- This topic has 13 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
Now that the BHA has declared that horses have free will:
it will presumably hold them as accountable for their acts and omissions as it does the human agents involved in racing?
“Free will is closely linked to the concepts of responsibility, praise, guilt, sin, and other judgements which apply only to actions that are freely chosen. It is also connected with the concepts of advice, persuasion, deliberation, and prohibition.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
What are the names of the BHA giants bestriding the world of philosophy, that they may be given the recognition they deserve?
Its ridiculous the way they have handled this.
A fine for waving your arms to encourage your horse to start is mind boggling.
As Hendo says – it can take 4 or 5 men to shove a flat horse into the stalls. Is that going to be outlawed now too?
I am so glad that the BHA have come to their senses for flat racing after 54 years of forcing horses into starting stalls using a team of big guys to push and shove them into tiny cramped spaces where most of them do not want to go, and to let them now line up as they please. In National Hunt racing eliminating the necessity of an assistant starter carrying a LongTom to frighten a recalcitrant potential runner into actually running is a welcome move in the right direction. I assume that until all the administrative and regulatory matters have been sorted out, “in the interests of fairness” any horse who does not walk into the stalls of its own free will or plants itself in front of a National Hunt starting tape, will be deemed a non runner. If this does not happen, then in the interest of fairness, every member of the board of the BHA must be declared a non-starter and therefore should resign.
No more Long Toms at the start then, I presume.
In fact, this ties in nicely with the whip thread….
I can’t believe what I’ve just read. I mean, the BHA must be running out of feet to
shoot at this rate. How they managed to interpret the rules to find Oliver guilty of misconduct
by trying to get his horse, who had planted himself against the rails some way from the start,
to move away from the rails and head down to the start by simply waving his arms behind the horse
is beyond me. Hard to imagine, but the BHA have just made the Brexit negotiations look like they
are being handled by proficient mediators
Henry Oliver broke the rule (daft as it is), so I wouldn’t blame the stewards for punishing him, only doing their job in this case.
What followed from the BHA was worrying. Its a glimpse into their actual position on the welfare/perception issue imo.
To extend BHA logic, we must have missed the new phenomenon of equine free will. I presume this new autonomous horse breed are capable of:
-entering themselves for races
– choosing where they run based on weather, ground, distance and course
– Arranging their own transport
– Deciding which jockey rides themEveryone knows that horse racing is in no way based on the free will of a horse. Horses in general are very well looked after, but even the most committed of horse folk understand that coercion of the horse is the glue that binds horse racing together as a sport. Once free will is thrown into the debate, then stalls handlers, headgear, starters whips, bits and bridles, jockey whips, saddles and even jockeys should all be banned under that logic, while fences should be optional.
It’s truly astonishing that this statement was released by the BHA. Furthermore, although the rules were applied in Henry Oliver’s case, we all know that rules in sport are often bended, or ignored when it makes sense to do so. As Kevin Blake so accurately said “the BHA are running out of feet to shoot themselves in”
One could argue that common sense has well and truly left the BHA building but I am starting to think that at no point did it ever even entered the poxy building to begin with.
How many more daft rules like this one are lurking around in the book waiting to further embarrass the sport into looking like a bunch of incompetent rank amateurs – they are starting to turn shooting oneself in the foot into an art form.
@cav
Henry Oliver broke the rule (daft as it is), so I wouldn’t blame the stewards for punishing him,
only doing their job in this case.I think with a bit of common sense Cav, the Stewards could have taken the view that he was “encouraging”
his horse far enough back from the actual start not to have caused any danger or interference. I can see
the point if a trainer (or whoever) gets himself behind a line up of horses at the tapes, and starts acting
like a deranged windmill, but that wasn’t the case here. I think Brendan Powell makes a valid point “surely leading a horse at the start, which is allowed, is encouraging a horse to start”.Even with rules there is always a degree of latitude for the stewards to assess the circumstances of each
individual case, ie blatant/bordering on. At worst, if they thought it necessary, they could have had a quiet
word and warned of the consequences of any repeat incident.I’ll leave the last word with Nicky Henderson ” The BHA is baffling at the moment, coming out with more
and more bizarre instructions. I despair”.Henry Oliver broke two rules which are clearly defined in the Starting Procedures of the rules of racing, Big G. The penalty for which is 140 quid for a first offence. The stewards had no latitude in this case. I’m not surprised he isn’t appealing either, because he wouldn’t have a snowballs chance of getting it overturned imo. Come to think of it maybe it isn’t such a daft rule after all. Did you see the clip on Twitter of Nigel Twiston Davies chasing Mad Moose with his belt after he planted himself at Cheltenham? He looked ridiculous.
Hi Cav, I didn’t see the NTD incident, and it does sound a bit bizarre. I think the thing in this case that may have given them the latitude I was suggesting, is that Oliver wasn’t right down at the start, he was someway short of it which could have given them the opportunity to consider that he wasn’t “encouraging” the horse at the start. I don’t know if the rules state this has to happen in the general area of the tapes, or if they give a stipulated distance, ie 100 yards, where no “encouraging” is permitted. I just think in this case the BHA looked ridiculous. McCoy, Henderson and a string of responsible people in the industry take this view also. I know the BHA have a job to do, personally I think they probably think they stretched the rules too far in this instance, but they won’t admit that even if they do. They have been under fire recently, I don’t think this helps how they are perceived by the racing fraternity and punters alike.
The BHA statement justifying the ruling triggered the backlash from the jockey and trainer. It stated: “Trainers are not permitted to encourage their horses to start, and that rule is there for good reason. We set a lot of store in our sport behind the fact that we do not force horses to race and they do so on their own free will.
“Moreover, in the interests of a fair, even start, individual horses should not have the attentions of a trainer or representative to get them on their way. For these reasons only the jockeys and starters are permitted to effect or influence the start.
Why are jockeys (kicking their legs backwards and forward/shaking and slapping the reigns and whip against a horse at the start), starters (physically draging a horse by its bridle to line up) and stalls handlers (blindfolding and at times physically man handling horses into stalls) allowed to effect or influence the start whereas the trainer (or trainer’s rep) of said horse is not?
All are clearly breaking your own words of only allowing a horse to start a race of its own free will, yet only the trainer gets a fine
– rule simply needs to go as it is not fit for purpose.BHA have now retracted the statement:
“The term ‘free will’ wasn’t the right way to put this message across and should not be taken as evidence of a new “philosophical stance towards horses.” ”
interesting comments by Gary Witheford:
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.