- This topic has 29 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
Depends on where you are speaking from. I speak from the heart and no way on earth was Ruby abusive.
What’s this about? is it about preventing abuse or what.
They can’t continue to keep banning jockeys who have not been abusive It is wrong wrong wrong.
Anyone who supports this BHA, drawing a stupid line that crucifies innocent people, needs their head looked at.
You were in no way abusive Walsh but you did break the new whip rule> We have no real reason to ban but enjoy your holiday anyway.
Every time I read ‘Ruby Walsh Appeal’ my first thought is that he’s hit hard times and they’re having a whip round for him [no pun intended].
- Total Posts 17716
Hilarious Eddie, it’s a statement of fact, a concept you seem to continually struggle with.
It was a statement of fact, but it was factually incorrect.
Today’s appeal – as people can establish for themselves by
reading
the report – centred not on Walsh’s failure to obey clear rules he knew, but on the
interpretation
of those rules.
Specifically – as anyone who’d scanned this thread for a minute or so would know – his defence was that the stroke he gave his horse (to correct it by changing its legs before the final fence) was given for safety reasons. The BHA panel decided that "correction" (a term in any case outlawed by the Whip Review) did not equate to "safety", and dismissed his appeal.
Unusually, though, his deposit was returned, which suggests the BHA took a more balanced view of its merits than the likes of
Skelly
and
Stilvi
.
It is certainly possible to see a shoulder slap used for safety reasons, to help stop a horse wandering etc. However, it is practically impossible to diferentiate between a shoulder slap for "corrective purposes" and a normal shoulder slap for "encouragement". Therefore, if they were not counted towards the eight, then we’d just get backward whip strokes replaced with any amount of shoulder slaps. Which would make the new rules useless.
Walsh should have either kept his hand on the reins while slapping the horse down the shoulder, or counted it as one of his eight (cutting out the last stroke).
(I said this earlier, but would it work? Or would it be too confusing for jockeys?)
. To help with rule breaks that seem too harsh, a possible compromise might be to allow one shoulder slap over the official eight limit.Value Is EverythingAfter listening to Ruby’s interview with Lydia Hislop, it is quite apparent that the panel accepted that it was a corrective stroke but deemed that it was not a safety measure. The over-riding sense of mood from Ruby was that he is now a funambulist with a 10 day suspension hanging over his head for his next offence. Whilst I am in favour of much stiffer penalties to stop jockeys blatantly disregarding the rules, I think there needs to be some fine tuning to the scale of totting up. Given a 99% + compliance rate under the old rules, it would seem only fair that after riding 99 races without breaking the rules, the jockey should have wiped the slate clean.
Hilarious Eddie, it’s a statement of fact, a concept you seem to continually struggle with.
It was a statement of fact, but it was factually incorrect.
Today’s appeal – as people can establish for themselves by
reading
the report – centred not on Walsh’s failure to obey clear rules he knew, but on the
interpretation
of those rules.
Specifically – as anyone who’d scanned this thread for a minute or so would know – his defence was that the stroke he gave his horse (to correct it by changing its legs before the final fence) was given for safety reasons. The BHA panel decided that "correction" (a term in any case outlawed by the Whip Review) did not equate to "safety", and dismissed his appeal.
Unusually, though, his deposit was returned, which suggests the BHA took a more balanced view of its merits than the likes of
Skelly
and
Stilvi
.
What we seem to forget is the old rules were changed because of jockeys continuously breaking the whip rules. I feel sorry for ruby as he does always seem to take care of his horses he rides . But other jockeys don’t and now his taking the brunt of the new rules
I think there needs to be some fine tuning to the scale of totting up. Given a 99% + compliance rate under the old rules, it would seem only fair that after riding 99 races without breaking the rules, the jockey should have wiped the slate clean.
Brilliant idea EF!
You might have meant it this way anyway EF but…
Instead of "wiping the (whole) slate clean"
May be, If a jockey has not re-offended after 100 days, a slate should effectively go back one.So if a jockey has a 5 day ban and then goes 100 days without a ban, his/her next ban should also be treated as a first offence. However, if it was a hefty first ban for going well over the 7/8, it should only be partly lifted.
If a jockey already had two bans and then goes 100 days without offending again, only part of the record should be wiped. If going another 100 days more of the record should be lifted.
That way a serial offender can’t have a long record wiped clean straight away; with worst offenders hurt the most.
Value Is Everything- Total Posts 17716
What we seem to forget is the old rules were changed because of jockeys continuously breaking the whip rules.
I appreciate you are a newcomer to this Forum, but I assure you "we" seem to forget nothing of the kind. You should read 1000 or so of the countless posts on this issue.
Let me reiterate the fact, contradicting your "
continuously
", that under the "
old rules
" (by which I assume you mean those implemented by the RSPCA’s
diktat
a whole two years ago in 2009) there was a
99.25% compliance
rate. That is, from every 400 rides, three broke those "
old rules
". Of course under the "
new rules
" that rather impressive level of compliance may well have declined.
Just as a little (quite possibly unrepresentative) exercise, let’s look at today as a quick sample….
From 284 runners, there were three whip bans today –
Joe Fanning
and
Dan Tudhope
for
"frequency"
(5 days each) and
Michael Stainton
, who got 5 days for another of these strange "
out of contention
" whipping offences. Let’s see … I make that
98.94% compliance
, a
fall
in compliance levels. That is, from 284 rides, three broke the "
new rules
".
If
– note I say
if
– this level of whip bans is representative, or anything near it, then there will be some red faces at BHA and some puce ones at RSPCA. All this mayhem and the huge expense of Surveys, Reviews, Reports, Seminars, Press Briefings, Crisis Meetings, Tweakings … all for a
fall
in compliance levels. Doesn’t bear thinking about, does it?
The only "
culture change
" which such figures are likely to encourage is one at the top of Holborn Towers.
Whilst I am in favour of much stiffer penalties to stop jockeys blatantly disregarding the rules, I think there needs to be some fine tuning to the scale of totting up. Given a 99% + compliance rate under the old rules, it would seem only fair that after riding 99 races without breaking the rules, the jockey should have wiped the slate clean.
The 99 rides idea is way too logical EF !
While I am not against the idea of stiffer penalties for repeat offenders ( animal aid table b people) Ruby did not blatantly disregard the rules and I do think those for marginal breaches are way too high.
What we seem to forget is the old rules were changed because of jockeys continuously breaking the whip rules.
I appreciate you are a newcomer to this Forum, but I assure you "we" seem to forget nothing of the kind. You should read 1000 or so of the countless posts on this issue.
Let me reiterate the fact, contradicting your "
continuously
", that under the "
old rules
" (by which I assume you mean those implemented by the RSPCA’s
diktat
a whole two years ago in 2009) there was a
99.25% compliance
rate. That is, from every 400 rides, three broke those "
old rules
". Of course under the "
new rules
" that rather impressive level of compliance may well have declined.
Just as a little (quite possibly unrepresentative) exercise, let’s look at today as a quick sample….
From 284 runners, there were three whip bans today –
Joe Fanning
and
Dan Tudhope
for
"frequency"
(5 days each) and
Michael Stainton
, who got 5 days for another of these strange "
out of contention
" whipping offences. Let’s see … I make that
98.94% compliance
, a
fall
in compliance levels. That is, from 284 rides, three broke the "
new rules
".
If
– note I say
if
– this level of whip bans is representative, or anything near it, then there will be some red faces at BHA and some puce ones at RSPCA. All this mayhem and the huge expense of Surveys, Reviews, Reports, Seminars, Press Briefings, Crisis Meetings, Tweakings … all for a
fall
in compliance levels. Doesn’t bear thinking about, does it?I maybe new to this forum but not new to racing ive been to many courses and seen horses get whipped more than 16 times (the old rules)just to get them over the winning line.
The only "
culture change
" which such figures are likely to encourage is one at the top of Holborn Towers.
Just go and watch the race again, and if you haven’t already watch it, was a peach of a ride.
One slap down the shoulder = 5 days off.
Would love some legislator to explain their thinking and logic.
Strike will eventually happen.
That’s easy, Corrective but not for safety reasons would appear to mean:-
A slap down the shoulder to prevent running into other horses could be considered to be in the interest of safety.
But hitting a horse a slap down the shoulder to stop him hitting the running rail, you being sent into orbit and your horse being seriously injured or worse doesn’t count.
They of course would argue that Ruby hit him down the shoulder to get him to run straight because the shortest distance between A and B is a straight line and there was never any danger of him running into the rail.
Hard to argue with the latter tbh but I still think these whip counting rules will be very damaging to racing.
. To help with rule breaks that seem too harsh, a possible compromise might be to allow one shoulder slap over the official eight limit.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.