- This topic has 95 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I was absolutely
for
the rules as toughened up on horse welfare and incorrect whip usage, and still am. The penalties for misuse of any kind should be in the
discretionary hands of the Stewards
, not set in stone according to an arbitrary numbers game.
Today we had everyone counting up to five in race after race, instead of watching the things. Is that what you want?
I was at Salisbury today Pinza and found it a lot easier on the eye.
Jockeys said they don’t want it to be "discretionary". They wanted hard numbers. Discretionary did not work.
Of course there will always be borderline cases like Hughes today. The one slap down the shoulder effectively getting him in trouble. Got some sympathy for Hughes and wouldn’t be against seeing a successful appeal.
Value Is EverythingIf it is difficult for punters then it is equally as difficult for bookmakers odds compilers. It may well be some punters will get to know these rules before bookies fathom them out. So they’re not particularly bookmaker friendly.
I was watching today with your suggestion in mind, as to the likely impact from the pace point of view. It seemed to me that it
was
harder to come from behind than usual, given the
"last furlong quota"
. This may be anecdotal, but it could produce some Value until punters and bookies cotton on.
Nothing to do with new whip rules Pinza. There was a strong headwind going straight up the course today. Obviously making it difficult for prominent runners. Those held up and taking shelter from the wind having an advantage. If you’re looking for a value link, those doing well from a prominent position today did better than their actual finishing position suggests.
Value Is EverythingI don’t know why people keep brining up Ireland like it’s a better option.
How’s the financial situation over there? Healthy? Progressive? No, it’s on it’s [expletive]. No owner nor trainer is going to move their entire string over there. No chance at all.
It’s already happening,
Scamperdale
. Because, with all Ireland’s problems, Racing is more fun and less plagued by continual wrangling and moral crusades there than it is over here.
Evidence?
15 days not nearly enough for K Fox. What could he have said in mitigation? 37% over the limit, 12/1 to 15/2, horse keeps the race. What were his instructions?
Such a flagrant flouting of the new rules on day one simply says to the BHA, ‘make all the rules you want, when the money’s down we’re going to break them’.
If the BHA are to retain any credibility here, they should review the punishment (and the rules again if necessary) and stand K Fox down for the rest of the year. The trainer should also be heavily penalised.
I’m surprised to such emotional rhetoric from you of all posters,
Steeplechasing
! Several people (though a minority) have expressed themselves "satisfied" with the new rule, and are ready to give it a chance.
Yet the very first time the rule is employed
sees you crying "not nearly enough"!
What would be enough? Where would you like to draw the line?
"Flagrant flouting…"
What evidence do you have that this apprentice jockey, the trainer concerned, his trainer-mentor, or the owner consciously set out to break the rules this afternoon? You have none whatsoever.
And how, pray, would you propose to penalise the trainer? Remove his/her prize money too? Confiscate 15 days keep from the horse? Take away all prizemoney? Void all bets?
Instead of making arbitrary accusations, does it not make more sense instead to question the basis on which these unworkable rules – for there I agree with you – is formulated? Unless these rules are removed swiftly, in consultation with the jockeys, the BHA will find itself losing whatever small "control" of the sport it is trying so ineffectually to maintain.
Here’s an extract from my blog – about Dettori’s’ refusal to ride Diamond Vision in the below tariff race at Newbury – dated May 16th:
Maybe the BHA believe they will retain control as regulators. Think again if you do BHA. Given the evidence so far, The Horsemen’s Group will ignore your regulations when it suits them. An organisation whose signature business tactic features threats and boycotts is unlikely to be too troubled by minor matters like regulation.
As a member of the Professional Jockeys Association, Frankie Dettori is also, effectively, a member of The Horsemen’s Group. His mini ‘strike’ on Friday, is unlikely to lead to sanction beyond a paltry fine, if that.
On this form, do you think Dettori and his colleagues are likely to be strict observers of any new rules which might result from the current BHA whip review?
The BHA took decisive action on the whip. Many disagree with it and are entitled to do so. But do you believe anarchy will help the sport flourish?
You resort to your regular refuge ‘where is your evidence’? Of course I cannot prove Fox and associates set out to deliberately breach the rules, but the evidence – 4 smacks above the limit – shows that the rules were not to be considered if they hindered the horses chance of winning.
I think it highly unlikely that an apprentice made an executive decision during a race to take matters into his own hands. The horse was gambled on. It is far from unreasonable to suppose the trainer and owner were involved in that gamble and that the jockey was left in no doubt that he must break the rules if necessary.
For any sport to have integrity the regulators must be seen to be respected. If they are not then they should go because otherwise the sport will not survive.
There’s no doubt whatever in my mind that the Fox case should be reviewed very quickly and the jockey stood down for the rest of the year – the trainer should join him in that punishment.
Jockeys ignored the old rules when it suited them Zamorston, therefore there is every reason to change the old rules.
Under the old rules Fox wouldn’t have recieved a 15 day ban though and rightly or wrongly if he hadn’t breached the rules today that horse would not have won.
Lets say he didn’t break the rules and ended up finishing out of the places and went back to the owners and said sorry but I had to stick to the rules…..if I was that owner I would have felt hard done to.
On the other hand, if I was the owner of the horse that got beat by him today….I wouldn’t have been crying and saying it’s not fair that winning jockey hit his horse more times than he should have done and broke the rules and it cost my horse the race…..that’s just my own personal opinion.
Under the old rules William Buick rode a winner last week that he said if he had ridden the same race today he would have copped an 11 day ban….he then openly admitted that he wouldn’t now do that but instead settle for 2nd place…..If I was the owner of that horse and it ran again tomorrow and Buick rode and came back and said sorry I had to settle for 2nd as I don’t fancy a 3 week ban I would be far from happy…
If the old rules were the new rules and the new rules the old, then you’d get exactly the same problem, connections moaning about not being the winner.
Under the old rules William Buick would have won on a horse doing everything he could to win.
Under the new rules if he rode the same race he would get an 11 day ban so would not ride the same race but instead settle for 2nd place.
That’s not the same proble in my eyes.
Why would owners disappear?
Because owners (and trainers) are disappearing already through these tough times and with so many smaller yards struggling that ‘win at all costs mentality’ is a really important factor down the bottom end in my opinion. The costs to have a horse in training are astronomical even for the rubbing rags rated in the mid 40’s…you take that slim chance they may have had to experience that thrill of winning a race and they’ll be off….I’m certain of it!
- Total Posts 17716
For any sport to have integrity the regulators must be seen to be respected. If they are not then they should go because otherwise the sport will not survive.
There’s no doubt whatever in my mind that the Fox case should be reviewed very quickly and the jockey stood down for the rest of the year – the trainer should join him in that punishment.
That would be completely outside the rules. And presumably you’d like to stand down his trainer-mentor as well? And the owners? All this, mark you, for winning a horse race instead of losing it. The punishment would hardly fit the crime. That’s part of the trouble with these absurd, astronomical new penalties for what would be a sideshow issue if BHA hadn’t reacted to media pressure like headless chickens in the first place.
I agree with you about the regulators needing to be seen to be respected. But no law on this planet is workable without either (a) the consent and goodwill of interested parties, or (b) a very large police force. Regulators soon loose respect when they attempt to implement laws which are unworkable, even when they do have the police in place.
BHA have lost an enormous amount of respect over (1) their poor negotiation skills, (2) the contemptuous way in which they took the jockey representatives’s "either/or" as "and/and", (3) poor drafting, and (4) terrible timing of the rule’s introduction, five days before their shiny, new flagship meeting.
Respect, to use the cliché, has to be earned.
Respect for the BHA authority on this matter is not required to be earned by them but rather it will be a necessary and inevitable result of the increased stringency of the sanctions and the resulting economic penalty afforded to the disobedient jockey.
This is not an issue of personal relations between the BHA and jockeys but rather it is an attempt to rectify an issue within racing that has caused increasing consternation with the lay-public in the last few years. Where a horse finishes second under the new rules where he would have finished first in the past, the corollary is not that the owner has suffered as a result of the rules, but rather he must face the conclusion that his horse was not good enough on the day. Any grievance the owner may feel of the new rules will be tempered over time by arriving at such an acceptance.
Horses will go on winning and losing races under the new rules and the relative merits of those victories can more certainly be attributed to the abilities of the horse and not the jockey’s over zealous whip use.
The root of the objections can be found, I think, in the requirements of change that arise from the new rules. Jockeys are understandably less than delighted with the need to change well established riding patterns. New rules will always have teething problems because of the simple fact that humans resent change. Once we have grown accustomed in time, the net effect on racing will be a positive one. Jockeyship and raw ability will prevail more often than brute force.
How’s the financial situation over there? Healthy? Progressive? No, it’s on it’s [expletive]. No owner nor trainer is going to move their entire string over there. No chance at all.
…Not least with a smaller fixture list in which to find opportunities for all their animals, massive fields at certain peak periods in the two codes’ respective calendars that promise less frequent return on investment, and plentiful balloting out. It is not, as you rightly suggest, anything that could be deemed an ideal, readymade alternative.
gc
Adoptive father of two. The patron saint of lower-grade fare. A gently critical friend of point-to-pointing. Kindness is a political act.
Respect, to use the cliché, has to be earned.
That cliche is and will always be wrong.
Respect should be given, unless shown disrespect.
Value Is EverythingI believe one way the new rules should be changed is by disqualifying horses who’s jockey has a complete disregard for the whip rules.
For minor infringements the horse should keep the race.
For major infringements (like that of Kieren Fox today) the horse should be disqualified.Value Is EverythingHay Gingermaster. I said that first.Let the trainer,owner and jockey decide which is to blame.Send each of them the video and the count!Thanks for saying it.You too are full of insight.
Instead of having an appeal fund for the jockey who lost out because he broke the rules, how about having a fund for the jockey who came second, and may well have lost his winning percentage because he stuck to the rules.
Why not transfer the bennies to the second jockey instead of doing what they intend to do with the money?
I hope betting and attendances fall as this will sour alot of core fans and punters.
I don’t think you mean that because anyone who really loves the sport would hope that the new rules worked out, even if they don’t agree with them. It seems you want it all to fail just so you can say ‘I told you so’.
I don’t like the Tories and didn’t vote for them but, I would rather they did well for the country and proved me wrong for the benefit of everyone.
I don’t think you mean that because anyone who really loves the sport would hope that the new rules worked out, even if they don’t agree with them. It seems you want it all to fail just so you can say ‘I told you so’.
I don’t like the Tories and didn’t vote for them but, I would rather they did well for the country and proved me wrong for the benefit of everyone.
gc likes this.
gc
Adoptive father of two. The patron saint of lower-grade fare. A gently critical friend of point-to-pointing. Kindness is a political act.
- Total Posts 17716
I don’t think you mean that because anyone who really loves the sport would hope that the new rules worked out, even if they don’t agree with them. It seems you want it all to fail just so you can say ‘I told you so’.
I don’t like the Tories and didn’t vote for them but, I would rather they did well for the country and proved me wrong for the benefit of everyone.
gc likes this.
gc
The difference is that the Politicians have to ask for my opinion, and everyone else’s, before ruling by consensus.
I don’t like the new Whip Rules, and didn’t vote for or against them. I don’t remember even being asked by BHA what my opinion might be.
With this change of rule, there’s been no asking, just telling, and therefore there is no consensus. BHA have no mandate for change. It’s therefore another totally false analogy.
Personally, I would like it to be seen and admitted to have failed quickly, before too much more damage is done. Sad to say that BHA have invested so much credibility into the change, that face-saving fudge rather than a straight admission they got it wrong is likely to be the outcome.
He may well be looked after but let’s hope if he repeats the offence he’ll wish he hadn’t.
Lets hope every time he gets on a horse he beats it half to death to prove a point. This is the start of less and less horses been bred for racing as the numbers of horses in training is falling all the time. I bet the horses that are sent to the knackers yard would prefer to be hit a few times more once every three weeks than be sent there. Do you know the amount of increase there has been in these yards??? Or the drop there has been in the amount of horses been bred???
Its there job rugby players go out and take hit after hit for entertainment whats the difference?? Race horses are athletes bred for this sport and people like yourself and John McQuirrick should stop watching if you don’t enjoy it or go and help animals or people who really need help.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.