- This topic has 118 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
- Total Posts 17716
Doesn’t go as far I would like but I think the BHA have put forward a sensible set of rules. It’s also encouraging that these changes have the support of those at the top of the game
They don’t, judging from your highly selective quotes. They show grudging acceptance, and express the mere "hope" that these changes – motivated purely by a PR stance catering to the lowest common denominator of a General Public (
"mainly women"
) 45% of which has no interest in the sport whatsoever – will be accepted by professionals within the sport.
Do these fiscal penalties on jockeys represent the end of the matter for you? Or are you with the Animal Welfare brigade, for whom this is merely a battle won on the path to total victory?
The survey results are very revealing, as is the BHA’s very clear statement that there’s no credible scientific evidence to suggest that whipping the racehorse "hurts" or is "cruel". The reduction in the number of allowed strokes is therefore window-dressing. Indeed BHA have at least been honest in admitting the changes are
purely
made for PR purposes.
Meanwhile, the (unconsulted) authorities in France, Ireland and most of the rest of the world will be rubbing their hands over this self-inflicted wound. Quite what there is in these arbitrary new rules for you to "support" – or anyone else who wants British Racing to remain the best in the world – I really cannot see.
Pinza,
I’ve got no problem with you having a different opinion to me. But
please don’t think
anyone who agrees with these rules or would like them to go further – is doing so to placate Animal Aid or Animal rights. They/we’re not.
Yes, PR is one reason to bring in changes, but (a) it’s not the only one and (b) it’s PR towards the general public, not animal rights. Although it’s true, education of the public is also a big issue.Value Is EverythingHad J Maguire restrained himself on the Aintree run-in, it would be business as usual.
Had J Maguire restrained himself on the Aintree run-in, it would be business as usual.
I don’t want to be seen to condone Maguire’s actions on Ballabriggs. But I don’t believe he would’ve been quite so whip happy on a horse with a conventional temperament. Ballabriggs can idle badly, as seen in the 2010 Kim Muir. Came to the last with a seemingly unasailable lead, only to end up scrambling home by a fast deminishing half length. Maguire probably at pains to ensure Ballabriggs did not idle on the long Aintree run-in. Not that it is any excuse to go as far as he did.
Value Is EverythingI am largely in favour of the proposed rules.
Problem I can see is that the number of "encouragements" at 7 (flat) or 8 (jumps) is too many for jockeys to add up in the heat of the moment.
I’d have been in favour of disqualification for the worst cases. But having said that, stopping all payment to jockeys could at last be the deterrent needed for them to keep within rules. Particularly with the ultimate threat of losing their licence.
Well done BHA.
Value Is Everything"I’m going to watch Horse Racing more because they now only hit horses 7 times." Not going to happen, is it?
The clarity of the new rules is an improvement. But how do we have a governing authority that couldn’t provide clear rules for so long still making the decisions?
But one thing remains – those who wanted the whip banned still do. And with no scientific evidence to prove the old number of strokes was inherently cruel, if jockeys continue to break the rules regularly, the race to ban the whip is nearing the finish line.
- Total Posts 17716
Pinza,
I’ve got no problem with you having a different opinion to me. But
please don’t think
anyone who agrees with these rules or would like them to go further – is doing so to placate Animal Aid or Animal rights. They/we’re not.
Yes, PR is one reason to bring in changes, but (a) it’s not the only one and (b) it’s PR towards the general public, not animal rights. Although it’s true, education of the public is also a big issue.Ginger
, BHA make it clear in this report that they are
only
changing the rule for PR purposes, under pressure of Public Opinion; and the survey makes clear that the groundswell of that opinion comes from the 45% of people (
"mainly women"
) who aren’t remotely interested in the sport.
The net result of this, unfortunately, is an illogical (i.e. not scientifically based) rule change, which of course is not going to placate either Animal Welfare groups (who believe the whip should be banned) or Animal Aid (who believe the sport should be banned).
It comes over as one of those
"sorry, we got it wrong"
gestures which seems to admit there is a problem, although BHA state categorically (and scientifically) that none exists!
You are quite right, though, that the only
meaningful
strategy left to counter sentimental ignorance is to educate that general public. Tim Morris was categorical about the science of the matter this morning on various media outlets, and that’s a start. Unfortunately, when the first big race ban comes up (in the
Grand National
,
Derby
or wherever) then the circular viciousness will begin all over again.
This is not the end of the matter. I hope it is merely the end of the beginning, though much ground has been lost. Perhaps the defection of top jockeys to Ireland and France may give pause for thought…
Had J Maguire restrained himself on the Aintree run-in, it would be business as usual.
I don’t want to be seen to condone Maguire’s actions on Ballabriggs. But I don’t believe he would’ve been quite so whip happy on a horse with a conventional temperament. Ballabriggs can idle badly, as seen in the 2010 Kim Muir. Came to the last with a seemingly unasailable lead, only to end up scrambling home by a fast deminishing half length. Maguire probably at pains to ensure Ballabriggs did not idle on the long Aintree run-in. Not that it is any excuse to go as far as he did.
I thought be was out on his feet at Cheltenham and under severe pressure – hence he went unbacked by me at Aintree!
I have no intention of re-hashing old arguments so just a brief comment.
Not surprised in the slightest. In my opinion we have gone from one level of unacceptability to another level of unacceptability. Just delaying the end. The way trainers/jockeys are falling over themselves to support this should tell you everything as to how radical the proposals really are.
I haven’t heard what Towcester have said but if they are in support that idea (as some said at the time) was just a publicity stunt.
Interesting that the spokesman on the BBC lunchtime news just talked about the whip being used for correction and balance. Yes, that covers less than 1% of the use how about telling the truth about the rest?
- Total Posts 17716
Interesting that the spokesman on the BBC lunchtime news just talked about the whip being used for correction and balance. Yes, that covers less than 1% of the use how about telling the truth about the rest?
Why not read the report? The section on whip use for
safety
(
sic.
) is a major one
("Why is the Whip used in Racing?")
, and it shows that uncontroversial, acceptable usage accounts for very much more than your 1%, which is drawn from the ether.
See Recommendation 1, which was accepted BHA:
"Based on extensive
consultation and the detailed research outlined in
this report, that the use of the whip for safety and
encouragement should continue, and that the term
‘correction’ is superfluous."Evidently the BHA’s drive towards education might well start with this Forum…
I thought be was out on his feet at Cheltenham and under severe pressure – hence he went unbacked by me at Aintree!
I thought the same, it did look at the time Ballabriggs was getting to the end of his tether at Cheltenham. Still going best of all around the turn for home, many lengths clear of the rest. Yet stopped to a virtual walk up the run in. I thought he only just stayed 25 1/2 furlongs. Even said as much on a Grand National Preview panel. However, when he wins the Grand National I have to change my opinion and agree he stays it well.
The only reasonable conclusion is Ballabriggs idled badly at Cheltenham, probably due to crowd noise and being out on his own. Something Maguire wanted to ward against on the Aintree run-in. It may have looked as if he was going to win fairly easily and did so. But as Cheltenham suggests, had he started to idle it could have been so different.Value Is EverythingGinger
, BHA make it clear in this report that they are
only
changing the rule for PR purposes, under pressure of Public Opinion; and the survey makes clear that the groundswell of that opinion comes from the 45% of people (
"mainly women"
) who aren’t remotely interested in the sport.
The net result of this, unfortunately, is an illogical (i.e. not scientifically based) rule change, which of course is not going to placate either Animal Welfare groups (who believe the whip should be banned) or Animal Aid (who believe the sport should be banned).
It is entirely logical.
This was not brought in to placate Animal Aid. Hopefully the RSPCA will be satisfied, and they have given them a cautious welcome.Existing rules were being brought in to disrepute. One of the reasons why the public didn’t like the rules, was they weren’t being kept to by jockeys. Had jockeys kept to the old rules, there would not have been much of a problem. We can’t have a state of affairs where jockeys decide themselves when to abide by the rules. In major races taking the holiday and just pocketing considerable prize money.
Although not fool proof, these changes make it far more likely jockeys will want to keep within the rules.
Value Is Everything- Total Posts 17716
You make a good point regarding jockey compliance, and one which would carry more weight if BHA had not simultaneously
reduced
the number of strokes available to riders.
That is the illogical aspect here. Why was consideration not given to
increasing
the number of strokes whilst upping the penalties? Scientific advice has ruled out any sense of "hurting the horse" or "cruelty" (which are in any case covered by the rules on marking and weals – a circumstance which hasn’t happened for at least three years, by the way.)
We know the answer to my question. This is a PR exercise, not one based on reality or logic, but ignorant public perception. That’s clearly the BHA byline to their report, and what they must do now is address this ignorance, with a view to getting back swiftly into harmony with what’s done in France and Ireland.
Otherwise there is no point to this draconian (and quite possibly legally challenge-able)
"double whammy"
aimed at the jockeys. It creates a huge gulf between racing in the UK and what’s done in every other European, American and major Asian country. And this gulf will marginalise us unless this new rule is anything other than a temporary mark in the sand, until the tide of ignorant public perception retreats.
- Total Posts 17716
McCririck
on the new rules: actually, I agree with quite a bit of what he has to say about the fatuity of compromise!
"These compromises will never satisfy anybody. Those who believe in the use of the whip and the abolitionists. In the end we have got to face up to what we are as human beings."
McCririck’s still one of biggest hypocrites going Pinza, he’s been a long time supporter of hare coursing and is quite happy to see animals ripped to shreds in the name of sport.
Pinza, Racing would be a modern-day Canute in trying to turn the tide of public perception. Despite the figures in today’s report showing how popular racing is (where did the 1 billion Global TV viewers a year come from?), racing is of little interest to the vast majority of Britons – and it probably never will be.
Quantifying in this survey doesn’t real tell us much. What does ‘not very interested’ mean? They might watch the National and nothing else?
‘Fairly interested’? Maybe watch the National and Royal Ascot? Or perhaps they bet once a week/month – who knows?
The survey, around which much of the decision-making seems to have revolved, has several weaknesses beyond those mentioned above. The first objective mentioned in the Background heading is:
Clearly gauge the full spectrum of views on whether whipping is perceived to be cruel, in particular quantifying the extent to which people’s views differ depending on the situation
It’s impossible to get a full spectrum from a self-selecting group who have pre-registered, are internet savvy, possibly inclined to be opinionated about many things, and are probably notably different demographically from racing’s main funder the betting shop punter (how many of those are registered with YouGov?)
45% of respondents had no interest in racing – perhaps that balance was perceived as being necessary when seeking general public opinion, I don’t know.
I’ve slated the authorities often enough but if the horror views of the corpses of Dooney’s Gate and Ornais were not enough, when J Maguire jumped off an exhausted close-to-collapse winner, his whip still as hot as Ballabriggs, then many others dismounted to help a scurrying non-uniformed posse desperately throw water on the ‘survivors’ of 4m 4f and 30 big fences in Mediterranean heat – watched by 9 million people – the BHA went 1.01 in my book to be forced into doing something dramatic. To have done nothing would have been the racing equivalent of the Murdochs ignoring the NOTW scandal.
The key for me was that, after the National, racing was close to losing the RSPCA – a terminal outcome if that happened, in my opinion.
We’ve ended up with a hotch-potch, no doubt, but it could never have been anything else. Public opinion, in reality, might mean little to racing, but it sure as hell means a lot to established animal welfare organisations.
The Grand National has changed many lives. The PR disaster that was the 2011 running has changed racing forever.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.