The home of intelligent horse racing discussion
The home of intelligent horse racing discussion

99.68% Compliance Rate – Fact – For You What…..(Jumps)

Home Forums Horse Racing 99.68% Compliance Rate – Fact – For You What…..(Jumps)

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #20418
    PompetePompete
    Member
    • Total Posts 2391

    Between the introduction of the new **** rules on the 11 Nov 11 & the 30 November 11 (inc) Jump Racing Professional Jockeys achieved a 99.68% compliance rate with the new Excessive Frequence rule – 6 bans from 1933 rides.

    This is clear proof the the Professional Jumps Boys and Girls, along their Flat conterparts have adjusted well to the new rules – well done to them.

    And does suggest – crisis, what crisis?

    #380979
    ricky lakericky lake
    Participant
    • Total Posts 2358

    This is a troll ….Pinza got banned for less , why is this poster allowed to continue sir ???

    #380981
    PompetePompete
    Member
    • Total Posts 2391

    :?

    So, just presenting FACTS is trolling – whereas being rude and insulting to others who hold a different view and adding absolutely nothing to the debate other than "Yes, I agree with you Cav’s" is OK.

    Anyhow, just to keep you happy Ricky other than voting for Pinza as Poster of the Year, I won’t bother posting on here anymore, Sir.

    #380987
    CavCav
    Participant
    • Total Posts 4811

    Relax, Ricky! There is room for (almost) everyone on this forum, including Indian Ropemen and their boy assistants.

    #380988
    stilvi
    Participant
    • Total Posts 4522

    This is a troll ….Pinza got banned for less , why is this poster allowed to continue sir ???

    Presumably you never read back your own posts?

    #380989
    Coggy
    Participant
    • Total Posts 1234

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with Pompetes opening post to this thread. If we ban the use of statistics as the basis of informed discussion then we may as well turn the lights off as we all exit stage left.
    Lets all be a little more tolerant of opposing or alternative views. Calling for bans ( without just cause) is as reprehensible as the modern day footballing prima donnas waving imaginary cards in the air.

    #381007
    Bachelors HallBachelors Hall
    Participant
    • Total Posts 1333

    As reprehensible as the act is, those primadonna footballers who wave imaginary cards usually have grounds for doing so. i.e;- a foul had taken place. I see no foul in the opening post.

    I don’t know you Ricky Lake so you’re still neutral in my book but your post didn’t look good.

    I used to be anti-whip until I asked for one to use on myself when I went to Stratford in the summer. I am now ambivalent-whip. I am assured that the whip doesn’t cause the horses any pain and this issue is purely an image one which is quite important as the sport needs a constant flow of new customers in order to survive.

    So far, this national hunt season has been the best possible advertisement given the high number of top performances from established stars (Kauto Star, Master Minded, Thousand Stars, Sizing Europe, Big Bucks) the exceptional promise amongst the novice ranks (Grands Crus, Al Ferof, Peddlers Cross, Bobs Worth, Fingal Bay) and the absence of any high profile casualties. A fresh faced newcomer would rightly think that this is a great sport.

    However, there has been a dark cloud hanging over this season and it’s been the doom-mongers trying to convince all that will listen that there’s been a dark cloud hanging over this season. By the way they’re carrying on, they would have a fresh faced newcomer believe that racing used to be

    much

    better… Simply because in the good old days, the jockeys were allowed to hit the horses more.

    #381009
    ricky lakericky lake
    Participant
    • Total Posts 2358

    Bachelors , racing was no better in yesteryear , the whips were real and horses were battered daily , the present day version is like a feather duster in comparison

    2 things you should know , the present drama was self inflicted by the BHA to appease animal charities in the wake of the grand national , it was a huge mistake

    secondly I asked for Pomp to be banned as Pinza was banned for less , his bombardment of statistical posts , in your face , up yours and ya boo hiss attitude really sickens me , hence my post

    One rule for Pinza , one rule for Pomp …why I ask ?

    Ricky

    #381012
    Bachelors HallBachelors Hall
    Participant
    • Total Posts 1333

    I’m with you with regards to the reason why the ban was implemented was as an appeasement. If it was a welfare issue then both parties would address the overproduction of racehorses because that issue is a thousand times graver than the whip.

    But like I said, it’s an image issue and it was a move to appease the idiots who get worked up over a sensationalized story in the media. The same idiots who probably forget racing even exists by the Tuesday.

    For the BHA to buckle so quickly from the pressure of the fickle and for the Animal Charities to overlook overproduction in favour of the whip leaves both parties fair game for mockery of the highest order.

    Furthermore, the timing of the implementation was perhaps the most ill thought out balls up committed by any governing sports body in the UK.

    However, the new whip rules have been an accidental charm since it’s giving jockeys the incentive to improve on their horsemanship with not even a negligible effect on the quality of the product itself. Which is why I have no qualms with the opening post.

    As for Pinza vs Pompete, I’ve not really been here long enough to have any concrete opinions on the matter and nor would I want to. Life’s too short for that kind of palava although I dare suggest that whilst Pompette has admitted to trolling (somewhere unless I’ve imagined it), Pinza took himself way too seriously.

    #381046
    eddie case
    Member
    • Total Posts 1215

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with Pompetes opening post to this thread. If we ban the use of statistics as the basis of informed discussion then we may as well turn the lights off as we all exit stage left.

    Carefully selected figures of a carefully selected set of jockeys for a carefully selected number of days (19) that best fit ones argument. Sounds like the BHA but not really worthy of another new thread on the subject is it? Why didn’t he put them on his other percentage thread?

    As you’re interested in statistics coggy, the correct ones since the new **** rules came in are – 10 Oct to 30 Nov – Whip offences up 15% on same period last year and days banned up 355%.

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.