99.52% Compliance Rate – FACT – For You Know What……

Once upon a time this forum was a really great place for racing fans , now its a safe haven for trolls , animal charity fanatics, and loads of navel gazers

Most of the really good posters have either left or have been banned

Saddest of all is the little clique of anti whip do gooders that now pervade

We used to deride the Betty blue forum as rubbish once , nowadays it seems they are all here .. flaming for fun…IMO

Wonder what the commercial advertisers think of the place nowadays ?,

Ricky

Drone, no words for Blind Willie McTell just thank you.

I’d offer a Cesarewitch winner in reply,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4egg0bx85Hw

Ricky –

anti-whip = do-gooder?
What’s wrong with being a ‘do-gooder’?

Inanely slinging derogatory terms at all who logically argue for a reduction in whip usage doesn’t actually advance your arguments one iota, you do realise that don’t you? For me, some of the pro-whip campaigners have conducted themselves poorly in this debate, resorting to name-calling and irrelevant arguments when they run (as they rapidly are) out of coherent arguments for their case.

First the world was going to end, jockeys on strike, etc –

it didn’t and they didn’t

.
Races were going to dissolve into uncompetitive events won by whichever horse deigned to run –

they haven’t, show me any stats/non apocryphal evidence that supports the view that racing is somehow less competitive

Jockeys would be banned right, left and centre –

they aren’t, at least no worse than under old rules – thanks for the data Pete

What HAS actually happened –

Less horses being marked
Significant reduction in instances of careless riding and interference cases
Racing just as exciting/competitive (judged by winning distances)
Non-count related whip offences (excessive force/use when clearly winning significantly down

How can anyone blindly argue that those are irrelevant? The figures are supporting that the BHA were right – they may have botched the implementation but they were dead right about what needed to be done. It’s working!

What about the clique of pro-whip people who post regularly Ricky? Presumably they are OK as they agree with you. Are they dragging the forum down or is it just those that disagree with you you think are the problem?

Rick, some of your threads and posts of late have been some of the best examples of ‘trolling’ I’ve seen on this forum to date, and so the hypocrisy is astounding. And your trolling of Corm and digs at the forum and it’s members, both old and new, really horrible.

You seem to haunt this place more than anything these days.

Come off it Ricky!

Again, simply more off-piste flak. QED.

Drone, no words for Blind Willie McTell just thank you.

I’d offer a Cesarewitch winner in reply,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4egg0bx85Hw

Thanks: a beautiful, world-weary, shop-soiled and sweaty diva with a voice resigned, defiant and accepting

As for some more acoustic blues, let these hit the guts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqeW7-tmVU4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blI2dXHyBj0

They’re Justified, and they’re Ancient

I found most of Sean Boyce’s posts challenging

Me too, and Cavellino Rampante’s.

I’m more than aware the issues aren’t black and white and I can see very vividly where many of the arguments against the current rules are coming from. As I’ve said, none of it is black or white, it is all matter of degree and line-drawing and where lines are drawn you will usually have people on either side.

Offering a rebuttal against considered, thoughtful arguments is fun. Defending against personal attacks not so.

I was taught that debating involves criticising or finding holes in someone’s

argument

, not in them.

This is far better, one of the regulars in the bookies where I worked was John Lee Hooker’s brother-in-law.

Mind this is reminds me of Tom & Jerry

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBzkXFFcBik