- This topic has 118 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
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.
Some changes are made for jockey compliance Pinza, some for PR.
Value Is EverythingJust disqualify the horse involved. Owners and trainers will take care of further compliance with the rules.
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."
Why have the new rules got to satisfy the left or the right wing?
If (with education) they satisfy the centre, then that is all we can hope for.
These compromises have satisfied somebody. Me.
At least, I am willing to give them a chance to work.
Hope even some of the sceptics will give them a chance.Value Is Everything- Total Posts 17716
Steeplechasing
, I obviously agree with you as to the total inadequacy of the survey upon which the new dictum has been based.
It’s also understandable, given your working background and experience, that you place much importance upon the need to change policy in line with public perception.
However, I don’t think King Canute enters into an argument where human beings are concerned (as opposed to forces of nature); and where there is the possibility to change a perception entirely based on nonchalant ignorance.
The public tends to believe what it’s told, and will respond to the kind of strong, scientific case being put this morning by Tim Morris, provided that case is sustained and publicised over time. And over time, also, it will find plenty of other scandals to occupy its collective noddle.
The Grand National debacle will be forgotten by next April, although moving the race even further into the month is a fatuous strategy if BHA are hoping to avoid a repeat dose.
Your faith in the RSPCA, and John Muir, whose "
cautious
" welcome of today’s fiasco was notably provisional, will only lead us more slowly down the primrose path of dalliance, towards a total whip ban, and consequent extinction from the world of serious horse racing. That particular alliance is turning sourer by the week. Because in the end, the RSPCA will always vote for further tightening of the rules. Enough will never be enough for them either. Mark my words!
- Total Posts 17716
These compromises have satisfied somebody. Me.
At least, I am willing to give them a chance to work.
Hope even some of the sceptics will give them a chance.We don’t have a choice,
Ginger
. You see the annoying thing is, that no punters or aficionados of the sport were canvassed as to what our views on the matter were.
We weren’t asked
.
BHA have "listened" instead to the 45% of the population who don’t give a fig for Horse Racing, and ignored the majority of the people who care very deeply. Look at the
Racing Post online
comments if you want to see how small a minority the "satisfied" insiders represent.
As a final thought for the day … choosing to line the organisation’s pocket with the massive fines which will be levied from Group 1 winning jockeys is, in my opinion, the height of cynicism.
The public tends to believe what it’s told, and will respond to the kind of strong, scientific case being put this morning by Tim Morris, provided that case is sustained and publicised over time. And over time, also, it will find plenty of other scandals to occupy its collective noddle.
And there Pinza, you neatly summarise why public opinion on racing will be almost impossible to change. Sustained publicity of the scientific case depends on editors believing their readers have an appetite for it rather than for the "plenty of other scandals which occupy its collective noddle"
So did public opinion reveal that Daily Mail readers thought that foreign horses should be thrashed as much as possible or does their xenophobia only extend to homosapiens?
These compromises have satisfied somebody. Me.
At least, I am willing to give them a chance to work.
Hope even some of the sceptics will give them a chance.We don’t have a choice,
Ginger
. You see the annoying thing is, that no punters or aficionados of the sport were canvassed as to what our views on the matter were.
We weren’t asked
.
BHA have "listened" instead to the 45% of the population who don’t give a fig for Horse Racing, and ignored the majority of the people who care very deeply. Look at the
Racing Post online
comments if you want to see how small a minority the "satisfied" insiders represent.
May be not officially, but you can be sure the BHA consulted one or two established jockeys to ward against uproar or even a strike.
I believe you or any other punter Pinza, had the opportunity of getting on the BHA website, to tell them your views on the subject.
Value Is EverythingI’ve had some more time to reflect – 3am is a great time for deeper thinking – and a few things concern me deeply.
In Chris Cook’s Guardian article, it mentions how Timeform view the changes, followed by a condensed summary sentence.
"Stewards should be examining how the whip is used, runs the argument, rather than how many times."
The BHA, through their mindless attempts to put PR ahead of racing, now have placed racing in a situation where offences that are clear examples of bad whip use are less serious than an extra strike.
Hit a horse above shoulder height – 2 days.
Excessive force, which will increase btw – 2 days
Past the post – 2 days
Incorrect place – 2 days.
Down shoulder in the forehand position – 2 days.
Use your whip 6 times (responsibly as of now) in the final furlong – 5 days.
Established irresponsible use of the whip is now, in places, less serious than 6 hits in the last furlong. How is that right?
If we have a frequency rule, I’m all for clarity. I’ve said that, and I won’t go back on that. But I’d like to know who determined those offences were of less seriousness at BHA Towers.
They’ve also created a scenario where if a jockey breaches the 5 times in the final furlong rule – in a flat race – they’re likely to break the 3 strides ‘time to respond’ rule.
A purely hypothetical situation;
Two horses fighting out a finish of a big televised race. One jockey realizes they has reached the whip use limit and reverts to hands and heels while the other carries on regardless and their mount wins the race. The winning horse keeps the race and the jockey loses their prize money which goes to the BHA Christmas party fund one presumes. The said jockey also receives a ban, and does not stop on the side of the road on their homeward journey to meet someone and collect an unmarked brown envelope containing non-sequential used bank notes. The Jockey of the losing horse, gets their lower share of the money and no holiday. Neutral observers are left even more bewildered by the events they see on the screen.
BHA have "listened" instead to the 45% of the population who don’t give a fig for Horse Racing, and ignored the majority of the people who care very deeply. Look at the
Racing Post online
comments if you want to see how small a minority the "satisfied" insiders represent.
Does everyone know how many people were canvassed? Even Jamie Stier sounded embarrassed when answering this question and so he should, the answer was laughable.
One can argue about the whys and wherefores of whip usage for ever and a day, and many already have, but I don’t really think that is what this new ruling is about. IMO stating black-and-white maxima does at least remove some of the ambiguity that has plagued supposed transgressions in the past, while the promise of hiitting those who do transgree in future where it hurts even more than a forehand thrash – in the pocket, should concentrate the minds of the jockeys more than somewhat
It’s not ideal – what is? – and whether it will appease the ill-informed public I very much doubt, but let’s give it a cautious welcome and be gracious enough to gently nod an approval BHA way: like many a horse they’re on a hiding to nothing too
Other than that I personally can’t get too worked up about it. Horsemanship, hands and heels to the fore, hopefully
A purely hypothetical situation;
Two horses fighting out a finish of a big televised race. One jockey realizes they has reached the whip use limit and reverts to hands and heels while the other carries on regardless and their mount wins the race. The winning horse keeps the race and the jockey loses their prize money which goes to the BHA Christmas party fund one presumes. The said jockey also receives a ban, and does not stop on the side of the road on their homeward journey to meet someone and collect an unmarked brown envelope containing non-sequential used bank notes. The Jockey of the losing horse, gets their lower share of the money and no holiday. Neutral observers are left even more bewildered by the events they see on the screen.
Maybe best to stick to facts rather than hypothetical situations that never happen. As with most hypothetical situations that are put forward the victor is always portrayed as the one committing the offence when it’s just as likely to be the loser.
I think that the BHA have handled a remarkably difficult situation rather well. I understand that they have not suited all the views of those at either end of the spectrum of opinions over this issue but that was never going to be possible.
Al least they have tried to give some clarity over how many times the whip can be used. If it is good enogh for Sir Henry, Paul Nicholls , McCoy and Dettori, then its good enough for me. Lets at least give it a chance and see how things go.A purely hypothetical situation;
Two horses fighting out a finish of a big televised race. One jockey realizes they has reached the whip use limit and reverts to hands and heels while the other carries on regardless and their mount wins the race. The winning horse keeps the race and the jockey loses their prize money which goes to the BHA Christmas party fund one presumes. The said jockey also receives a ban, and does not stop on the side of the road on their homeward journey to meet someone and collect an unmarked brown envelope containing non-sequential used bank notes. The Jockey of the losing horse, gets their lower share of the money and no holiday. Neutral observers are left even more bewildered by the events they see on the screen.
Maybe best to stick to facts rather than hypothetical situations that never happen. As with most hypothetical situations that are put forward the victor is always portrayed as the one committing the offence when it’s just as likely to be the loser.
I didn’t wish anyone to take it seriously. By crediting the BHA with the ability to organize a Christmas Party, I thought it would have been accepted as pure fantasy.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.