- This topic has 24 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
The Racing Post reports today that among the plans discussed by jockeys to highlight their case against the new rules, is to stage a race where, when every jockey has used up his quota – assumed as 8 strokes, they will all pull up.
At first I thought it was a joke. If they are serious, what it means is that they will set out to deliberately hit each horse in that race the maximum number of times – whether the horse’s behaviour or position in the race merits it or not. In other words, they will abuse animals . . . for publicity.
In case you’d like to read that again. Our jockeys will abuse animals for publicity.
What manner of intellect is at play in the weighing room? If the above is true then these people shouldn’t be allowed near an animal, in sport or in any other field.
A new rule of bringing the sport into disrepute needs to be established as quickly as possible. If it is and could be retrospectively applied, the instigators of such an idea should be warned off for a very long time.
I’ve been involved with racing for over 40 years, if such a race ever takes place, I’ll be gone for good, vomiting in disgust on the way out.
To strike a horse unnecessarily at any point in the race could and should be regarded as abuse.
Exactly EF.
The jockey is also not trying his best to win. A non-trier.Value Is EverythingIf all you pro-whippers believe you can ‘educate’ and reassure the public when the BBC News shows ten jockeys hitting ten horses in a race a total of 80 times, (then not even finishing the race), that everything is OK and racing is a fine beautiful sport, you’re as deluded as the jockeys themselves…. [snip] …
I’m not pro-whip. I’m not anti-whip. I’m pro-racing and anti-damage to its image.
Well you could have fooled me. You claim a balance such statements bely, and you’re no more impartial than your cheery RSPCA correspondent Mr Muir.
I’ve no more time for this ridiculous thread – except to note the revealing fact that (as we can see)
Steeplechasing
is a little more circumspect about the wording of his headline on his own blog:
"Jockeys reportedly believe abusing horses for publicity is a good idea"
Interesting that he’s reserved the tabloid sensationalism for TRF. That’s what he thinks of us.
And would ‘reportedly’ in this title have made you jump up and down any the less? I have a fair sized audience in my blog. Every article published is also automatically tweeted to more than 1,000 followers, many of whom have the most basic knowledge of racing. I wanted to make it as clear as possible that I was commenting on a news report.
You are correct however about my lack of impartiality in this subject. I am and always will be 100% biased towards protecting racing from lunatic, image-damaging ideas, whether they come from jockeys, the BHA or anyone else.
As for your continued references to David Muir. I am neither his keeper nor your message boy. If you have written to him in the past, or to the RSPCA, and the tone of your letters was similar to many of your posts here, I’m not at all surprised you got no response.
- Total Posts 17716
As for your continued references to David Muir. I am neither his keeper nor your message boy. If you have written to him in the past, or to the RSPCA, and the tone of your letters was similar to many of your posts here, I’m not at all surprised you got no response.
Thank you for (finally) giving me a response to that question. For the record, I have not written to David Muir or the RSPCA.
I don’t pretend to your "impartiality" on this issue, and everyone knows my personal opinion. But of course if Mr Muir should prove willing to interact with me on the matter he’d be assured of professional courtesy and even-handedness.
As there are contradictory statements and questions being raised about his and the RSPCA’s role and agenda over the last months – some of them very readily apparent from your blog interview – I’m clearly not alone in thinking it’s time Mr Muir broke cover and clarified his organisation’s stance, that’s all.
Last not least, now that the rumour you’ve spread about what the jockeys were up to has been scotched by
Chris Cook
‘s rather more substantive statements on the
real
possibility of a strike next week (appropriately enough at Towcester) I hope you’ll have the grace to withdraw your blog remarks.
Although doubtless – as you put it – your
"job is done"
in making a bad situation just a little bit worse.
Pinza,
On this subject you’ve often twisted what myself, Cormack, Steeplechasing and others have said to suit your own opinion. That’s to say nothing about how you’ve portrayed members of the BHA, RSPCA and WHW.
Steeplechasing is just reporting something that has been reported by Racing’s own trade paper; not some gutter press.
I find your apparent indignation of this thread more than a little hypocritical.
Had it been something that would forward your "cause" I am sure we’d have read a book by now on how awful it was.
Value Is Everything- Total Posts 17716
Steeplechasing is just reporting something that has been reported by Racing’s own trade paper; not some gutter press.
I find your apparent indignation of this thread more than a little hypocritical.
Ginger
, you miss the point.
Steeplechasing
can say whatever he likes, wherever he likes, and he does so eloquently according to his lights.
I for one have not criticised the
Racing Post
, who are entitled to print whatever they hear, with correct legal riders, as they have done in this case.
But what was clearly presented as
rumour
in the
Racing Post
and on
his own blog
has been titled on TRF as if it were a fact. That’s what’s annoyed some posters here.
He also feigns an impartial opinion, which is a claim I promise you’ll never hear from me!
The good news is, that this unpleasant little bit of gossip seems from what
Chris Cook
tweets to be no more than that.
And you’ve also portrayed your own version of what the BHA/RSPCA/WHW has said as the truth Pinza.
Value Is Everything- Total Posts 17716
And you’ve also portrayed your own version of what the BHA/RSPCA/WHW has said as the truth Pinza.
You are still missing the point. Instead of taking a scatter gun to me, please
compare
this thread’s title with the title the man gives his blog! Do you see the difference??
Yes, I do "see the difference Pinza. But you’re missing my point. Whether Steeplechasing is right in his use of words or not… In my opinion you’ve done the same or similar.
Therefore I find your stance hypocritical.
Value Is EverythingSo if Steeplechasing alters the title of the thread by adding the word "allegedly" then world hunger will be solved!
- Total Posts 17716
So if Steeplechasing alters the title of the thread by adding the word "allegedly" then world hunger will be solved!
No. But it would satisfy a hunger for fairness,
EF
.
Whilst I have no reason to suppose the Racing Post has plucked this story from thin air, until such time as the jockeys and/or their representatives come out and declare their intention to take this action, nothing I have heard or read can be treated as fact.
Using such reports as if they are fact, to pursue a particular agenda is unseemly, inappropriate and intellectually weak. The situation is difficult enough without attempting to exploit angles that may not exist.
Whilst I have no reason to suppose the Racing Post has plucked this story from thin air, until such time as the jockeys and/or their representatives come out and declare their intention to take this action, nothing I have heard or read can be treated as fact.
Using such reports as if they are fact, to pursue a particular agenda is unseemly, inappropriate and intellectually weak. The situation is difficult enough without attempting to exploit angles that may not exist.
How very true, and it is a tactic that has been employed by more than one person at various stages in this debate. To quote something as a fact when it is merely a personal interpretation of a fact is not the hallmark of wisdom.
Whilst I have no reason to suppose the Racing Post has plucked this story from thin air, until such time as the jockeys and/or their representatives come out and declare their intention to take this action, nothing I have heard or read can be treated as fact.
Using such reports as if they are fact, to pursue a particular agenda is unseemly, inappropriate and intellectually weak. The situation is difficult enough without attempting to exploit angles that may not exist.
Below are the first two paras of my original post. If you or anyone else can tell me what I have misreported, or if you can show where my extrapolation of the consequences is wrong, or, to quote you, where I have ‘used such reports as if they are fact’ I will withdraw and apologise to all.
My italics are additional to re-emphasise my interpretation:
"The Racing Post reports today that among the plans discussed by jockeys to highlight their case against the new rules, is to stage a race where, when every jockey has used up his quota – assumed as 8 strokes, they will all pull up."
This is exactly what the Post reported (I added the assumed 8 strokes as a steeplechase was mentioned as the targeted race). The story is not yet in the Post’s online archive which would have allowed me to double-check if the word rumour had been used. I’m pretty confident it was not. What issues, if any, do critics on here have with this paragraph?
"At first I thought it was a joke.
If they are serious,
what it means is that they will set out to deliberately hit each horse in that race the maximum number of times – whether the horse’s behaviour or position in the race merits it or not. In other words, they will abuse animals . . . for publicity".
What issues, if any, do critics on here have with this paragraph?
Finally, here is an extract from today’s Northampton Chronicle online – it might well have been sourced from the Post’s report, but you will note, at least, that the word rumour is not used. Again I have added bold to drive home how the general media will present such stunts to their audience. (Pro-whip ‘educators of the public’ kindly note)
It is believed that jockeys are considering plans to vent their anger against the new rules at next Thursday’s meeting at Towcester.
Details have not been confirmed as to what form the protest will take, but the Chron understands a small-field steeplechase may be targeted, with all jockeys pulling up their horses after reaching the maximum of eight strikes of the whip, rendering the race void and
demonstrating what jockeys believe is the need for a relaxation in the rules to allow them to hit their mount more often during a race
.
Full article here: http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/ … entspage=0
Whilst I have no reason to suppose the Racing Post has plucked this story from thin air, until such time as the jockeys and/or their representatives come out and declare their intention to take this action, nothing I have heard or read can be treated as fact.
Using such reports as if they are fact, to pursue a particular agenda is unseemly, inappropriate and intellectually weak. The situation is difficult enough without attempting to exploit angles that may not exist.
How very true, and it is a tactic that has been employed by more than one person at various stages in this debate. To quote something as a fact when it is merely a personal interpretation of a fact is not the hallmark of wisdom.
I invite you to join Trickmeister in responding to my previous post and pointing out where I have quoted something as a fact which is not a fact.
As for your continued references to David Muir. I am neither his keeper nor your message boy. If you have written to him in the past, or to the RSPCA, and the tone of your letters was similar to many of your posts here, I’m not at all surprised you got no response.
Thank you for (finally) giving me a response to that question. For the record, I have not written to David Muir or the RSPCA.
I don’t pretend to your "impartiality" on this issue, and everyone knows my personal opinion. But of course if Mr Muir should prove willing to interact with me on the matter he’d be assured of professional courtesy and even-handedness.
As there are contradictory statements and questions being raised about his and the RSPCA’s role and agenda over the last months – some of them very readily apparent from your blog interview – I’m clearly not alone in thinking it’s time Mr Muir broke cover and clarified his organisation’s stance, that’s all.
Last not least, now that the rumour you’ve spread about what the jockeys were up to has been scotched by
Chris Cook
‘s rather more substantive statements on the
real
possibility of a strike next week (appropriately enough at Towcester) I hope you’ll have the grace to withdraw your blog remarks.
Although doubtless – as you put it – your
"job is done"
in making a bad situation just a little bit worse.
I can’t be bothered searching back through the threads but I seem to recall you claimed to have written to both the RSPCA and Mr Muir and had received no reply. Am I mis-remembering this?
Kindly point me to the link with C Cook’s ‘substantive statements’ which have ‘scotched my rumour’.
Also, please clarify which part of my original post you believe to be ‘rumour’. A story was published in the Post. I reported that as it appeared. I then commented on how I thought the outcome of such a scenario would be viewed. Check the definition of rumour and come back to me please.
My observation was one of the nature of some of the sources used in various threads during this rather protracted affair. I have previously posted the suggestion that allegedly might be added to the title thread, mind anyone having read you initial post could quite easily tell that you were merely pointing out a news item rather than quoting from a jockey. That some people have sought to dismiss it because it contradicts their own opinion is to their detriment not yours.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.