- This topic has 51 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
“I think hitting an animal is morally wrong. You hit your dog on the street once and someone takes notice you might lose your dog”.
—————————–
Not if “hitting” your dog with a feather.
Value Is Everything“My solution would be to have a set of rules that were sensible, like the old rules. But sense seems to have ridden out of town.
Yes, the jockey broke the rules introduced this year. But did he do anything morally wrong? He has tried to win the race and as far as I am aware his horse was not hurt. He certainly looked like a willing partner.
This is where I disagree with Glad’s argument. Diving for a penalty in football has always been against the rules and is also morally wrong. The jockey today would have been praised for the ride last year. He has only done something “wrong” because of a change in the rules which has arguably not been introduced for racing reasons but to appease a group of people who do not want to be appeased. I somehow doubt they were watching the racing from Auteuil anyway”.
————————-
CAS,
Rules in Football have changed over many years. So have the rules of Racing.
Were the recent hand ball and offside rules changed because they were “morally wrong”? No, they were changed for – what the authorities believe is – the good of the game.
Same as any rules of Racing are changed for – what the authorities believe is – the good of the game.
Participants need to adhere to the current rules whichever sport they are playing.
Yes, the jockey has “tried to win the race” but he’s tried to do so by breaking the current rules.Of course people are going to disagree on what “the good of the game” is but that is what any rule change is for.
…And the reason why the new rules have been brought in is to save Racing from being banned completely. Because if the general public’s opinion continues to go in the direction it’s travelling (their theory no doubt is) there won’t be any racing left in a decade or two. So whether people agree with the rule change or not, the reason they’ve brought in rule changes is pretty much the biggest “racing reason” there is.
The Racing authorities may well believe what you call “sensible” rules would end up with no racing left.
Value Is EverythingI fear that one way or another we are going to end up with whipless racing and then no racing at all if the powers continue to listen and pander/rule change to those that shout the loudest (but are not the majority) and generally think all animal based sport is cruel end of.
The public perception angle has always been overplayed in my opinion to justify the changes in the powers mind….it is their fall back position to any argument made by those against the changes they bring in.
There is no way to objectively quantify that a horse that finishes second with the jockey riding to the whip rule limit has been cheated out of a victory just because the other jockey went over the limit…..it is only ever going to be conjecture with both side pleading their case to the positive.
I don’t believe that racing would have been banned if the powers had defended their sport more robustly and not capitulated to unecessary changes for appeasement’s sake (which is what it primarily is). The sport brings in too much money and jobs to the economy for the government to vote to ban it in its entirety.
If the public perception was as strongly in favour of wanting the sport banned due to the headlines re horse death in the Grand National (as the powers would have us believe), then why do a consistently large number of said public have their once a year only bet on the race itself?
The honest truth is a big majority of the general public (outside of race fans and race haters) are pretty much apathetic to the sport in general but if they happen to come accross a purposefully baiting one side headline/interview/documentary that is only produced to show the sport in a bad light then of course they will react in a negative way to the sport.
Unfortunately, the pc/morally outraged/holier-than-thou/blame cancel culture times we find ourselves living in is doing all kinds of harm accross nearly all parts of life and I fear by the time it somewhat resets itself with a little more common sense application, that a lot of things will have been too badly affected to bring back to former glories.
Hope I am totally wrong as that future is sadly depressing as sh*t.
Sorry for the rant.
‘I fear that one way or another we are going to end up with whipless racing’
Whatever the other arguments may be, it is one way to ensure a level playing field… Can’t strike the horse too many times if you have nothing with which to do it.
‘The honest truth is a big majority of the general public (outside of race fans and race haters) are pretty much apathetic to the sport in general but if they happen to come accross a purposefully baiting one side headline/interview/documentary that is only produced to show the sport in a bad light then of course they will react in a negative way to the sport.’
If these people are so easily swayed, why doesn’t someone produce stuff that shows racing positively for them to see?
“I fear that one way or another we are going to end up with whipless racing…”
And what’s so bad about that? I’d rather have racing without whips than no racing at all.
The rest of your opening sentence is just baseless fear mongering, worthy of a tabloid journalist.
Ginger, in reply to your points I can’t add much to what LD73 has already written. Other than to reiterate his point about the public concern about the whip being overstated.
If the public really are so agitated about the whip, why do Cheltenham, Aintree, Epsom and Royal Ascot sell out every year? Why do lots of people who do not bet every week still have a bet on the Grand National, the Cheltenham Gold Cup and The Derby?
I have just booked for Aintree on Boxing Day. The caption on the booking page advises tickets are “Selling Fast” – rather odd for something the public is meant to be outraged about.
The changes have been introduced in response to vocal activists. They are not interested in what racing does. They just want the sport to be banned.
On the point about making changes to ensure the sport survives: it could be argued they are only hastening its demise. Who believes the changes will stop here? Eventually racing may give away so much ground that there is no sport left.
I think the point was made earlier about the number of strikes being an issue. Yes, the jockey yesterday used the whip 9 times. But he did so on a horse that was responding. Personally I think it is worse if a jockey uses the whip 4 times on a horse that is clearly not going to win – but that jockey will escape censure.
It is not directly relevant but at Wexford on Friday I saw two horses fall at the last hurdle. Both were exhausted and with no chance of being placed. Thankfully they both got up but they could have been injured or worse. I believe both jockeys were irresponsible asking their mounts to jump the last – but they will not receive any punishment. Whereas a jockey who won a race and did not abuse his horse has been disqualified and will no doubt receive a hefty punishment.
I am re-reading Chris McGrath’s book “Mr Darley’s Arabian”.
I could not help having a wry smile at this passage:
“Pietro Gubbellini, Nearco’s jockey, hesitated a moment but then decided to ask his mount an unprecedented question. In the somewhat excitable estimation of Federico Tesio’s biographer, he administered ‘the most fateful whip stroke in racing history’.
Nearco exploded clear.”
They all know the rules , and “winning” by breaking the rules is essentially cheating. In my view the decision to disqualify is entirely justified. Once this happens on a regular basis then the incentive to “cheat” is removed. They will all soon learn to count then !.
“The public perception angle has always been overplayed in my opinion to justify the changes in the powers mind….it is their fall back position to any argument made by those against the changes they bring in”.
—————————
If the authorities are not bringing in rule changes because of public perception, LD – then why do you think they are bringing in rule changes?
Do you think anyone within racing actually wants these changes if it wasn’t for public perception?
If it was thought there was no need for changes then changes like these simply would not happen.
It is the fall back position because (in all probability) it is the position.
I’d rather have the rules as they are now and am sure the authorities would too – if it wasn’t for public perception… When there’s a good chance that keeping them as they are will bring the public’s displeasure and with public perception continuing to go one way – then not acting would imo be careless.
The authorities probably have more information on the public’s view of racing than any of us. So are probably in a better position to make that decision.Value Is Everything“If the public really are so agitated about the whip, why do Cheltenham, Aintree, Epsom and Royal Ascot sell out every year? Why do lots of people who do not bet every week still have a bet on the Grand National, the Cheltenham Gold Cup and The Derby?
I have just booked for Aintree on Boxing Day. The caption on the booking page advises tickets are “Selling Fast” – rather odd for something the public is meant to be outraged about”.
——————-
Not “odd” at all CAS. Am surprised you’d think that way.
Just because a small percentage of the population goes racing, does not mean the (whole) public perception is what that small percentage believes. The small percentage of the population that goes Racing and / or has a bet on the Grand National (LD) has very little to do with the greater public perception. It’s not much better than saying the animal activists represent public perception.Public perception does not have to hit a majority of people being negative for Racing to feel the pain. Once public perception gets to a stage where sponsoring a race is likely to get a significant number of the general public being less likely to buy the sponsor’s product… Then sponsoring a race becomes counter-productive and becomes negative thing for the company. Or at least it has such a negative effect that sponsoring other sports have a better monetary outcome. Bad enough now, let alone what it will be like in 5 or 10 years time. A rep from a business that was thinking of sponsoring a race at Fontwell told me they changed their mind because of this.
Value Is Everything“The changes have been introduced in response to vocal activists. They are not interested in what racing does. They just want the sport to be banned.
On the point about making changes to ensure the sport survives: it could be argued they are only hastening its demise. Who believes the changes will stop here? Eventually racing may give away so much ground that there is no sport left”.
————————-
No, the changes have not been introduced in response to vocal activists. Why would the authorities want to change the rules just because of a few animal activists? I can think of no valid reason to do so, can you?
The demise of Racing may well come even with these changes. But is worth trying something to save the “encourager”, as public perception’s direction of travel has to be altered in some way. We probably need both a change in whip rules and a Kevin Blake-like defence of the “encourager”. Otherwise the game will be totally different without it. imo Probably leading to the end of Racing.
Value Is EverythingThey believe more so in the public perception angle than anything else, it is always mentioned/cited in interviews or articles – so they make changes that they think will appease that perception in the name of protecting the sport (giving more and more ground with every change they make).
Had they not brought in the changes and defended their corner with all the evidence (be it statistical and/or the eye test) that can be brought to bear about the welfare/safety/care and attention racehorses receive then I don’t think the majority of the general public (i.e. not the vocal ban the sport regardless section) actually care strongly enough to have been calling en masse for the sport’s ban.
If the powers have so much more information on the public view then they should simply publish it to support their current stance but I would hazzard a guess it isn’t anywhere near the overwhelming perception they keep stating and that is why you don’t get much if any supporting evidence other than the mention of the word.
If we do away with the whip altogether then bridle horses need only apply as those horses that respond better to the whip than hand and heels riding become obsolete…….how much poorer would the sport be without the battling characters like a Persian Punch, Le Moss, Deanos Beano, Bonanza Boy, Monksfield, Hardy Eustace, Brave Inca and Edredon Bleu to name a few.
Part of the enjoyment of the sport is knowing that horses have their own ways of responding (or not) to all aspects of jockeyship – seeing who comes out on top as the bridle merchants (what will they find off it) lock horns against those horses that are invariably the first off the bridle but just keep on finding the more vigorous their jockeys get with them.
I also think back to Lydia Hislop’s comments about going Swedish racing where the whip can only ne used for corrective measures and her comment of:
The races themselves were also strangely sterile, with the running order scarcely changing from start to finish unless a rival weakened.
and:
The fields were loose-packed, as if the riders feared a check to their mount’s stride would be irrecoverable – although I was assured that the more valuable the race, the tighter the jockeys ride. More than once, however, I was left with the impression that a horse produced to challenge did not find as much as I expected.
At the end of the day horse racing, be it flat or jumps has a built in ‘risk’ of it participants being injured or sadly even killed (more on the horse side), the only way to remove that ‘risk’ is to have no racing at all – my question to the powers is this…….when will you actually find your cojones and finally draw a line in the sand and say no more?
I agree with all you’ve said about how important the whip is to Racing, LD.
Value Is Everything“If the powers have so much more information on the public view then they should simply publish it to support their current stance but I would hazzard a guess it isn’t anywhere near the overwhelming perception they keep stating and that is why you don’t get much if any supporting evidence other than the mention of the word”.
————————-
To answer this point LD.
If the reason for the public perception not being put in the public view is what you say – that it is not as overwhelming as they keep stating – then what would be the reason for the authorities to change the rules? I see none.
I suspect the reason is the opposite. If the public and Racing’s enemies knew of the force of the momentum then that in turn could be used against Racing. Making people think they should be against Racing.Value Is EverythingGinge – I think for the most part we are all on the same page re the whip and its importance.
Where I am (as you can probably tell) more doubtful is of the powers themself and their standpoint – I don’t (and have sadly never) thought they did enough to defend the sport from the very outset and they seemed to be on a placating mission of if we keep giving some ground maybe that will be enough to keep them off our backs…whilst everyone else seems to realise that once you start giving in it will only embolden them to keep pressing for more until their ultimate goal of an outright ban becomes a reality.
Whether it comes down to the powers not having enough financial resources to mount a full on campaign to educate the larger more ambivalent section of the public to the horses life in racing with all the care/love/attention/want for nothing that goes into things
……but I do feel the vocal section against the sport are able to much better convey their twisted version of the sport (helped by media sensationalism) compared to a more balanced overall picture that the sport and its hugely knowledgeable patrons could provide (if given the support/proper platform) for a counter argument.I think the whip rules are designed to appease the RSPCA rather than the public. Many may object to this but, given the organisation is currently running a high profile campaign to ban greyhound racing, I reckon engaging with them is probably a wise move. Failure to do so will probably seal the fate of dog racing in the UK.
If “encouragers” have a chip in them, would it be possible for jockeys to be penalised for the number of strokes over the “limit” (at least in valuable races if not all)?
Or would that be too difficult to police?
Only…If any more of the King George nonsense it has either got to be very similar in the UK as in France…
Or the horse penalised a certain amount of ground per number over the allowed.
It has to be a punishment so all connections do not want the jockey to go over the allowed number.Just a tentative suggestion… something like…
My own preference is for professional stewards on the day to be able to amend the result for horses going over the allowed number of strokes; just as they do when the wrong horse has probably won due to interference…. And also as a punishment for breaking the rules.
Guidance along the lines of:
If one stroke over the allowed then it loses 1/2 length. ie Placed behind any horse less than 1/2 length away.
If two stokes over the allowed then it loses a length. ie Placed behind any horse less than 1 length away.
If three over the horse is disqualified completely.“Guidance” as in – if the horse has had more than is allowed during the race but is actually being eased close home then allowance could be made for winning easier than winning distances. This also goes a long way to restrict the possibility of winning as a “non-trier”, deliberately using the whip in order to be disqualified.
It is not that a stroke is worth 1/2 length, it’s impossible to say because it differs from horse to horse – in a close finish it is usually probably less – but the punishment should if anything favour the jockey who kept the best to the allowed number of strokes… And the current rules are unfair on connections and jockeys who’ve kept to the rules and got beat.
That said; if the horse was very likely to have won had the jockey kept to the rules then the horse should keep the race.
A jockey of the second should get the race if he / she has kept to the rules and may well have won had the “winning” jockey also kept to the rules… Or kept to the rules more than the winning jockey. ie If the winning distance is only a head, with the pair 2 lengths clear… And the winner has gone 2 over the allowed and the second 1 over… Then if the winner loses a length and the second loses 1/2 length then the original winner is demoted to second.Going one over the limit also means prize money for all connections of the horse is reduced by a third.
If two over the limit prize money for all connections of the horse is reduced by two thirds.
If three over the limit the horse is disqualified. No prize money.For one over the limit the jockey gets 1 point on his / her license.
For two over the limit the jockey gets 3 points on his / her license.
For three or more over the limit the jockey gets 6 points on his / her license.When a jockey gets to 5 points he / she goes to a meeting with the Whip Review Committee for further sanction. This sanction may include a jockey being banned for a period. The length of which can be different depending on how many rides the jockey is likely to have. There can be a ban of riding in valuable events or all racing, depending on the severity of the case.
If reaching 10 points within a year there is further and greater sanction.
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.