- This topic has 49 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
You’re initial question "Nicky Mackay Ban – Justified?"
Isn’t really what you are asking is it?
The only answer can be "Yes" because under the present rules which he broke it is justified.
What I’d like to know is why are they taking so long to change them? Everyone knows it’s going to happen so what’s the delay?
Zoso….
I think the main point many are trying to make here are that the current rules clearly are not working. They are total nonsense….decided upon by people without a clue what it’s like to try and abide by them while riding in a race, and brought in to appease people who are clueless and really don’t have that much interest in the sport. To just sit back like you and Cormack and others in favour and say well the rules are the rules and you have to stick by them is wrong IMHO.
Why you chose to put the part about 6 year olds I can’t work out? How many 6 year olds have counted to seven or eight while travelling at 30mph plus on a half tonne racehorse in a horse race, as in this case drifting violently across a track and with their own and other peoples safety in question? When things are happening so quickly at speed and there’s so many other and more important things to worry about I could see how someone could not be up on their count…
Answer me this Zoso….if you think jockeys should just stop the moaning and stick to the rules….
How can the rule be sensible when it would be within the rules for the strongest jockey in the game to hit their horse as hard as they could seven times in a 5 furlong sprint, but for a very weak jockey to hit a horse nowhere near as hard say 13 times in a 3 mile chase and recieve a hefty ban and lose their fees?
I have at no point mentioned my personal opinion about whether I think the rules are sensible or not? I have no problem with the jockeys campaigning to get the rules changed if this is what they want to do. But the fact remains that currently the rules are in place, as a jockey you know the rules whether you like them or not and you should stick to them to make it a level playing field, no good complaining after the race just because you have broken the rules that you knew were in place. Go ahead and attempt to get the rules changed back by all means but until they are changed then stick to them and dont cheat the punters and the other connections in the race.
You say that the rules cannot be fair because a strong jockey hitting a horse 7 times is going to be more effective than a weak jockey hitting a horse 7 times (I think this is the point you are making)… So explain to me how going back to the old rules which I think were 14 hits in a flat race is going to be of any help to the weak jockey. The stronger jockey will still be more effective under the old rules and the new rules?
Oh and to all the people who make the child like claim that unless you are a jockey then you cant have an opinion read this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/horse-racing/15067764
"Leading jockeys and trainers have welcomed the changes.
Fourteen-time classic winner Frankie Dettori said: "I accept these new rules are in the best interest of our great sport."
Tony McCoy, champion jumps jockey for the last 16 years and reigning BBC Sports Personality of the Year , said: "The PJA [Professional Jockeys Association] has worked closely with the Authority on the BHA’s Review and I hope my colleagues embrace the proposed changes as being in the best interest of the sport."
Paul Nicholls, champion jumps trainer for the last six years, said: "While I’ve been a critic of the rules in the past, nobody likes seeing misuse of the whip and I agree the time had come when something had to be done."
Frankie Dettori probably the biggest name jockey in horse racing, AP McCoy who some consider the greatest jumps jockey of all time and Paul Nicholls the greatest NH trainer of all time all supported the new rules.
Seeing as how you say only a jockeys opinion counts then that says it all. Oh but silly me of course you guys will only be quoting the big named jockeys who publicly critiscise the rules such as Richard Hughes and Ruby Walsh and will choose to ignore the trainers and jockeys who actually support the rules.
Taxi……………………………………………
“In hindsight we would like to have given more thought and consideration to the new rules before commenting. We didn’t give them properly informed approval and we really do wish the BHA would stop saying that we did.”
A.P. McCoy/L Dettori (Sept 2011).
Great another expert who has ridden over 10000 winners…
That’s an absolutely puerile comment. People are allowed different opinions to yours without attracting such remarks.
But, as it happens, I do agree with you. I thought it was an outstanding and very cool piece of race-riding in a potentially dangerous situation.
The three early smacks (light taps in all honesty) were a totally justified attempt to straighten the horse. There then followed the permitted seven strikes. The ban is patently farcical.
Mike
If it was worded as an opinion, i would have taken it as an opinion, if you state that "HE HAS DONE THIS" "HE HAS DONE THAT".. Be 100% sure before you give the facts, hents my blunt remark, you cant tell what he was thinking for the reasons he made his actions, so dont pretend you do… JMO
Im all for the fact that jockeys will have to become "Jockeys" Maybe the stirrups will get abit lower to the lengths of Moores etc (ex jump jockey) and they will realise its going to take a bit more strength to get a hard ride home, But IN MY OPINION, this situation was rediculous, you can understand if he was in a fighting finish head to head in the right position on the track if a horse veers the jockey gives him a few hard slaps, but this horse went from one rail to the other! it needs correcting sooner rather than later… And to those saying the result should have been reversed, Darren egan who came 2nd also recieved a ban… so give the race to 3rd place beaten out of sight? nicky has come from one rail to the other and still won, if he had had a true line it would have been comfortable… IMO
. I thought it was an outstanding and very cool piece of race-riding in a potentially dangerous situation.
The three early smacks (light taps in all honesty) were a totally justified attempt to straighten the horse. There then followed the permitted seven strikes. The ban is patently farcical.
Indeed, a commendable ride and a object lesson in the horsemanship required to control a wayward mount. How anyone could regard it as ‘abusive’ I really don’t know
Mackay – quite properly – firstly tried to correct the horse with rein, leg and physical strength which worked to an extent, and secondly – again quite properly – used the whip as a corrective adjunct in the manner I’m sure any recreational riding school would teach its pupils. This was the whip used as the corrective tool it is intended to be: when attempts at restrainment through physical strength prove insufficient
That any of the corrective strokes on the turn during the race counted towards the final tally is patently ludicrous
Furthermore, in my opinion Mackay deserves credit too for both keeping the horse balanced and in its stride when wandering in the home straight; and then managing to galvanise it into nudging first place with some authoritative yet judicious and cleanly applied cracks
Of the many aspects of racing I enjoy – particularly on the Flat – watching how jockeys do deal with recalcitrant/difficult/wayward horses is amongst the most interesting. If it was all point-and-shoot and run-in-lanes, racing would be rather more boring.
Thanks Nicky, I enjoyed that. Give yourself a pat on the back
Cormack, may I suggest that if you found that ride unacceptable you give up on horse racing entirely and concentrate on solving academic probability puzzles
Or maybe you are playnig devil’s advocate in order to drum up debate. I certainly hopse so, and if so, it certainly worked
‘Cormack, may I suggest that if you found that ride unacceptable you give up on horse racing entirely and concentrate on solving academic probability puzzles’
One poor (if that is what it is) decision does not mean the rules are not working. Although I do believe they stil need some reworking. The old rules weren’t "working" either.
‘One Poor decision’? Geezus Andrew Thorntons ride on
Tatenen
was as poor a decision as is virtually every ban these numptys have dished out! Being someone who leads by example…I wouldn’t dream of asking anyone to do something i wouldn’t do myself,these Stewards are telling Jockeys how to ride,nobody needs to tell any of them,they are Professional Horseman who work in an environment where they have to have their wits about them,they need to make split second decisions in order to survive sometimes,they are Soldiers of the turf! Try telling a Serviceman not to shoot to kill if his life is threatened,he’d tell you to off and thats exactly what the Jockeys feel like telling the Fat Cats who rule over them!
My Point Gord, is there were just as many debatable decisions under the old rules. People on here were suggesting this "one"-"wrong" decision proves the rules are wrong. It doesn’t. Which is why I used the exprsession "one poor decision".
Your suggestion of giving jockeys freedom to do anything they like – "nobody needs to tell any of them", well I think Jamie Spencer’s rides on Cape Blanco in USA prove that not to be the case. If that sort of thing was allowed here I’d chuck racing altogether.
There are ex-jockeys in jobs as stewards secretarys.
There are non-racing drivers writing the rules of motor racing and non-footballers in the FA.
Equating jockeys to servicemen putting their lives on the line does you no justice at all Fisher.
Value Is EverythingYour suggestion of giving jockeys freedom to do anything they like – "nobody needs to tell any of them", well I think Jamie Spencer’s rides on Cape Blanco in USA prove that not to be the case. If that sort of thing was allowed here I’d chuck racing altogether.
You keep referring to Spencers ride on Cape Blanco GT but the ride was quite mild compared to many you would see in America, there are quite some sickening sites out there, horses badly beaten even when well beaten in the race, some hit on the head, they can hit them anywhere and how they want in America. They don’t spare the whip even in freezing cold weather when it must really hurt and they don’t hit them with a feather duster either.
What you and many others fail to take enough account of is the different type of whip used here compared to elsewhere.
Your suggestion of giving jockeys freedom to do anything they like – "nobody needs to tell any of them", well I think Jamie Spencer’s rides on Cape Blanco in USA prove that not to be the case. If that sort of thing was allowed here I’d chuck racing altogether.
You keep referring to Spencers ride on Cape Blanco GT but the ride was quite mild compared to many you would see in America, there are quite some sickening sites out there, horses badly beaten even when well beaten in the race, some hit on the head, they can hit them anywhere and how they want in America. They don’t spare the whip even in freezing cold weather when it must really hurt and they don’t hit them with a feather duster either.
Exactly EC, when jockeys are allowed to do practically anything they like (like King Fisher wants) you get dreadful things happening. For sure there has been much worse rides than Cape Blanco in the USA, I only use the example because Jamie rides over here. ie Comparisson is a more equal one and shows what
our
jockeys
would
do if there were
no/few
whip rules (rather than giving an example of even worse US jockeys who don’t ride in Britain).
Value Is EverythingWhat you and many others fail to take enough account of is the different type of whip used here compared to elsewhere.
I am not anti-whip Eddie. If there were a choice between FOR and AGAINST the cushioned whip, I’d be in the
FOR
camp. I am just concerned that if we don’t lessen the use it might eventually lead to losing it altogether. Old rules put a lot of people off racing.
Think most of us believe the USA rules border on barbaric. The old British rules were NOT anything like as bad. Cushion whips rarely cause physical harm even with the old rules. But it just didn’t look good when jockeys didn’t take a blind bit of notice of them to win big races. With a reduction in whip strokes racing looks far better to me and hasn’t made a big difference in who wins. Some temperamental horses might find it harder, but that is not a bad thing.
Use of the cushioned whip is more an esthetic thing for me than anything else. However, reduction in strokes does mean a reduction in the chance of physical harm (with existing rules on force applied).
Value Is EverythingEquating jockeys to servicemen putting their lives on the line does you no justice at all Fisher.
In your opinion it doesn’t Ginge and thats because like others who support these new ridiculous rules you put the horse first! Dont ever confuse the fact that for as much as we love our horses we as humans come first,I compare our jockeys to Soldiers like i compare anyone who has to work under the threat of severe injury hanging over them on a daily basis,I’ll put Racing drivers in the same category aswell as downhill skiers amongst others.You might prick your finger on a carpet gripper when working,that has about the same effect as the whip across a horses backside,the difference there is a horse will keep going for several strikes whereas you’ll go home whingeing!Thats just the way you are!
But it just didn’t look good when jockeys didn’t take a blind bit of notice of them to win big races.
Do you not remember back in the day as an advertising campaign to come racing C4 used to show a clip of some big race finishes all of which had whips flailing and the sound to this piece was the crack of the whip exaggerated to enhance the thrill of the finish?
Where were all theses ‘turncoats’ then? Nobody ever raised the question about this ‘fashionable’ issue then.Its been blown so far out of proportion now that its becoming ridiculous,I haven’t seen one horse hurt through the so called abuse of the whip that every jockey has been banned for! Its a joke thats just not funny anymore!Corm’s plot to get another brawl going , certainly worked …
The usual suspects slogging away , its becoming boring now
perhaps train spotting would appeal Corm , as it seems racing is just out of your grasp
Ricky
But it just didn’t look good when jockeys didn’t take a blind bit of notice of them to win big races.
I haven’t seen one horse hurt through the so called abuse of the whip that every jockey has been banned for!
So you’ve conceded Fisher, the New Rules
have worked!
What you and many others against these rules don’t seem to realise is:
These rules are NOT there to ban jockeys for ABUSIVE rides.
These rules ARE there to HELP PREVENT abuse of horses.
Going 36 mph (35mph being the unofficial limit, 30 + 10% (3) +2 = 35) in a 30mph speed limit is not always dangerous, but you’ll still be prosecuted. The rule is there to help prevent serious injury or death.
These New Rules ARE there to help prevent jockeys from
getting to the stage
of Abusing horses.
If there’s been "NO ABUSE" then the rules ARE WORKING.
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.