That's not the Rule, just in case you are still having trouble with your remedial reading class. It is a guideline issued as an NZTR directive and it specifically states that it DOES NOT affect the generality of the Rule, which I cited above. The guideline says that there is no numerical limit on the number of times that a horse may be struck in the final 100. It is at the rider's discretion. That does not mean they can be excessively thrashed in breach of the Rule.
Why not? The connections can file an information with the JCA (on a raceday) can't they? The whip rule is clear. Surely there are grounds for a protest if a horse is narrowly beaten by one where there has been excessive use. What rule prevents it?
3) A Rider shall not:
(a) use a whip other than a padded whip of a type, make or model specifically approved by NZTR, in a Race or trial (including a jump-out or test for certification purposes) or trackwork;
(b) strike a horse with a whip in a manner or to an extent which is:
[Amended 1 May 2015]
(i) unnecessary
(ii) or excessive
(iii) or improper;
(c) strike a horse forward of its shoulder; and/or
(d) during a Race or trial (including a jump-out or test for certification purposes), use or carry more than one padded whip.
Ran 1.17.4 actually. 9.7 seconds the last 200, if you believe their clock, but never managed to win a Group 1 (from memory). But yes, I think she could actually, even though she's not a 1400m horse. Remember Longchamp is downhill.
I think I saw her telling Hughie that yesterday. "You've gone too soon Hughie. Now we're wasting energy covering all this extra ground. Let's just wait for the 200 when I can see the winning post and we'll go from there. Won't be a problem."
I just don't see how he can be so thick. Nobody agrees with him except maybe a bunch of other losing punters out there that haven't given this much thought.
You'll have to say a bit more. You've lost me. The question was about the evidence that German horses bleed less than those in the rest of the world. Please point us to the evidence.