- This topic has 78 replies, 29 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Shads, I respect your view but I don’t think the defence, that he would be treated worse at home, is a defence that should be used.
I know very well that it is true, but is it a defence for "mistreating" a horse at the races?
What was wrong with the whole affair, is the public show of a loss of temper and I think that should be punished.
Jockeys are after all professionals and whilst they are in the public eye, at least, they should behave as such.
Probably too much as been said about this already and now that the "punishment" has been meted out, perhaps the best thing to do is to "let it lie".
Colin
Lydia is saying it more eleqantly than I can, on RUK now. It isn’t all about the physical damage to the horse.
SHL & SL – your arguments here are symptomatic of the arguments used by "racing people" to defend Fallon et al. This attitude of "people outside racing don’t understand so leave us alone".
Racing is in the spotlight in a big way at the moment and issues like this, which, as RD says, is seen to effectively condone cruelty to horses doesn’t show the sport in the best light. Just as cycling’s attitude to the drug cheats and football’s attitude to the divers etc are ultimately detrimental to the sport and turn people away. The sport needs supporters and you won’t get them where it is seen to be soft on issues like cruelty and/or cheating.
And I don’t know where to start regarding the argument of "sure the horse probably gets worse at home so what’s the big deal"
WD Alan Lee for calling it right.
However, the pathetic one day ban by the HRA is utterly deplorable. Jockeys and stable staff can now go to a meet, knowing that if they lose the head and strike an animal, they will only face an insulting one day ban.
It is clear that the affection many close to racing have of their animals is skin-deep and that this kind of behaviour should in future be examined by those outside the horseracing arena with animal welfare and public sensitivity in mind.
What a complete and utter joke one day is, an insult. No wonder there’s no respect or discipline anymore.
Quote: from davidbrady on 1:26 pm on Aug. 3, 2006[br]SHL & SL – your arguments here are symptomatic of the arguments used by "racing people" to defend Fallon et al. This attitude of "people outside racing don’t understand so leave us alone".
Racing is in the spotlight in a big way at the moment and issues like this, which, as RD says, is seen to effectively condone cruelty to horses doesn’t show the sport in the best light. Just as cycling’s attitude to the drug cheats and football’s attitude to the divers etc are ultimately detrimental to the sport and turn people away. The sport needs supporters and you won’t get them where it is seen to be soft on issues like cruelty and/or cheating.
And I don’t know where to start regarding the argument of "sure the horse probably gets worse at home so what’s the big deal"<br>
THIS ISSUE IS AS RELATED TO THE KIERAN FALLON, CYCLING DOPING OFFENCES AS s**t
TING IS TO PAINTING . THESE PEOPLE MAY BE GUILTY OF SERIOUS CRIMES. O NEILL HAD NO CASE TO ANSWER ON CRUELTY TO ANIMALS….THATS A FACT IS IT NOT?? DID YOU DAVID SEE THIS MAN ASSAULT AN ANIMAL???IN THIS CASE, HE WOULD BE PUNISHED TO APPEASE PEOPLE WHO DONT KNOW BETTER AND I ACTUALLY DO UNDERSTAND THAT IT MIGHT BE BETTER FOR THE SPORT IN TERMS OF ATTRACTING JOE PUBLIC IF WE DO. BUT LETS NOT PRETEND THAT THERE IS ANY MORE TO IT THEN THAT AND LETS ASK OURSELVES IF THAT IS MORALLY THE CORRECT THING TO DO.
JOCKEY CLUB WERE IN A TOUGH POSITION REALLY. THEY SAW AN INCIDENT IN WHICH THE JOCKEY HADNT COMMITED A SERIOUS OFFENCE AND HADNT MISTREATED A HORSE YET AN OFFENCE THAT MADE WORLD NEWS. AS A HORSE OWNER I WOULD HAVE BEEN FAR FAR MORE UPSET AT SEEING A HORSE GIVEN A HARD RACE WHEN HIS CHANCE WAS GONE BUT THAT KIND OF MISTREATMENT DOESNT MAKE THE NEWS BECAUSE ALOT OF JOE PUBLIC DOESNT SEE OR UNDERSTAND THAT. GIVING A LARGER PUNISHEMENT DAVID BASED ON PUBLIC OUTRAGE IS ….AS I WOULD IMAGINE EVERYONE AGREES…NOT JUSTICE.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT RACING PEOPLE COVERING UP OR BONDING TOGETHER TO DEFEND AN ILLEGAL PRACTICE, THIS IS ABOUT PEOPLE WHO DEAL WITH HORSES EVERYDAY AND WHO OBVIOUSLY HAVE GREAT RESPECT AND AFFECTION FOR THE ANIMAL SEE SOMETHING THAT IS THE SMALLEST OF MOLEHILLS TURNED INTO THE BIGGEST OF MOUNTAINS. PEOPLE WHO HAVE HAD TO WATCH THE PUBLIC FLOGGING OF A JOCKEY JUST TO APPEASE IGNORANCE. AS IVE SAID ALREADY, WE MAY HAVE TO DO THAT FOR THE GOOD OF THE SPORT….OR PERHAPS WE MIGHT TRY AND EDUCATE MORE…BUT LETS NOT TRY AND FOOL OURSELVES IN WHATS HAPPENING.
SHL
"If the horse had been injured then that is very different as it is abuse and we would throw the book at a jockey," said Malcolm Wallace, head of regulation at the HRA.
"It is very important to remember this horse was not injured … so the penalty of one day is consistent with a jockey who was also given one day for throwing his whip at a horse."
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/SPORT/08/03 … index.html
Really logical afterall, ain’t it :biggrin:
Quote: from zilzal on 5:55 pm on Aug. 3, 2006[br]" … so the penalty of one day is consistent with a jockey who was also given one day for throwing his whip at a horse."
<br>Really logical afterall, ain’t it  :biggrin:
Not really. Murphy got seven days, not one.
Quote: from Racing Daily on 6:27 pm on Aug. 3, 2006[br]
Quote: from zilzal on 5:55 pm on Aug. 3, 2006[br]" … so the penalty of one day is consistent with a jockey who was also given one day for throwing his whip at a horse."
<br>Really logical afterall, ain’t it  :biggrin:
Not really.  Murphy got seven days, not one.
<br>Didn’t Murphy get 10 days from the Plumpton stewards, reduced to 1 on appeal?
The HRA were in a very difficult position as SHL points out, but I’m of the opinion that the incident didn’t warrant any more one day. The horse wasn’t hurt by it, and O’Neill has apologised. To be honest I don’t blame him for losing his temper and it’s equivocal to giving the horse a corrective slap on the backside…in fact it probably hurt him less than that.
However I can see the other point of view in that after the Zidane incident a few weeks ago, the tabloids and the media jumped on the O’Neill case and it looked particularly bad, sending completely the wrong message out to the wider public.
Still, the HRA played by the rule book IMO and only gave him a minimum ban – it wouldn’t be a wise move to cave into media and public pressure everytime an incident gets blown out of all proportion.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.