time in a race bike.

When one of these horses fall on their head because of this it will be interesting to see your take will be on that.

As far as i knew there was always a whipping rule in place . Add some teeth to it and Let the judges hand out the penalty to the Driver.

To compare whipping to knocking down another horse as "cheating" give me a break!!!