- This topic has 95 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
I 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.Gingertipster, you keep making one outrageous statement after another. You’ve previously repeatedly said that whip rules are regularly flouted more or less solely in valuable races and should result in disqualification in those but produce no facts and figures to back this up. It is an incorrect statement as there were plenty of bans in low value races but now you want disqualification for low value races despite the jockey receiving a ridiculous 15 day ban, the punishment does not fit the "crime".
But as you keep moving the goalposts to fit you’re argument even after only 1 day of the new rules why don’t you go the whole hog and have disqualification for every horse whose jockey breaks the rules?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.
Hear Hear, To Pinza’s contribution that is. I have no qualms at all about wishing failure to new whip rules for all the reasons Pinza points out, there is no logic to them.
"I told you so" doesn’t come into it as that could just as easily be said by supporting them.The BHA have let many people in the sport down on this and I would like to see either resignations or heads rolling for the farce.
The difference is that the Politicians have to ask for my opinion, and everyone else’s, before ruling by consensus.
But a government never rules by
absolute
consensus, does it? Even if, say, the pre-sellout-to-Cameron incarnation of the LibDems had got into office 16 months ago, I’d have been naturally delighted, but at the same time not minded to think it constituted an unequivocal endorsement from the masses (much less presume every last policy introduced by them thereafter would chime with the entire populace’s political and ethical sensibilities).
Or am I misunderstanding something?
gc
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
Gingertipster
You are talking out the wrong end again. Maybe you should go and learn a few things about racing and there welfare or even better go save the whales or Dolphins
- Total Posts 17716
Or am I misunderstanding something?
No, merely leaving important factors out of the analogy. The consensus of government comes about because there is a large majority of people who are prepared to accept that once "the people have spoken" then we should trust the politicians to arrange their alliances and law making amongst themselves until the next election comes along.
Where that consensus breaks down (as with the Poll Tax debate in the 1980’s) then a Government does well to listen, or it will shortly be out on its ear.
Consensus, as you’ve rightly said, is not about getting everyone to agree. It is about getting everyone to live with what’s done, after their opinion has been sought and obtained.
When that opinion has neither been sought or obtained, consensus does not and can not exist.
Actually Matt Chapman’s
bon mot
this morning has a considerable grain of truth. These rule changes have been made – quite overtly – in the name of those people completely
uninvolved
with Horse Racing, so you can hardly expect quiet acceptance from insiders who find themselves negatively affected by what is going on.
Your argument is that consensus of opinion has not been garnered before making this decision, I am much more inclined to think that apathy (which is prevalent in general elections as much as in lesser issues) meant that the BHA thought it had a mandate to make these changes. If you knew a review was taking place, and didnt trouble yourself to make your opinions known then how can you be outraged that your opinion was not considered?
- Total Posts 17716
If you knew a review was taking place, and didnt trouble yourself to make your opinions known then how can you be outraged that your opinion was not considered?
That’s a sensible question, and it’s interesting to read
Kevin Darley
‘s account of how he feels the Jockeys Association for example was actively misled by BHA.
As for the rest of us, what Forum was offered to
regular racegoers
, or
punters
, or
bookmakers
come to that, to make our opinions known during the consultation period? And if there was such a Forum, how was the fact advertised?
The Report is clear, though: the changes were to appease
uninterested outsiders
, and were not a response to pressures from within the Sport. What anyone inside thought was irrelevant.
Yort – your comments about half beating a horse to death are thoroughly reprehensible and, in my opinion, have no place in an educated debate on this forum.
You should also review the way in which you responded to gingertipster as it is little more than abuse. Whether you agree with him or not, he is one of the most interesting posters on this forum.
If you cannot behave appropriately perhaps you would feel more at home on one of the other forums.
As for the rest of us, what Forum was offered to
regular racegoers
, or
punters
, or
bookmakers
come to that, to make our opinions known during the consultation period?
Arguably haven’t we been posting on it?
TRF does, after all, ordinarily appear to have the eyes and ears of the likes of Paul Struthers often enough to prompt swift
ad hoc
responses to posts on court cases, racing integrity matters, etc., especially where those posts may contain factual inaccuracies.
It is to be hoped that the body of whip-related posts on these pages this year (not least those since Aintree) will at least have been ingested and considered, for all that the pressing on with the new laws yesterday may indicate otherwise to some. Perhaps a BHA person can post to confirm.
gc
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
- Total Posts 17716
It is to be hoped that the body of whip-related posts on these pages this year (not least those since Aintree) will at least have been ingested and considered, for all that the pressing on with the new laws yesterday may indicate otherwise to some. Perhaps a BHA person can post to confirm.
A pious hope. As I’ve noted several times,
Silvoir
has been notable by his absence from these debates, despite getting on for around a thousand posts on the topic this year (as a rough guess). There were 200 or so yesterday, for sure, and most of them were fiercely angry about the new rules (as with the Racing Post online comments I think about 75%- 25% is the ballpark figure).
If you dismiss the opinion of "uninterested outsiders" when your product is a spectator sport, you are insular. If you are conceited enough to think that public opinion is irrelevant, then if that irrelevancy can force a higher authority to institute changes who is the bigger fool?
The BHA had to make changes, whatever changes they made would have met with resistance. The timing of these new rules is clearly designed to make "Champions Day" a better public spectacle. No jockey will be suspended from riding on Saturday because of these new rules. Also the period when the suspensions will start is during the winding down of the flat season, affording most jockeys time to adapt to the new regulations in a quiet period.
The NH season is now gathering pace so I think the timing is worse for those jockeys and I also think that the NH rules have been led by the flat rules rather than considering the greater complexities of getting a horse to negotiate obstacles. The BHA still seems to regard NH racing as the poor relation, an attitude no doubt inherited from the Jockey Club.
Apropos of not much, Pinza, which of the several definitions of "pious" did you mean?
gc
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
- Total Posts 17716
Apropos of not much, Pinza, which of the several definitions of "pious" did you mean?
"Pious hope"
is an idiomatic phrase which takes its own definition, quite distinct from the definition of the two words taken separately. It means, of course, a well-meaning faith unsupported by facts.
In this case, I was partially complimenting you on your respectful optimism towards the BHA’s listening ear – an optimism which I of course feel to be misplaced!
"Faith" and "optimism" wouldn’t have been the sentiments I was necessarily wishing to convey – the concern was primarily whether these pages would have been viewed by the BHA as part of their pre-implementation groundwork, if at all. The natural supplementary question thereto would be if not, why not.
gc
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
- Total Posts 17716
Re.
Steeplechasing
‘s desire for a full-scale enquiry into the Fox ride, and his call to ban the jockey (and trainer) for a long period, this link to the owner’s public statement to
Sporting Life
should surely soften any indignation:
Steve Nunn admitted his jockey cheated, should we not regard that cheating with as much disgust as we would a "non-trier"?
- Total Posts 17716
Steve Nunn admitted his jockey cheated, should we not regard that cheating with as much disgust as we would a "non-trier"?
Nunn "admitted" nothing of the kind:
"I’m completely happy with how it was handled. I feel for Kieren. Kieren is not an aggressive rider. He would accept he would get banned, but this is too harsh."
Nunn is talking about Fox being man enough to accept his punishment after the event, and his own lack of argument with the process. There is no suggestion whatsoever of "cheating" (i.e. a premeditated contravention of the rules in order to gain unfair advantage) but rather that Fox rode the horse, with its particular needs, in the best possible manner to obtain the best possible placing. To talk about "cheating" gets us nowhere,
EC
.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.