- This topic has 56 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
Tired horses will often be the ones most in need of guidance, steering assistance and in some cases driving to do what they must do at a particular moment.
Possibly Sean, but you and I are pragmatists who realise that a vast, overwhelming majority of the smacks that horses are given at the end of races are nothing whatsoever to do with guidance and everything to do with getting the horse across the line for a win.
How do you explain the stat that the offence rate increases as the value/prestige of the races increase? Do those horses somehow require more guidance?
Of course not, it is because the desire to win increases and, with it, the ‘cost’ of winning is diminished in the jockeys mind so they’ll take more risks (a la Peslier on Saturday night) and, it seems, flirt more recklessly with the rules.
Corm.
The rate of whip offences across all steeplechases is just under 1% at 0.97%.
At listed class and below this drops to 0.96% and Grade Ones reach the dizzy heights of 1.2%
If you think that this difference of 0.23% over a small sample of grade one chases constitutes clear evidence of a ‘win at all costs mentality’ then I don’t honestly think there’s much point debating the facts any more is there?
There is no evidence to support this argument. It was the spin put on the report by its authors.
At the time this process began in Nov ’10 whip offences were, if anything, in decline over jumps. The Cheltenham Festival figures I’ve quoted you show that the ‘culture change’ sought was in fact already in place. 2 bans from 170 odd rides at the toughest jumps meeting on earth.
There was never a case for these changes.
- Total Posts 17716
At the time this process began in Nov ’10 whip offences were, if anything, in decline over jumps. The Cheltenham Festival figures I’ve quoted you show that the ‘culture change’ sought was in fact already in place. 2 bans from 170 odd rides at the toughest jumps meeting on earth.
Although the fact of the levelling-off on the flat and declining trend of whip offences over jumps has been spelled out many times, I’m glad you’ve reiterated it, Sean.
How many more times does it have to be repeated, before the people who continue to insist that "the old rules weren’t working" will take this on board?
Sticks are safe. There is no sense in which proper use of a stick is in some way less ‘moral’ than other acts. Nor is it wrong to race competitively on an animal that is ‘tired’. It’s a competitive sport. It’s meant to be tough. Tough but not cruel.
Anybody who has watched racing in recent weeks (both flat & jumps) and has not yet realised the impact these rules are having is either incapable of racereading or is being deliberately obtuse.
Succinctly put ‘Grey One’! Good to see you coming off the fence on this one Sean! Mind you,I wasn’t convinced you were totally against these new regs initially!
We should not lose sight of the punters , they keep the game going , I think we will see reaction from the Owners , they will migrate their horses to more competitive shores , that’s a cert
Ricky
If you think that the vast majority of owners, both in terms of horses owned and those with enough disposable income to own a significant portion of a horse, have any great concern for the welfare of the average punter then you are suffering from delusions of adequacy.
The hierarchy would much rather it reverted to being an elitist pursuit without having to worry about grubby things like money. I’m sure an enterprising racecourse could get the Daily Mail to sponsor public hangings as entertainment in between races.KF, there’s no reason why you should be familiar with everybody’s position on everything.
I have been writing on the dangers of tampering with whip regulation for several months. Long before the rules were even published.Eclipse , you have misread my post
for the avoidance of doubt …
Punters will react by betting less
Owners will react by taking their horses elsewhere
Maybe you could stay grounded on this one
Corm , for goodness sake wake up man , you are so wrong its embarrassing but your a dogged so and so I will give you that!!!
Ricky
I’m quite well-grounded, the fact is there are elements within racing that would prefer it to become more marginalized so they can pursue their own agenda.
Your assumption that punters will bet less is based on actual turnover figures year on year? The fact that there is less disposable income in society would have nothing to do with it I suppose. The fact that there are many other forms of gambling where people can win or lose to their heart’s content where the playing field is perceived to be more level.
Owners will only choose to race elsewhere if they believe they are not getting a reasonable "return" on their investment. Status, entertainment and the dream of a Derby winner are still relevant ambitions since the introduction of the new regulations. Despite the derisory levels of prize money, there remains an intangible allure to owning a racehorse in the UK. Granted there is little point in owning a recalcitrant beast who only produces its form under severe persuasion.
Being of the opinion that there are too many horses in training and too many racecourses then if the result of these regulations is a reduction in both I do not see it as a bad thing.
Having no particular regard for National Hunt racing, its future matters little to me.
Fair enough Eclipse , point taken , mind you there are heaps of jumping fans on this forum whose blood pressure will have been raised a notch by your last sentence
overall though I agree to disagree with you
Ricky
KF, there’s no reason why you should be familiar with everybody’s position on everything.
I have been writing on the dangers of tampering with whip regulation for several months. Long before the rules were even published.Tell it as it is Sean and keep up the good work, I respect anyone who’s not a fence sitter,funnily enough thats what makes a forum like this REAL! For as much as its blatantly obvious Corm and Ginge are from Planet ‘Lah lah’ on this one they are still standing by their beliefs,its encouraged good debate and long may it do so,i just hope we dont digress as to whether Man actually did land on the moon!!
Whilst having no great enthusiasm for NH racing I do think that trying to apply basically the same regulations to both codes is fundamentally flawed.
Flat racing; the rules are probably workable.
NH racing; the rules are probably unworkable.
How the review could fail to identify the different requirements of race riding under each code defies logic.
Would those NH racing fans think that racing horses beyond the point of exhaustion with or without the use of the whip as acceptable sport? Had the review determined that races of extreme distance such as the National were no longer acceptable then you would alter public perception far more.
Handicap chases of an extended 4 miles over a somewhat unique course are not what NH racing is about, but because of the profile of the National it is what the public sees. The loss of long distance slogs might actually be good for the sport.
- Total Posts 17716
Flat racing; the rules are probably workable.
NH racing; the rules are probably unworkable.
As the majority of bans have been given to riders on the flat, and in many cases for rides which were good or even outstanding (remember
Steeplechasing
‘s acceptance of that with the
Graham Gibbons
ban?) your idea doesn’t hold water.
The whip rules are unworkable in both codes, though for different reasons (see many posts
passim
for what those differences are).
The use of the word "probably" in my statements meant that one is required to give the adequate time for adjustments to be made and then see whether the changes have been a success. As you had pre-determined your opinion before implementation, then your viewpoint can hardly claim any objectivity. I am prepared to see the impact of the changes before making my decision, so please do not descry my patience because I dare to offer an alternative.
A month is hardly enough time to evaluate the impact. On the flat, notwithstanding the brown sugar, only in the spring can a true assessment be made. Over the jumps, Christmas would be the minimal time required.
- Total Posts 17716
As you had pre-determined your opinion before implementation, then your viewpoint can hardly claim any objectivity.
Incorrect. I determine my opinion now on the
facts
as they stand, after one month of the new rules. I have also taken into account expert opinion in the jockeys’ room, the press, and this Forum. In so far as statistical probability yields objectivity, I can claim that too.
And a standard deviation away from the point that you were trying to tell me that having an open-mind was wrong!
I have been reflecting on the guardian response article and in particular the animal aid tactic of equating rule breaches with " abuse" . In my view this is a tactic that they are likely to have some success (in manipulating public opinion) with. In setting the penalties for frequency breaches ( however marginal) at a minimum of 5 days the review group seem to have had a similar concern.
Measuring breaches under the old and new rules though is comparing apples and oranges . Despite the increased penalties the levels of breaches are up and this puts the sport in a much weaker position to defend itself. This could have been avoided ( with the benefit of hindsight) by setting targets for higher jockey compliance against the old rules ( and I know base compliance rate was 99.25%).
Would the BHA have improved the sports ability to defend itself and improved the public perception if it had set a performance target to reduce breaches as measured against the old limits by say 80% ? By my reckoning this sets a target of 99.85% compliance with the old rules.
Measuring compliance against the old rules does not preclude setting a lower guide limit for hits . For reasons related to competitiveness, safety and integrity I do believe this needs to be higher than the new levels. The objectives of proportion and fairness suggest one or two hits over the guide should not be automatic offences and entry level penalties should be much lower. The totting up regime should be removed for minor breaches. There also needs to be some discretion for stewards to disregard slaps down the shoulder.
Having reflected on this my thoughts on hits and penalties for frequency would be something like:
• NH guide limit – 10
• 11/12 hits – referred to stewards ( max 1 or 2 day bans no totting up)
• 13 hits – 5 day ban
• 14 hits – 10 day ban
• 15 hits – 20 day ban
• 16 hits – 40 day ban ( breach under old rules)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.