- This topic has 85 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
disagree Drone . during the white heat of the whip debate some of the posters became very personal and affronting in views
Payback time was sweet
Ricky
EC,
I’ve never been against the whip, just against the old old rules. Where Dettori could get away with hitting his horse 20+ times in a valuable race and effectively get away with it with a slapped wrist. Unfortunately for you, I don’t believe these newest alterations will mean a return to those bad old days.
I remind you once again, it was originally jockeys themselves who wanted a fixed number of strokes. Not until put in to practice did they moan about it. How long will it be before jockeys and media alike are moaning about ambiguity? With one jockey being banned and one getting away scot free for the "same offence".
Have said I’d like to see the rules changed. May be the changes have gone further than I’d hoped. In my opinion penalties aren’t strong enough to be a sufficient deterrent. But..
We’ve still got the numbers in place, if only as a guide…
Quote from BHA:
‘Rather than it being an automatic breach when a rider uses the whip eight times on the Flat and nine times over jumps, the figures become the trigger point for the stewards to review the ride in question.
Stewards will then consider how the rider has used the whip in the course of exceeding the allowed number before deciding whether a breach has occurred and a penalty is warranted’.So your triumphant thread title seems more than a little premature. We have not gone back to the old rules.
We’ve still got rules in place to take serial offenders to task.
Everything is still in place to keep jockeys riding to the same standards as they were yesterday. But they are very vague, everything will depend on how stewards interpret/police them.
Value Is Everythingdisagree Drone . during the white heat of the whip debate some of the posters became very personal and affronting in views
Ricky
And you were cheif among them Ricky.
Value Is EverythingAm I the only one on here who is delighted that the nonsensical rule has been amended but doesn’t feel the need to gloat about some proxy ‘victory’ (which basically had nothing to do with anyone on here) like a sugar-rushed four-year-old?
Mike
He is probably quite happy listening to himself argue with his echo.
To be fair, Corm has (I believe) offered to post anything Pinza were to e-mail him about the whip (or something like that). It would be nice for Pinza to take up Corm’s offer at this time.
Value Is EverythingEC,
I’ve never been against the whip, just against the old old rules. Where Dettori could get away with hitting his horse 20+ times in a valuable race and effectively get away with it with a slapped wrist. Unfortunately for you, I don’t believe these newest alterations will mean a return to those bad old days.
I remind you once again, it was originally jockeys themselves who wanted a fixed number of strokes. Not until put in to practice did they moan about it. How long will it be before jockeys and media alike are moaning about ambiguity? With one jockey being banned and one getting away scot free for the "same offence".
Have said I’d like to see the rules changed. May be the changes have gone further than I’d hoped. In my opinion penalties aren’t strong enough to be a sufficient deterrent. But..
We’ve still got the numbers in place, if only as a guide…
Quote from BHA:
‘Rather than it being an automatic breach when a rider uses the whip eight times on the Flat and nine times over jumps, the figures become the trigger point for the stewards to review the ride in question.
Stewards will then consider how the rider has used the whip in the course of exceeding the allowed number before deciding whether a breach has occurred and a penalty is warranted’.So your triumphant thread title seems more than a little premature. We have not gone back to the old rules.
We’ve still got rules in place to take serial offenders to task.
Everything is still in place to keep jockeys riding to the same standards as they were yesterday. But they are very vague, everything will depend on how stewards interpret/police them.
GT
Dettori got a lengthy ban not a slap on the wrist and so he would now.
I’ve never considered jockeys requesting a fixed number was an argument, the BHA are the regulator of the sport not the jockeys and the only reason they quoted what the jockeys wanted was that it fitted their agenda. Don’t think jockeys are much good at judging things such as that anyway as has been shown.
I would expect far more leniency with these new rules and recent rides from the likes of Mackay, McCoy and Johnson that were unjustly punished would quite rightly go unpunished.
As for inconsistencies with stewards, we get that now with interference etc and there may be a little but I would expect there will be strict instruction on what to allow and not allow from above and things should work well by and large.
My position has always been based on the premise that racing cannot afford to lose the RSPCA.
I’ve remained open-minded about the use of the whip and after watching the ‘fallout’ of the new rules for a couple of months, the key unfairness for me was that everything was, in essence, treated the same.
8 full-blooded whacks were OK – 16 rhythmical flicks ensured a ban – daft. That’s why I suggested adopting some form of ‘force index’, which seems to be what the BHA will now expect the Stewards to work to within these vague ‘discretionary powers’.
To return to my opening para in this post – before gloating further, read the following from the RSPCA’s website.
The RSPCA welcomed and assisted the British Horseracing Authority enquiry. We hope that the BHA and jockeys will respond to the challenge and make substantial changes to the use of the whip in horse racing.
Otherwise, the British Horseracing Authority’s position in law could be questioned, and the future of British horseracing could be threatened
.
To return to my opening para in this post – before gloating further, read the following from the RSPCA’s website.
The RSPCA welcomed and assisted the British Horseracing Authority enquiry. We hope that the BHA and jockeys will respond to the challenge and make substantial changes to the use of the whip in horse racing.
Otherwise, the British Horseracing Authority’s position in law could be questioned, and the future of British horseracing could be threatened
.
Jockeys have "responded to the challenge".
Value Is EverythingSteeplechasing,
You are misguided, you should be questioning the credibility of the RSPCA not horse racing.
I suspect we wont have more arrogance from Pompette for a good while
Ricky
Fair play Ricky, enjoy your moment in the sun – as long as Cavs agrees of course
For me, after this I’m done with the whole thing.
I’m just a punter – a very good profitable punter as some on here know – so the jocks can hit their horses as many times as they like.
I couldn’t care less anymore.
Steeplechasing,
You are misguided, you should be questioning the credibility of the RSPCA not horse racing.
it doesn’t matter
what I, you or any other racing fan thinks about the credibility of the RSPCA, it’s what the non-racing public thinks of their credibility, and donations from the public of more than £100m a year suggests they’re held in pretty high regard.
If the RSPCA were to campaign actively against racing it’d be disastrous for the sport. Anyone who doesn’t see that needs to bring their binoculars into play.
Regardless of what you think of that organisation, racing needs to work with them.
Corm / Joe , in the nicest possible way I must say you are misguided
there is nothing they can do , racing is a huge industry , to even suggest or infer that the Rspca could alter or change that by lobbying is absurd ,do you really think that this or any Government would ban horse racing (like Hunting for example ), if you do then its time you got out more
best to you both
Ricky
I’m not sure they could ever gain enough support to force a ban or anywhere near Ricky. But they could do the image and credibility of racing a great deal of harm should they adopt a confrontational stance against the sport.
Racing needs to work
with
welfare groups, not disenfranchise them.
Corm / Joe , in the nicest possible way I must say you are misguided
there is nothing they can do , racing is a huge industry , to even suggest or infer that the Rspca could alter or change that by lobbying is absurd ,do you really think that this or any Government would ban horse racing (like Hunting for example ), if you do then its time you got out more
best to you both
Ricky
Look at this: http://www.grey2kusa.org/action/states.html
This is what one organization can do with enough money and public support. This is despite the huge reforms made in the greyhound racing industry-these dogs are treated better than any house pet. They hand out this fact sheet http://www.grey2kusa.org/pdf/nationalfact.pdf
Of which all the points can be easily debunked http://www.gra-america.org/the_sport/ar … myths.html
Yet nevertheless it is convincing to legislators.The most worrying part is that this same organization and its kin have set its sights on horse racing next. And horse racing has been nowhere near as proactive as dog racing.
Corm , could you please explain why racing needs to work with Animal Aid etc
I don’t underatand why ,!!! Racing will run its business unfettered , why on earth do we need to pander to these "people "- and yes in the light of the recent press release , I include the Rspca in that bracket as well (what a load of tosh that was ….IMO )
Racing does not need to justify its existence or its history to a bunch of extremists (imo )
unless you can convince me why ????
cheers
R
Imagining that you can just ignore "public opinion" and expect the status quo to be unaltered is desperately short-sighted. If racing puts itself against a respected (whether rightly or wrongly) organization like the RSPCA, it has neither the media skills to win the argument nor sufficient self-funding to survive. It may take a couple of generations, but without tacit public approval then racing is undoubtedly doomed.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.