- This topic has 118 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Surely a better destiny for this confiscated prize-money would be the rehabilitation of racehorses?
Value Is EverythingI think the BHA have done a very good job overall with this report and I support what they have done. I’m suprised that so many on here are against it especially as most professionals in the sport seem to have welcomed it. From what I have heard and read from them, in the press, on twitter etc it doesn’t seem to be grudging acceptance but pretty strong support.
Pinza, where did you get the staistic regarding marking and weals ? as according to the Racing Post it happens about twenty times a year. I also don’t understand how it can be said that it is restraint of trade. They are perfectly able to continue their trade just with some adjustments to the rules. It won’t prevent a single rider from carrying on. Saying it’s restraint of trade is like saying a footballer who is penalised from tackling from behind is having his trade restrained.
Pinza, where did you get the staistic regarding marking and weals ? as according to the Racing Post it happens about twenty times a year.
Cool Mission was marked at Doncaster on 23rd Feb this year. Jason Maguire got a 7 day ban which should have prevented him from riding Peddlers Cross in the Champion. Until an appeal reduced the sentence.
Racing Post says:
"The stewards found Maguire’s mount, Cool Mission, who finished a two-length second to Beshabar, had suffered minor weals as a consequence of excessive use of the whip from the fourth-last fence".Value Is EverythingIts amazing how these padded whips that horses cannot feel can physically damage them
- Total Posts 17716
Pinza, where did you get the staistic regarding marking and weals?
3.7 Out of (approximately) 90-100,000
runners each year, there are
around 20 occasions where a
horse is observed to have a weal.
Medically a weal is described as
circumscribed accumulation of fluid
within the skin in response to a
blow. Every such case is examined
by a Veterinary Officer on two
occasions. The Veterinary Officers
look for signs of inflammation
including discomfort or pain on
examination and in the behavioural
response of the horse. To date no
such signs have been seen over
the last three years.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.)
Kenh
, I should have been more precise; as you see I was referring to the BHA’s stats on hurting the horse.
"No inflammation including discomfort and pain… over the last three years".
Its amazing how these padded whips that horses cannot feel can physically damage them
If they are used in the
correct manner
Coggy, the current racing whip doesn’t "physically damage them".
Value Is EverythingI concur entirely ginge , "if used in the correct manner". The problem comes when they are not. I think that we all agree that transgressors should be punished, and , in my view, these new rules are a step in the right direction.
- Total Posts 17716
I concur entirely ginge , "if used in the correct manner". The problem comes when they are not. I think that we all agree that transgressors should be punished, and , in my view, these new rules are a step in the right direction.
But the new rules actually give
smaller
punishments for incorrect use of the whip, relatively – the increased, new, five day penalties apply to
quantity
of usage, not
quality
.
The penalties for marking horses – and of course more serious charges of injury, those these haven’t been needed since the new whip was introduced, as the report makes clear – remain unchanged, clear and uncontroversial as they always were.
In other words,
Coggy
, I feel you are conflating two completely separate issues. The cause for debate here is about the increased bans and new fines with which the jockeys – very much the fall guys in this whole debate – are to be penalised, for a
reduced number of strokes
, without any scientific evidence at all, simply to appease an ignorant general public which doesn’t care for or about racing in any case. And all this on the basis of an inadequate survey of 2071 self-selected poll groupies.
"
Correct manner
" is not at issue for most of us, and goes without saying.
Be interested to hear peoples views on the 8 day ban handed out to Timmy Murphy today for his ride on Vertige Dore…
Now I’m all for imposing a ban if someone is flogging a dead horse so to speak…..a tiring horse that’s not responding and with no chance of winning then fair enough…
That ride today for me though was the best ride I’ve seen for many, many months…..It was a real ride for the punters in my opinion. I don’t think the horse would have won but for having everything but the kitchen sink thrown at it by Murphy.
I love racing, love horses and love having a bet….I don’t want to see horses getting hurt and I’m not sure if that horse did get hurt today, but banning jockeys who give rides like that is only taking something away from the game for me and will end up driving punters away….
They are ruining the game, you wont see many better rides all year than Dettori’s on Rewilding yet they saw fit to ban him for 9 days and it was ludicrous that they took no account of how he used his whip at all.
Tim Morris has repeatedly said horses feel no pain from whip use, so what are the whip rules for but when Nick Luck put exactly that question to him today he came out with a wishy washy reply and change of stance that horses suffer no pain as long it’s not used too much.
They’re even being economical with the truth now.The rules on how many times you can hit a horse in the final furlong/after the final obstacle have my full support. I’m not too sure of the rest of it. How, for example, can you have a single rule that covers races from 5f to 2m4f on the flat and another single rule that covers races from 2m to 4m4f?
Surely the circumstances over different distances are vastly different?
In my opinion (and no doubt my opinion exclusively) it seems to me they’ve either by accident or design introduced a new Formula One style tactical element to racing. Do you give the horse a couple of smacks early on to your expense later or do you lob along out the back & hope to make it up in the final two furlongs. I’ve no opinion on whether the changes will improve racing or not but it’ll certainly be interesting.
That said, it should make cheating a whole lot easier shouldn’t it? ‘Didn’t ride out the finish? Sorry guv, I’d hit the limit. Hands are tied.’
By the way Pinza, claiming that the YouGov poll is worthless because there were ‘only’ 2,707 respondents is a little bit fatuous.
There are routinely only that many respondents to YouGov/MORI surveys on the death penalty, yet every one of them is presented by the media as the view of the population at large.
http://www.yougov.co.uk/about/about-QA.asp
2,000+ is statistically a pretty fair sample size.
- Total Posts 17716
Be interested to hear peoples views on the 8 day ban handed out to Timmy Murphy today for his ride on Vertige Dore…[snip]
That ride today for me though was the best ride I’ve seen for many, many months…..It was a real ride for the punters in my opinion. I don’t think the horse would have won but for having everything but the kitchen sink thrown at it by Murphy.
It was a superb ride, and I’m genuinely shocked that he got a ban for it. The horse would never have won without his beautiful horsemanship. If they’re going to issue 8 day bans for rides of that quality, NH racing really is doomed.
- Total Posts 17716
By the way Pinza, claiming that the YouGov poll is worthless because there were ‘only’ 2,707 respondents is a little bit fatuous.
There are routinely only that many respondents to YouGov/MORI surveys on the death penalty, yet every one of them is presented by the media as the view of the population at large.
Let’s get the facts straight first:
Methodology
• The survey was conducted using an online interview administered to members
of the YouGov GB panel of 300,000+ individuals who have agreed to take part in surveys
• An email was sent to panellists selected at random from the base sample, inviting them to take part in the survey and providing a link to the survey
• The sample consisted of 2,071 respondents and all results were weighted to accurately reflect the total population of Great Britain
• Fieldwork took place in July 2011So, the poll of 2071 people was taken from a group of people who were not really selected at random, as claimed. They were all people with online, computer access. They were all people who’d previously already agreed to take part in YouGov surveys. The results were then "
weighted
" (how? we’re not given any details of this crucial piece of manipulation) to reflect the "total population".
Given the fact that YouGov/Mori polls have such a poor prognostic record for Elections and other surveys, the statistical value of the exercise is dubious. No mathematical/statistical percentiles are given as to likely accuracy, which is suspicious.
We need to treat all such polls, especially when touted as "fact" by the media, with the gravest scepticism. This farrago is no exception.
- Total Posts 17716
That said, it should make cheating a whole lot easier shouldn’t it? ‘Didn’t ride out the finish? Sorry guv, I’d hit the limit. Hands are tied.’
You hit an important nail bang on the head. The comments from punters on the RP website reflect this certainty, that the new (unscientific) whip rules offer a splendid Cheats’ Charter. If the shady elements were looking for something to undercut the BHA Security team’s efforts over the last few years, and further reduce punter confidence, then this Report has done the trick.
- Total Posts 17716
http://www.yougov.co.uk/about/about-QA.asp
2,000+ is statistically a pretty fair sample size.
It would be, Corm, if it were truly possible to weight it to the population at large. But it isn’t, because of the inbuilt self-selection in YouGov’s panel. Here’s a sample from the Q&A you’ve usefully linked to:
Q. Many millions of people do not have internet access. How can you possibly reflect the views of the public as a whole?
A.
When the internet was new, reliable surveys were indeed impossible to conduct, simply because too few people had access to it. But now it has spread to every significant demographic group, with 62% of GB Adults logging on. Online researchers are able to reach sufficient numbers of women as well as men, over-60s as well as under 30s, people on below-average as well as above-average incomes. National surveys are therefore conducted to represent the public as a whole.
This neatly skates over the question as to the demographics of the internet, which (as other polls show) do
not
"represent the demographics of the public as a whole"!
The right-wing, middle-class bias of YouGov is regularly under suspicion. They try (unsuccessfully in my view) to address this question in their Q&A.
So if we’re prepared to trust without scepticism the findings of an organisation whose major achievement seems to be that they got the 2002 winner of Pop Idol right, then perhaps it’s time to ask Noddy and Big Ears what they think of the new whip rules, and go with that instead.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.