Amateur Paul McMahon 21 day whip ban.

[Anonymous]

Ginger

, may I respectfully suggest a moratorium on these tiresome analogies attempting to equate the new whip rules with speed limits and driving cars?

There are no speed limits in racing and horses are not cars. People don’t use whips on cars or drive horses through restricted zones. It’s all completely irrelevant.

I might as well counter that because Jensen Button doesn’t have a limit on how often he can use his Kers Button in a Grand Prix, then Ruby Walsh shouldn’t have a limit on how often he can use his whip in a Grand National.

I don’t do so, because all these car/driver analogies are daft and irrelevant.

Look at the ride in question

. What precisely does McMahon do that you wish to "

discourage

"? How would having him hit his horse within the arbitrary new limits "

change the culture

" for the betterment of welfare, or indeed perception? Answer the question, rather than cloud the issue with the fog of analogy.

(And by the way, take a look at

Nicky Mackay

‘s winning ride in the first at Newmarket. Well within the rules, but what do you think all that frantic whip-waving does for "public perception" amongst the great unwashed, who will merely think he’s wildly hitting the horse? I wonder if he’s making a point… I would not blame him.)

[Hurdygurdyman]

Yeah right Ginger good try. Do you make it up as you go along ? Do try coming up for air before you permantly damage your brain

If the rules were changed not to count slaps down the shoulder and a jockey abused that he would be simply done under the abuse rule, which is completely separate from the count ruling.

[Gingertipster]

Any

rule / law (

wherever

it is applied) which

helps

stop physical damage is there to do just that,

help

stop physical damage.
That is

not

to say that

every

time the rule / law is

broken

is a case of physical damage.

Which is

the point

I was trying to demonstrate with my "driving analogy".

These whip rules (whether anyone likes it or not) are to try and help stop both

percieved

damage and

actual

damage.
Those who keep on about an

individual

breakage of these whip rules not "abusing horses" are missing that point.

So please don’t twist what I say again Pinza!

Value Is Everything

[Anonymous]

So please don’t twist what I say again Pinza!

Please don’t be irksome,

Ginger

. I’m not in the mood for nonsense. Pointing out how and why your analogies don’t hold water is not "twisting" anything. I am tired of being accused of "twisting" words when my business is treating them with respect, by examining them carefully to demonstrate flawed logic.

It’s called the Analytical Method.

No. The only "twisting" here is the unprepossessing sight of you trying to twist your way illogically out of the deep hole that you’ve had dug for you by the BHA.

I notice that even

Paul Hanagan

has fallen foul of the new whip rules today, with his first five day holiday for "excessive frequency" (yes, that’s right) since… well, you tell me.

If you think Hanagan’s ride at Ayr in atrocious conditions this afternoon was worthy a ban, maybe you could explain why. And "he broke the rules" won’t do. You have to show that this rule is compatible with our famously gentle-handed champion jockey’s ability to do his best to win.

If you can’t, you should give in gracefully – and in any case stop resorting to tedious taunts.

[sberry]

Luckily he won’t have to serve his ban until after he has won the jockeys title, that seems fair as does keeping the win.

When is De Sousa serving his ban?

Maybe if I get caught committing an offence I could ask to defer serving any penalty until it is convenient to me.

[Gingertipster]

:roll:

Any

rule / law (

wherever

it is applied) which

helps

stop physical damage is there to do just that,

help

stop physical damage.
That is

not

to say that

every

time the rule / law is

broken

is a case of physical damage.

Which is

the point

I was trying to demonstrate with my "driving analogy".

Pinza,
Rules/laws to

help

stop

physical damage

are rules/laws about how to

help

stop

physical damage

. Speed

limits

in driving help stop physical damage (to people)

in one way

; whip

limits

help stop physical damage (to horses)

in another

for racing.

In both

driving

and

racing

there are "

limits

", in both

driving

and

racing

they are there to

help

stop

physical damage

.

If you don’t understand then there is no point continuing, as it goes to the heart of the debate. I can’t put it any clearer.
Although I "respectfully" suspect you do understand, but don’t want to admit it. I also find your inability to "understand" the other person’s opinion "tiresome".

Value Is Everything

[Anonymous]

Ginger

, I don’t know how many people / how many times have explained that

this law is not to stop physical damage

– the RSCPA approved whip does that job beautifully, however it is used.

This law –

according to the BHA report

– is to address

public perception

, and to "

change the culture

". Now, if you want to defend that, fine. But you are insisting that those of us who dislike the new rules address matters of welfare which are

non-issues

even for the people at BHA who thought these new rules were a good idea at the time.

So please stop analogising, and address the main point. Answer the questions as to what was wrong with McMahon’s ride, or Hanagan’s banned ride today.

Public perception? Culture change?

Defend these bans in those terms, if you can.

Welfare is a total red herring and an area of near-total agreement amongst all parties.

That’s why this whole business is such a waste of time and energy.

[Gingertipster]

These whip rules (whether anyone likes it or not) are to try and

help

stop both

percieved

damage and actual damage.
Those who keep on about an

individual

breakage of these whip rules not "abusing horses" are missing that point.

The type of whip only does half the job Pinza.
This whip can and

does mark

. As it did on 23rd Feb with Cool Mission. There were I believe 20 cases last year where the whip marked horses. The type of whip does

not

"stop physical damage", so the whip will only do "that job beautifully"

if

there are rules in place on how to use it. For you to believe because we have this magic wand that we can let the jockeys somehow police themselves is naive.

The new rules are there to

help

public perception. That is

not

to say that

every

time the

rule

is broken the public would think of it as cruel. Although for them to be effective a fair number need to be seen to be so, otherwise it gives a false impression. These rules are not perfect and hope they will be reviewed.

If with some alterations they can not be made to work (and without jockeys approval they won’t work, even if they are good rules) then we will lose the whip completely.

Value Is Everything

[Gingertipster]

What would be the best way to stop the Ballabriggs and Rewilding type of incidents Pinza?

Value Is Everything

[Anonymous]

What would be the best way to stop the Ballabriggs and Rewilding type of incidents Pinza?

There was no need to "

stop

" either of these "

incidents

".

Both were superb, race-winning rides (as the commentators noted in running and as we all could see) which did

no harm to the horses

and only caused public disquiet because of the

senseless bans

handed out.

Eight letters

to the BBC about the former, and none at all that I know of about the second. You’d have to ask Clare Balding to check. That’s all. This is not about

welfare

, but

perception

.

So how do you stop the misconception (of the few) that these great rides were "

cruel

" in some undefined way? It’s for you to answer, not for those of us who found both rides exhilarating.

[Gingertipster]

What would be the best way to stop the Ballabriggs and Rewilding type of incidents Pinza?

There was no need to "

stop

" either of these "

incidents

".

Both were superb, race-winning rides (as the commentators noted in running and as we all could see) which did

no harm to the horses

and only caused public disquiet because of the

senseless bans

handed out.

Eight letters

to the BBC about the former, and none at all that I know of about the second. You’d have to ask Clare Balding to check. That’s all. This is not about

welfare

, but

perception

.

So how do you stop the misconception (of the few) that these great rides were "

cruel

" in some undefined way? It’s for you to answer, not for those of us who found both rides exhilarating.

You are wrong Pinza, it is for you to answer. It is you who is against these new rules. If nothing was done then we’d be on a slippery slope to no whips at all. Something we are both opposed to.

Jockeys could not be allowed to flout the old rules and get away with it. If hitting the horse 16 times from the last fence and 24 times in the home straight are "exhilerating" rides, was Cool Mission also an exhilerating" ride?

If you are saying it is alright to hit a horse 16 or 24 times, how do you stop a horse from being marked? When one horse can be hit 16 times and not be marked, and another one hit in exactly the same way and be marked.
The less a horse is hit the less likely it is to be marked. As long as existing rules of "force" are also adhered to.

If you want the whip to be kept, yet do not want these new rules kept; then it is up to you to find an alternative.

The old rules weren’t working either.

Value Is Everything

[Zamorston]

The old rules weren’t working either.

I’d say they were working far better than the shambles we have in place now!

If this is all about public pereception and they felt they needed to put a number on why not look at two of the biggest races in the calender and work from those….

1) The Derby – Carlton House – The Queens horse hit at least 10 times in the final couple of furlongs. – How many complaints from the public?

2) The Gold Cup – Long Run – One of the most exciting young chasers of recent times winning a thrilling race and apparently hit 13 times while doing so. – How many complaints from the public?

I dont have figures to hand but I’d guess there were very, very few complaints over both those rides on two horses that large numbers of non racing fans will have been watching closely.

So a better and more realistic starting point for me would have been…

Flat – 10

Jumps – 13

[Hurdygurdyman]

10 12 what’s the difference? There is no need for a specific amount if the dam Stewards are doing their job.

Changing the number doing away with the furlong marker rules allowing corrective measures it’s all BS.

One rule is all we require. "If in the view of the stewards a rider is deemed to have abused his mount he shall be banned as the stewards see fit"

Of course there should be a maximum length of ban but apart from that the rest we don’t really need if the stewards are doing their jobs right.

The highest percentage of bans given have been totally unjustifiable as there was no abuse and the jockeys would not have been banned had the stewards not been tied to these idiotic rules.

Said it 100 times and will say it again. If the BHA can’t trust the stewards to police racing properly then replace them with the right people.

Right now all they are doing is drawing a line and prosecute everyone including the innocent, who cross it.

If the best they can come up with is to sell racing short then they should all resign. Every last one of them

We pay good money to watch and support racing, our betting keeps the game alive and we deserve the best stewarding money can buy and nothing less.

It’s proper stewarding you should all be fighting for not changing how many strokes he has been told to count

[Zamorston]

I agree entirely with all of that!

I’ve said all along the number count is a farce….just saying that if it was all about public perception why didn’t they look at two high profile races to try and come up with a more sensible and realistic number?

[Anonymous]

If you want the whip to be kept, yet do not want these new rules kept; then it is up to you to find an alternative.

The old rules weren’t working either.

I’m not saying any more to you on this matter,

Ginger

. Posters such as myself,

Zamorston

,

Hurdygurdyman

et. al.

have told you exactly what needs doing, and why, until we are collectively blue in the face.

The alternative is to scrap this new rule and return, either to the old one as a temporary measure, or better still to return to the pre-2009 rules, with the addition of the compulsory use of the fly-swat crop and the misuse horse welfare rules. The stroke count must be scrapped.

Clear enough for you? I’m not asking you whether you like it, or whether you want to debate it, but whether that’s a clear alternative.

Because we’re not saying what you want to hear, you are not able to listen. Sadly, your latest post on this wretched business seems to show that you’ve learnt nothing from the collective wisdom of jockeys/trainers/owners/pundits on the matter – nor even from the BHA, who at least recognised that the new rules had gone too far by making the minor initial concessions that they did.

Enough.

[Hurdygurdyman]

I agree entirely with all of that!

So do I

[seanryan]

The "old rules werent working" is an interesting one.

What do people mean by this ? The review group seems to express their reasoning most clearly in para 6.7 of the report ..

6.7 The Review Group considers that the penalties currently applied to breaches of the whip Rules do not sufficiently deter jockeys from breaking the whip Rules. This is clearly demonstrated by there being in excess of 800 breaches of the whip Rules per year since 2008, the highest being 2009 with 959 breaches of which 252 were penalised by a caution.

these absolute numbers are given context in para 2.5:

2.5 0.75% of performances resulted in a whip offence.

and

6.4 Despite assertions from animal rights groups, who have linked these breaches to welfare problems, it should be clarified
that these are in essence breaches of the

arbitrary

limits
set to control whip use.

in spite of this

6.4 (cont), the Review Group recognises that such continued and relatively numerous breaches must not be allowed to be ongoing.

while in 6.6 acknowledging

that no matter what penalties are in place it is not possible to ensure 100% compliance.

I think it all begs the question …what level of compliance (given that it was 99.25% under old rules ) would be considered acceptable and provide evidence that the "rules" are working ?

Whether the "rules" are themselves serving purpose is another question.

[Author]

Posts