The final whip thread?

Home Forums Horse Racing The final whip thread?

This topic contains 172 replies, has 1 voice, and was last updated by steeplechasing steeplechasing 7 years ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 173 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #375309
    cormack15
    cormack15
    Keymaster
    • Total Posts 9977

    Reducing the number of whip bans WAS NOT the thrust of the BHA’s review.

    "The Review Group considers that the current system of
    penalties for those jockeys who breach the Rules of Racing
    (“the Rules”) on whip use is not an effective deterrent in
    its current form. Too many breaches of the Rules on whip
    use are occurring, and the Review Group believes that
    the Authority can better incentivise long-term behavioural
    change through a wide range of recommendations with this
    aim in mind."

    I’d highlight the phrase

    ‘Long -term behavioural change’ – that’s what it is about, not an overnight, revelatory, change to the culture. As mentioned above, there hs been plenty eveidence since the tighter rules on whip use have been implemented that the weighing room culture towards whip use is in need of remedy. Their reaction of horror as the reality of the new penalties kicked in illustrates that the BHA have at least, finally, got their attention on the matter after years of trying.

    #375310
    yeats
    yeats
    Participant
    • Total Posts 2873

    The ban that Crowley got last night at Wolves is interesting. He used his stick 3 times. Horse didn’t pick up and he put the stick down again.
    At the time he picked it up he was at the back of the field but the field itself was tightly grouped and jockeys in front of him using their sticks were only a length or so up on him. He was only a few lengths off the winner at the time he picked the stick up. He was judged to be ‘out of contention’ at the time. Happy days for certain operators if being a few lengths off placed horses is ‘out of contention’!

    I was going to post about that myself Sean, in fact I think it deserves a thread all of it’s own.

    When seeing the whip ban on the BHA website I was puzzled how it could have occurred as Jim Crowley doesn’t come across as a whip happy jockey, I thought maybe he had lost his temper with a recalcitrant horse but that still seemed unlikely.

    So I watched it again and couldn’t believe my eyes, the horse travelled perfectly well albeit in the rear until the straight when Crowley asked him for his effort with as you say 3 strokes of the whip, you may have hoped the horse would pick up but the result was negative and he just pushed his mount out.
    If he had not used his whip when travelling well and coasted in it would have looked a blatant case of non trying, at least in the good old days, it seems that what they want these days though.

    It was an absolutely ludicrous decision to charge and convict him with using his whip when "out of contention" the only way you could come up with that is in hindsight and after the event. Maybe Crowley should have known his horse would not pick up.
    The professionals in the sport really need to do something about this farce.

    #375311

    Eclipse First
    Member
    • Total Posts 1593

    Where a long-term change in attitude is desirable, a gradual implementation of stricter procedures would have been better. Had the BHA introduced the stiffer penalties under the old rules, the jockeys would have no doubt moaned but would have had considerably less sympathy. Once they had become accustomed to adhering to the rules (something that the previous penalties gave no incentive for the jockeys to do), then they could have looked at adjusting the rules if any further changes were deemed to be needed.

    The jockeys real gripe is not the rules, but the penalties. Giving them 2 new things to consider was over-taxing.

    #375315

    Anonymous
    • Total Posts 18146

    The jockeys real gripe is not the rules, but the penalties. Giving them 2 new things to consider was over-taxing.

    I’d hoped not to read this sort of "jockeys are stupid" comment again. Read Steve Cauthen if you want to know what riding a race feels like.

    Thanks to

    SeanBoyce

    and

    Yeats

    for explaining what seemed a curious incident with Crowley. Another ban, then, which can on the face of it be put down to the jockey’s fear of exceeding the stroke quota. I wonder if it would be possible to ask Jim Crowley what happened from his point of view?

    Cormack

    : To quote your own quote,

    "Too many breaches of the Rules on whip use are occurring"

    . So how do you or BHA intend to

    measure

    the effect of this puritan "

    culture change

    " except by recording a reduced number of whip bans, across the board? Your post is, for you, oddly without sense that I can see.

    #375317

    Anonymous
    • Total Posts 18146

    The readiness of jockeys to find ‘loopholes’ provides yet another illustration of the culture that is in place in the weighing room re- the whip.

    No, not the culture

    "re- the whip"

    Corm.

    It’s the culture

    "re- wanting to win the race without having your livelihood taken away"

    . It’s the culture

    "re- having the brains to outsmart absurdly low stroke counts"

    . It’s the culture

    "re- let’s give a message to our owners that we’re still trying our best despite the tinkerings of the Puritan fringe"

    .

    Enough of culture. Time for the Pinzoid marmite on toast, and (I hope) a whip free day – if only to please

    Coggy

    ). But any Panglossian Pecksniffery will be answered as it deserves!

    #375318

    Eclipse First
    Member
    • Total Posts 1593

    I was not implying that jockeys were stupid, merely that 2 significant changes of practices are harder to digest than one. No matter what one’s chosen vocation.

    Having had a certain amount of discourse with jockeys in a social environment, my own opinion of their wits is a matter for myself and my priest.

    #375320

    Anonymous
    • Total Posts 18146

    I was not implying that jockeys were stupid, merely that 2 significant changes of practices are harder to digest than one. No matter what one’s chosen vocation.

    Having had a certain amount of discourse with jockeys in a social environment, my own opinion of their wits is a matter for myself and my priest.

    Hmm. I see. Well, having had a certain amount of social discourse with priests, my opinion of

    their

    wits is a matter between me and my jockey!

    #375322
    ricky lake
    ricky lake
    Participant
    • Total Posts 2413

    Sean , the problem is , most of the pro whip ban voices , including the owner of this forum cannot /will not see the bigger picture

    I will spell it out

    Crowley ‘s ban was immoral for 2 reasons

    1 it is morally wrong to penalise a jockey when trying to win a race whilst staying within the rules

    2 It send out the message , this is a cheats charter , it clearly and concisely sends a message to jocks , if out of contention , sit tight and coast home please , otherwise those Rspca LADS will be on our case ..

    3 It sends out a message to punters , hey you guys are mad to be betting on this , I mean if your not prominent, you have no chance …sorry punters , we want jocks to coast home , after all it looks a lot better

    4 it sends out a message to jockeys that the game is finished , and they should be riding somewhere else

    5 finally for duffers like me who take an interest, it sends out the message , that british racing is finished , the competitive sport with driving finishes, well timed and brilliant judgement of pace will soon vanish , to be replaced by cartoon style racing,

    The whole matter is a disgrace , the saddest feature for me is that some guys cannot or will not accept that

    It needs to be sorted , I hope the latest Paul can sort , if not we are looking at the end of racing as we now know it

    Ricky

    #375323

    Eclipse First
    Member
    • Total Posts 1593

    If horse racing is a business, then it has to be able to survive in the market place. If it cannot adapt to the changing demands of the market place it does not deserve to survive.

    The whip issue merely demonstrates the desperate state racing has been manoeuvred into by its own in-fighting and inability to get a fair price for the product it offers.

    #375324

    Anonymous
    • Total Posts 18146

    I didn’t think the 3.10 was a ‘schooling session’; a comfortable victory for an odds-on chance with a stone in hand of his nearest rival.

    You’re making the mistake of only watching the winner. I can’t speak for Paul O., but this came across as a "schooling session" for me, not because the winner won easily, but because (in my opinion) the rider of the second horse made little attempt to make any sort of race of it.

    We well understand why, I think, with the Paddy Power meeting in the firing line if Walsh had got banned again yesterday. It takes two horses to make a race, you know. As it was, both had nice, easy pipe openers in public to get them fit for the future.

    Walsh’s body language suggested: "Somersby’s got a stone in hand and is jumping better than mine. Better accept the inevitable sooner rather than later, given these daft new rules".

    Coming to the third horse home…. as

    Ricky

    has said, with all these "coasters" on show (on good ground too) we could organise a great tea party at the Ritz.

    #375325

    Anonymous
    • Total Posts 18146

    If horse racing is a business, then it has to be able to survive in the market place. If it cannot adapt to the changing demands of the market place it does not deserve to survive.

    You put it well

    EF

    , in so far as racing is a business. The problem is that the current attempt to foist a visual "culture change" onto it goes slap bang against marketplace realities, as well as sporting ones.

    As has been said so often (and ignored so pointedly) racing is an international sport. If worldwide audiences don’t see what they want in our racing, they will invest their money in Hong Kong, Japan, France, Ireland and America. That’s why it’s in our interest to move to harmonised rules, rather than (as we have done) putting ourselves way out on a puritan limb.

    #375327

    Eclipse First
    Member
    • Total Posts 1593

    The whip is a side issue, UK racing’s inability to create a sound financial structure will lead to it becoming a second rate product in terms of horses, jockeys, trainers and administrators. This will not happen overnight but it is sadly inevitable.
    The BHA should be commended for at least trying to re-vamp the product in order to maintain the position of UK racing. If it fails so be it, but to simply let the status quo result in the inexorable slide into obscurity is far worse than trying to alter the marketplace. The complete lack of support the government has demonstrated for racing over securing a workable Levy shows just how much it really cares.

    #375328

    seanryan
    Member
    • Total Posts 41

    In the meantime the "unintended consequences" of this include impacts on the " integrity of the race " ,competitiveness, and as Pinza has again highlighted the welfare of the horse or worse again the welfare of the jockeys.

    Evidence please?

    Point taken. I should have included the word potential before "unintended consequences". Time will tell . At this point the main " evidence" is probably Andrew Glassonbury’s comments on boycies blog http://boyciesblog.wordpress.com/2011/1 … ow-so-far/

    For me that would have been enough to go back to the old rules pending a consideration of the issues raised.Jockey welfare should be paramount.

    However given that we are where we are then I think a way forward might involve:

    1.Putting in place a measure of success for compliance.

    To do this I would think that breaches under the old rules should be split into those attributable to frequency and those attributable to technique ( I accept there will be some overlap.) This becomes the benchmark against which behavioural change is measured. The BHA can demonstrate the achievement of change by monitoring the number of instances in which the old rules would have been breached ( in each category). This can be supported by :

    2. An escalating punishment scale for frequency breaches between the new limit and old limit.

    The details can be worked out – but a ride that is 1 or 2 over is still well within the old limits – compliance with which is the measure of success. There is no need for draconian penalties at this level. I do think some discretion is needed in the count – eg the Paul McMahon incident was a failure of technique rather than frequency imo.

    3. Publish compliance stats ( % and absolute numbers) for Jockeys/ Trainers and Owners and identify severity of breaches. This should include the 2010/11 season comparative.
    This will illustrate that the vast majority are compliant. For those that get exposed so be it. Repeat offenders do need to be dealt with – Animal Aid Table B is shameful.

    #375352
    yeats
    yeats
    Participant
    • Total Posts 2873

    Thanks to

    SeanBoyce

    and

    Yeats

    for explaining what seemed a curious incident with Crowley. Another ban, then, which can on the face of it be put down to the jockey’s fear of exceeding the stroke quota. I wonder if it would be possible to ask Jim Crowley what happened from his point of view?

    I thought he would have been an ideal topical interview for Get On today Pinza especially with the Racing Post (Colin Russell) totally overlooking the incident in todays RP but alas not.

    Surely there has to be an onus on Racing correspondents to be getting more involved in this issue and the farce that is occurring daily in the sport. The BHA are being let off the hook very lightly by them.

    An email sent to RUK last week described the BHA as incompetent yet Lydia completely disputed that. Seems a very accurate description to me.

    #375357
    Seven Towers
    Seven Towers
    Participant
    • Total Posts 624

    Pinza, small field novice chases are often little more than schooling sessions, we have had a multitude of debates on here about their uncompetitive nature and poor suitability as betting fodder for that very reason.
    The fact that yesterday’s race was a mere pipe opener for the 2 principals is nothing to do with the new whip rules it has always been thus.
    As for the 3rd place plodder, I would prefer to see a horse that’s out of it’s depth be allowed to complete in its own time rather have the jockey use his allowed number of strokes so that it is beaten by 91 lengths rather than 94.

    Corm, perhaps we could have a Whip Ban section of the forum so people could keep going round and round the same circles ad infinitum?

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 173 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.