- This topic has 9 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
(1) The pro-whip brigade have continually speculated that under the new rules there would hardly be any finishers in NH races on testing ground – Chepstow earlier this week had 85 runners and only 7 pulled up.
(2) The pro-whip brigade are fond of saying there will be ‘no jockeys left’ – today the Racing Post quotes figures for a 10-day period with 24 suspensions this year against 20 suspensions for the corresponding period last year.
So far that seems to be like speculation 0 facts 2.
It will be interesting to see some evidence of the oft quoted ‘punters will leave the sport in droves’.
Thanks for keeping it real. Probably these doom merchants just hate racing and secretly want it banned.
To quote Joe Friday "All we want are the facts."
- Total Posts 17716
I´d no intention of dignifying
Stilvi
´s
ya-boo
initial post with a debative response. The "fact" is, that a consensus is beginning to emerge here between those of us who are against the new rules and those of us who are for them. There´s much common ground as to what the underlying problems are and how they might be addressed.
It´s worth pointing out, though, that
pro-rule
does not necessarily mean
anti-whip
, and vice versa. To simplify the complexities of the TRF debate in this way is the lowest kind of idle trouble-making.
However, I must say that I find
RedRum77
´s reply both risible and offensive. I for one have never taunted anyone passionately involved in this debate as "anti-racing", no matter how far removed their view on what was good for the Sport happened to be from my own. I feel nothing but contempt for such statements.
If you can´t try to build bridges and attempt to come to some recognition of common ground, what´s the point of posting on this difficult issue at all?
I concur Pinza. Although theoretically in the other camp to yourself over this issue, I think that a more conciliatory tone from all parties would aid a more constructive debate of the issues.
Everything else aside, I think points one and two made by Stilvi are valid at this stage, no?
Truth is, there was never going to be the fallout that some were predicting, and so been it’s proven so far.
Does it stick in some peoples throats? You bet it does.
Just to be clear, I’m not ‘pro whip’. I’m pro racing and I’m pro the racehorse. I love horses. Have done my whole life. I love seeing thoroughbred horses. They are the pinnacle of what the horse can be as far as I’m concerned.
If we love horses and want to see the thoroughbred continue to thrive then we need to see that animal raced. If we don’t race them we lose them. It is really that simple.
Racing means extending the horse and encouraging, enabling, urging and sometimes pushing it very hard to do what it can do and be what it can be.
Now, some people believe we can continue to race under the new whip rules with no ill effect. I respect those who take that view, not least because many of them have the same desire to see the sport and the horse survive, but I disagree. I might be wrong. But the reason I, and others, are passionate about it is because we love the animal and we love the sport.
The question is not about the whip per se it’s about how we race and as I say that’s a vital thing to get right. No racing. No thoroughbred.
I understand six jockeys received bans for whip offences today – not sure of the details, though.
I´d no intention of dignifying
Stilvi
´s
ya-boo
initial post with a debative response. The "fact" is, that a consensus is beginning to emerge here between those of us who are against the new rules and those of us who are for them. There´s much common ground as to what the underlying problems are and how they might be addressed.
It´s worth pointing out, though, that
pro-rule
does not necessarily mean
anti-whip
, and vice versa. To simplify the complexities of the TRF debate in this way is the lowest kind of idle trouble-making.
However, I must say that I find
RedRum77
´s reply both risible and offensive. I for one have never taunted anyone passionately involved in this debate as "anti-racing", no matter how far removed their view on what was good for the Sport happened to be from my own. I feel nothing but contempt for such statements.
If you can´t try to build bridges and attempt to come to some recognition of common ground, what´s the point of posting on this difficult issue at all?
My intention was never to be offensive but when ever I look in on these whip debates for example all I see is racing is finished.
Racing is not finished. It is my belief that racing will apted. Even if the jockeys had a self propose ban on the whip.
My personal feelings is that the whip rule should have remained the same, as those who needed a lot of encouragement from the whip : ie a lazy horse who idle, are at a disadvantage.
However the finishers should be inspected by an independant vet and his report should be announced to the racing public interested in that race.In other words racing needs to be transparent.
Everything else aside, I think points one and two made by Stilvi are valid at this stage, no?
Truth is, there was never going to be the fallout that some were predicting, and so been it’s proven so far.
Does it stick in some peoples throats? You bet it does.
stilvi goes on about facts but that’s the one thing his post lacks, he makes 3 comments about what people have allegedly said but produces no names, maybe he can enlighten us.
I can’t recall many if any predicting any of things he says they did in the first few weeks of the new whip rules.Are you and him seriously suggesting that the new whip rules have been successful? 24 whip offences compared to 20 a success? And does that not include the ones they had to retrospectively quash?
The whole thing has been a farce.
it´s worth pointing out, though, that pro-rule does not necessarily mean anti-whip, and vice versa. To simplify the complexities of the TRF debate in this way is the lowest kind of idle trouble-making.
+1
Facts ? It all depends how you choose to look at things.
For those that decided a compliance rate of 99.25% was nor acceptable this initial 20% increase in non-compliance will surely allow them to shove the wedge in further.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.