- This topic has 118 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
- Total Posts 17716
Marginal Value
, thank you for raising this. I am of course aware of Louis Romanet’s various statements, both personal and as President of IFHA.
Tim Morris
‘s lecture this Wednesday (outlined above as far as the Whip section goes) was the result of Romanet’s initiative.
His own personal views are known to be at a considerable remove from France Galop’s as a governing body, and Morris’s conclusions and recommendation certainly do not follow Romanet’s prediction.
I am in favour of severely restricting whip usage – in fact I think racing could quite happily survive without it, as I’ve argued ad infinitum so I won’t re-hash all those arguments.
But I wanted to comment on the BHA whip review. It was pretty clear that it was the adverse public reaction to the sight of the (clearly exhausted) National winner being given a good going over by its jockey that prompted the timing of review, although one would have been inevitable in time in any case as the number of incidents was unpalatable.
I think the rule/penalty changes are a step in the right direction and that the BHA should review the very same stats they use in the document after a year to see whether there has been an improvement (i.e. a reduction in number of cases of mis-use).
We are a spectator sport. To paraphrase Pinza, we DO need to listen to what people want (racing where the interests of the horse are, as far as is reasonable and practical, put first) and give it to them. Racing’s biggest failing, as an industry, has always been that it is too inward looking.
Corm , a fair post , very balanced IMO
However the nagging fear I have is that punters will lose confidence, betting will suffer in a big way , once its clear that Jocks are powerless to drive a horse over the line , then the punters will bet on something else
Agree about the reaction to the National , it had to happen , but when all is said and done , a whipless sport will just have very minimal betting , and as racing relies on betting for income , this latest law is a classic lets burn our house down routine
I would suggest it will be revisited once the bookies show the decline in numbers ….don’t worry they will have a nice name for it , it wont be called a u turn though , probably something like response to consumer demands and other gobbldegooook
watch out for loads of 5 dayers ….and maybe a jockeys strike perhaps ,,,,it will be fun no doubt
Ricky
- Total Posts 17716
Balanced posts all round… my own research has astounded me, as to the arbitrary nature of both the assumptions and conclusions of this Report (the lack of evidence), the lack of negotiating competence by the Sport’s rulers against the Animal Welfare opposition, and the failure to address the likely consequences outlined by
Ricky
above.
No doubt, for example, we’ll soon be seeing an egregious number of horses starting to veer across the course and needing to be "straightened" by application of the whip. Pulling of horses will develop as an artistic form pretty quickly. Just watch.
Corm
, yes – Racing is a spectator sport, and the view of "insiders" making their living from it is only one consideration. The difficulty here is that the whip rules have been formulated to appease
non
-spectators, whilst the vast majority of the
actual
spectators (punting and otherwise) are left fuming at the imperious nonchalance with which their views on the matter have been ignored.
It is the simmering resentment of "insiders" (such as the jockeys, owners and trainers) with the punters (who help pay for the sport and want to get a proper run for their money) which will bring this rule down. Meanwhile the harm being done by what is – after all – a terribly minor issue, is immense.
Just because an insider tells you a sport isn’t cruel, because they have a vested financial interest, it doesn’t mean that their opinion isn’t completely against public opinion.
Bear baiting and Dog Fighting would still be legal if that were the case.
If you dismiss the consensus of public opinion, whether informed or not, you will ultimately lose. The BHA is trying to address public outrage caused by Jason Maguire when millions of non-racing fans tuned in and got their once-a-year dose of the sport. I’m sure a significant number of those people would have been of the opinion that the jockey would have been given summary justice had he been publicly flogged after dismounting. The perception of what people witness in respect of treatment of "dumb" animals invokes polarized reactions, public sympathy is for the poor horse being whipped. The fact that if it wasn’t for racing there would be whole scale slaughter of perfectly healthy thoroughbreds away from the television screens doesn’t enter the equation.
In a slightly off topic issue, I wonder how the new whip rules will affect a professional dominatrix when she is giving a high court judge a good thrashing?
However the nagging fear I have is that punters will lose confidence, betting will suffer in a big way , once its clear that Jocks are powerless to drive a horse over the line , then the punters will bet on something else
Ricky
I think you put too much faith in the intelligence of the average punter – I think your "average" betting shop punter will still bet on racing whether the whip is used or not.
Just look at the numbers who bet on the virtual racing where the whip has no relevance at all.
Indeed it will actually make them feel better as it will give the pocket talkers another "excuse" for their selections losing.
Some serious punters may be put off but an argument could be made that the new rules could actually help punters.
How?
Well, will it not be easier to eliminate lazy and ungenuine horses from the equation – expecially in NH racing?
Just a thought.
- Total Posts 17716
The BHA is trying to address public outrage caused by Jason Maguire when millions of non-racing fans tuned in and got their once-a-year dose of the sport. I’m sure a significant number of those people would have been of the opinion that the jockey would have been given summary justice had he been publicly flogged after dismounting.
Nay, nay and thrice nay. What the BHA was bending to was the media storm whipped up
after the event
by seeing the horses
"so beaten-up"
that they had to be given water on the course. Your
"public outrage"
was not caused by people witnessing events themselves, but by a cynical piece of media rabble-rousing, working on public ignorance in order to shift copy.
Most people wouldn’t have noticed that the jockeys were hitting the horses at all, until
The Daily Mail
told them to get morally indignant about it. That’s what makes this whole
imbroglio
so stupid.
Of course you are horribly right in saying that this General Public – so tender-hearted about smacking a horse ten times with a cushioned whip – would be quite happy to see a human being flogged within an inch of his life for so doing. Another good reason for ignoring that General Public, and its self-appointed tribunes.
Could be right Paul , you could well be right indeed , I just have a gut feeling thats all
At best the Jocks will be able to adapt , certainly on the flat it should be workable …however those great big chasing types will soon learn that they can do as little as they like
As for the virtual punters , and more of them are doing so each week , I just lose hope for the game …I was in a betting shop last week for the first time in ages and 2 punters earnestly told me that they won more on the cartoons than real racing , in fact they dont bet on racing anymore….so you could be on the button
cheers
Ricky
Could be right Paul , you could well be right indeed , I just have a gut feeling thats all
At best the Jocks will be able to adapt , certainly on the flat it should be workable …however those great big chasing types will soon learn that they can do as little as they like
As for the virtual punters , and more of them are doing so each week , I just lose hope for the game …I was in a betting shop last week for the first time in ages and 2 punters earnestly told me that they won more on the cartoons than real racing , in fact they dont bet on racing anymore….so you could be on the button
cheers
Ricky
I’m in the "prepared to give it goes" camp at the moment. Like you I have less worries about the flat but I do see the potential for big problems over the jumps – those 3m novices chases at Plumpton will never be the same again.
Like you Ricky, I was in a betting shop for the first time in years a few weeks ago and the only real sound was the sound of the fixed odds terminals. They had the live racing commentary almost on mute, it could only be heard if you stood directly under the speaker, although come the cartoon racing the volume suddenly increased. It was so depressing.
Then again I’m getting old – I can still remember the "good old days" spending an afternoon in a smog filled bookies with every one hanging on to the words on the old blower.
No doubt, for example, we’ll soon be seeing an egregious number of horses starting to veer across the course and needing to be "straightened" by application of the whip. Pulling of horses will develop as an artistic form pretty quickly. Just watch.
That is a point very well made Pinza. Although I do believe the effect of the whip is overstated, it is unfair for deviating horses to be allowed more "encouragements". I remember in the Queen’s Vase at Royal Ascot Namibian and Solar Sky fighting it out. Namibian wandered around and won by a neck, yet Solar Sky remained perfectly straight. If Namibian was allowed more "encouragements" he would probably have won by further. To give an advantage to a deviant or disadvantage to one who keeps to the rules – is wrong.
It will also mean horses like Dream Ahead who deviates every time he’s "encouraged", means (unlike his rivals) he will be virtually immune to these new whip rules. Although it must be said this individual has actually lost ground most times he’s "encouraged". So a total ban would be a bigger advantage to him.
Value Is EverythingI see that guy at Towcester (Kevin Ackerman) is whinging again about having whipless racing, the BHA should tell him to either put up or shut up.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of Mr Ackerman’s stance, I wonder if he placed that much store in the roasting Charlie Mann gave the place the following day. "Towcester has to worry if it isn’t supported by trainers like me", Mann had said in as many words – the same Man(n), it is noted, who has sent a whopping nine runners to the Northamptonshire venue in the last five seasons.
gc
Adoptive father of two. The patron saint of lower-grade fare. A gently critical friend of point-to-pointing. Kindness is a political act.
"Not bothering" indeed. And who will blame them? given the fact that BHA have insulted professional jockeys by riding roughshod over them and their opinions on the matter. Would you really expect them to take this nonsense gracefully?
Of the two riders I mentioned, Mr Thornton’s career is arguably at something of a crossroads, what with him no longer stable jockey to Alan King (if memory serves) and other young pups starting to close the gap between him and themselves among what I suppose would count as the upper-second tier of jumps riders.
That then being the case, are his energies
really
best spent pushing himself forward so conspiciously as one of those against the new rules; a stance which, for all anyone knows, some owners and trainers may choose to interpret as a tacit admission that he’s going to struggle to keep within those rules?
gc
Adoptive father of two. The patron saint of lower-grade fare. A gently critical friend of point-to-pointing. Kindness is a political act.
- Total Posts 17716
GC
, I’m surprised you waste words in attempting to put down Choc Thornton, whilst trying to minimise the importance of his negative statements on the new whip rules.
Is this necessary? Whether or not the man’s career is rising or falling, his opinion carries significant weight as coming from a senior and currently leading member of his profession. Casting aspersions on his standing merely emphasises your own disappointment that these rules, which you hoped would "solve" BHA’s (self-inflicted) problem, are doomed to failure.
Thornton has honestly voiced what the vast majority of his colleagues think, irrespective of whether such plain speaking is the politic thing to do as far as his career is concerned. He deserves praise for that, rather than sly censure.
GC
, I’m surprised you waste words in attempting to put down Choc Thornton, whilst trying to minimise the importance of his negative statements on the new whip rules.
Is this necessary? Whether or not the man’s career is rising or falling, his opinion carries significant weight as coming from a senior and currently leading member of his profession. Casting aspersions on his standing merely emphasises your own disappointment that these rules, which you hoped would "solve" BHA’s (self-inflicted) problem, are doomed to failure.
Thornton has honestly voiced what the vast majority of his colleagues think, irrespective of whether such plain speaking is the politic thing to do as far as his career is concerned. He deserves praise for that, rather than sly censure.
There was no attempt at a put-down in my previous post, and certainly not sly censure; rather, an out-loud, to-the-skies pondering whether there are people arguably more soundly placed to be able to amplify the concerns of some in the weighing room than Robert Thornton at present.
That his opinions may carry some weight among his peers is nothing I’d rush to dispute. However, need he be "taking one for the team", so to speak, if that team already includes colleagues for whom it’s far less likely that such a conspicuously vocal stance on the new whip laws could (and only could) be borne in mind by unnerved potential employers hereafter? Fellow longstanding opponent of the rules, Ryan Moore, has the security of knowing where most of his rides will be coming from weeks, months and seasons hence. Mr Thornton, conversely, may not.
In any instance of addressing a workplace grievance head-on, it’s surely just common sense to make sure one’s spokespersons are those on the soundest footing employment-wise. I’d happily have vented my spleen on my colleagues’ behalf at my last job, for example, over the summary termination of their pension schemes. As a contractor there, however, the only short-term outcome would have been a rather abrupt withdrawal of my services.
gc
Adoptive father of two. The patron saint of lower-grade fare. A gently critical friend of point-to-pointing. Kindness is a political act.
- Total Posts 17716
In any instance of addressing a workplace grievance head-on, it’s surely just common sense to make sure one’s spokespersons are those on the soundest footing employment-wise. I’d happily have vented my spleen on my colleagues’ behalf at my last job, for example, over the summary termination of their pension schemes. As a contractor there, however, the only short-term outcome would have been a rather abrupt withdrawal of my services.
Sage words,
GC
. Choc will be wise to this too, which is why his involvement is to be taken particularly seriously. Either he doesn’t care what happens to his career; or (surely more likely) he counts on the fact that his employers feel a more-or-less sneaking sympathy for his position which will not lead to his being sent to Coventry.
Sage words, GC. Choc will be wise to this too, which is why his involvement is to be taken particularly seriously. Either he doesn’t care what happens to his career; or (surely more likely) he counts on the fact that his employers feel a more-or-less sneaking sympathy for his position which will not lead to his being sent to Coventry.
That would indeed have to be the hope for him and others. There may be some virtue in researching how quickly banned jockeys are able to get back up to the same quota of rides after a ban as before, as some (however crude) means of establishing whether over time there is any element of owners and trainer eschewing riders perceived to be something of a liability.
I hesistate to suggest using Kieren Fox as a testbed example, as the attraction of his claim, for as long as it still exists, may still prove persuasive enough. The greater interest may lie with what effect a ban, or succession of bans, may exact upon the sport’s rump of journeyperson, claim-less professionals.
gc
Adoptive father of two. The patron saint of lower-grade fare. A gently critical friend of point-to-pointing. Kindness is a political act.
- Total Posts 17716
I hesistate to suggest using Kieren Fox as a testbed example, as the attraction of his claim, for as long as it still exists, may still prove persuasive enough. The greater interest may lie with what effect a ban, or succession of bans, may exact upon the sport’s rump of journeyperson, claim-less professionals.
On that, we’re in agreement. As a claiming apprentice, Fox is no Martyr (sorry about the pun, for those of a literary bent).
I rather feel that the greatest interest of all may lie in seeing what effect a succession of bans has on the likely exodus of our current top jockeys to other shores. They may well wish to ply their trade without this draconian sword of Damocles hanging over them, eternally compromising their effectiveness.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.