- This topic has 172 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
What on earth Pinza, in any twisted logic, can be strange about a ban which punishes a jockey for whipping a horse when out of contention?
What on earth Pinza, in any twisted logic, can be strange about a ban which punishes a jockey for whipping a horse when out of contention?
When it’s not out of contention, I suggest you watch the 5.00 at Wolves yesterday and Jim Crowley’s ride on Titan Triumph for which he received a scandalous 5 day ban.
- Total Posts 17716
Putting rules aside allows me to answer from a personal ‘non-campaigning’ viewpoint.
I don’t think GG’s ride merited a ban of any kind. I thought it was a very good ride – he had to switch his whip four times to galvanise the horse and get it running straight. I thought he kept a cool head and hit the horse no more often than he had to to try and win. And I doubt he’d have won had he not hit the horse that final time. if I owned horses, I’d happily book him to ride.
That reply deserves a hearty "
hallelujah
!"
Your personal feeling about that ride is that Gibbons’s jockeyship showed expertise, did not deserve a ban and most probably turned a loser into a winner for his owners. In this case your opinion is that the "one stroke extra" was not excessive and did not merit a ban.
First Question:
So would you agree that a degree of flexibility (Stewards’ discretion) needs to be reintroduced, in order to restore equity to the Whip Rule and make sure that good riding is not penalised? Or should this ban be overturned on appeal?
Second Question:
Why do you feel you usually have to answer from a "campaigning" viewpoint? Surely only BHA officials need to follow the party line on the Whip Rule? Yet this campaigning line is clearly at odds with your personal take on those rules, here. And if here, presumably in other "grey cases" also?
If you were working for the Authority, or concerned for other reasons to be politic rather than true to your feelings, I could understand this paradox. As it is you have me baffled… why have been arguing against discretionary Stewarding so vehemently?
(Golly … and this surprise, on top of the best Hand of Pork – organic, Chiltern Farms Gloucester Old Spot pot roast with herbs, cloves and juniper berries – that I’ve had for years!)
Steeple ….good argument , and it has possibilities , definitely
But
Its hard to imagine the scenario you paint ever happening
Unless we ever have another nanny crazy labour Govt , in which case you could well be right
I respect your view though , it has made me reflect a bit
Ricky
Pinza,
I’m glad you enjoyed your pork.
My view from personal preference on stewarding is that they are an inconsistent bunch and discretion among different panels probably leads to more general bad feeling among racing’s pros than the implementation of strict ‘non-negotiables’ like stroke counting.
My view of the BHA is that were it a PLC, it would have been closed down some time ago. It is peppered with inefficiency and indecision, probably due to almost everything being ‘driven’ by committee.
My view of jockeys and whip-use is that the vast majority of riders, in the vast majority of races are sensible and can be trusted to use the whip wisely. The trouble is, in many big races, instinct, desire and adrenaline temporarily banish all other considerations, including welfare. Jason Maguire’s National ride is a typical example: I’m fairly open-minded on whip use and I backed Ballabriggs but that was not a pretty sight. The other unfortunate downside is that the bigger races attract more viewers.
Anyway, from a personal viewpoint, I’m pretty liberal.
On the issues we’ve all spent so much time debating these past few weeks, my beliefs on what will happen to racing should we lose the RSPCA over-rule my feelings about what I’d ideally like to see happen.
It’s not a matter of personal ethics or standing by my idealistic views, it’s a case of measuring their worth against pragmatism and hard reality. I’ll happily sacrifice my choice of what I’d like to see in racing, for the trade-off of seeing racing survive and flourish. I don’t think it can without the support of the major welfare organisations.
I might well be wrong. I hope I don’t get the chance to find out.
Pinza,
I’m glad you enjoyed your pork.
My view from personal preference on stewarding is that they are an inconsistent bunch and discretion among different panels probably leads to more general bad feeling among racing’s pros than the implementation of strict ‘non-negotiables’ like stroke counting.
My view of the BHA is that were it a PLC, it would have been closed down some time ago. It is peppered with inefficiency and indecision, probably due to almost everything being ‘driven’ by committee.
My view of jockeys and whip-use is that the vast majority of riders, in the vast majority of races are sensible and can be trusted to use the whip wisely. The trouble is, in many big races, instinct, desire and adrenaline temporarily banish all other considerations, including welfare. Jason Maguire’s National ride is a typical example: I’m fairly open-minded on whip use and I backed Ballabriggs but that was not a pretty sight. The other unfortunate downside is that the bigger races attract more viewers.
Anyway, from a personal viewpoint, I’m pretty liberal.
On the issues we’ve all spent so much time debating these past few weeks, my beliefs on what will happen to racing should we lose the RSPCA over-rule my feelings about what I’d ideally like to see happen.
It’s not a matter of personal ethics or standing by my idealistic views, it’s a case of measuring their worth against pragmatism and hard reality. I’ll happily sacrifice my choice of what I’d like to see in racing, for the trade-off of seeing racing survive and flourish. I don’t think it can without the support of the major welfare organisations.
I might well be wrong. I hope I don’t get the chance to find out.
I agree with every single word of your post
- Total Posts 17716
Peace seems close to breaking out here. It all seems to come back to the RSPCA….
The options seem to boil down to:
1.
Acting on the assumption that the RSPCA can actively harm racing if BHA stands up to them firmly, and not daring to do so. In other words, continuing to obey the Charity’s wishes on this and all other "welfare-related" issues, whenever they request changes (e.g. to The Grand National).
or
2.
Acting on the assumption that if BHA don’t stand up to them then RSPCA will in any case keep chipping away at the Sport (especially NH) until it is reduced to a pale shadow of its former, competitive glory. In other words to make a stand, by pointing out to them that the best Equine Welfare experts work for BHA, not for the Charity; and that this new rule (when properly revised) is, in Mark Johnson’s words, the final "line in the sand".
or
3.
Challenging them head on, by revoking the new Whip Rule which RSPCA claims to have instigated, in favour of a more flexible, discretionary set of guidelines, along the lines of the pre-2009 rules.
In any case, this near-fatal confusion over whips, welfare and the whole ethos of the Sport has been due to the progressive failure of the BHA (and its predecessors over the last 20 years) to engage in an equal dialogue with RSPCA, and to make Racing’s case effectively with the general public.
1.
is surely not an option. The RSPCA will continue to interfere, for their own agenda, unless one of the other options is taken up. The only question is: do we choose gentle "chemotherapy"
(2.)
or radical "surgery"
(3.)
to cure this cancer.
- Total Posts 17716
One final, small point: we really do need to understand clearly that our sport has little medium-term future on the terrestrial channels.
BBC (like ITV / C4) can no longer afford major sporting events. Every year sees another "jewel" chipped from Auntie’s "crown" – next year, she loses live coverage of over half the Formula 1 Grand Prix calendar. Racing is expensive to televise, and progressively fewer meetings will be covered over the next decade.
Sooner rather than later, there will only be the
Grand National
left as "free to air" (remember that not even
The Derby
is on the new Protected List) To base welfare policy and the rules of racing under both codes around one afternoon at Aintree – even if the sensible decision should be made to move the race back to late March, where it belongs – is completely illogical, and tantamount to commercial suicide.
So this terrestrial bogey also needs to be resisted. Fans now want the dedicated channels for Racing, and those that can afford them will pay for them. Those who can’t will have to rely increasingly on trips to their local bookmaker to see the many races no longer covered by BBC and C4 free-to-air TV.
Steeplechasing’s stance makes a lot of sense. The BHA does indeed have to work with groups like the RSPCA.
I would make a few counter arguments to the conclusions this stance leads him to.
On the BHA, the majority of big organisations do things by committee. The structure of the BHA is actually not that unwieldy and on this whip initiative I think the issue was actually insufficient committee oversight and power rather than too much. This is the work of single dept head that was allowed to develop a huge amount of momentum. Largely on the back of the ’11 National. A strong board, and especially, a strong chief executive would not have countenanced the methods of implementation or the timing.
That the BHA has to work with the RSPCA is true. Where the balance of power on a topic like this lies is another matter. The equine veterinary expertise within racing massively outweighs that within the RSPCA. Johnston is absolutely right about that.
The RSPCA is a venerable institution but it’s support falls year on year with its membership dropping another 10% in its most recent figures. It now has fewer than 40,000 members and I see no reason for a reversal in the trend in membership.
The reservoir of goodwill that the RSPCA draws upon has been diminished by some of its recent activities and campaigns. Like many organisations it has suffered from mission creep and its native supporters would not recognise some of its activities as being core to what the ‘brand’ should be about. An attack on equine sport by this ‘royal’ society would see further schism amongst its supporters. Sticks are used, don’t forget, in all equine pursuits. Some method of physical control is involved in nearly all our interactions with larger mammals be it in recreation, sport or farming.
In other words there are good pragmatic reasons for understanding that racing’s position is much stronger than Stier and Steeplechasing allow.
There is also a really good pragmatic reason for not touching the previous rule. A reduction in stroke counts can lead in only one direction from here on in. Once you agree that less is better then zero , by a process of undeniable logic, is best. This move by the BHA was unforgiveably naive as it left them no exit route.
No matter how ‘pragmatic’ people think this move has been there has to be very grave doubts that it will mollify those few voices that are raised in anger every year around about April. It is, lest we forget, only two years since the rules were last revisited. That’s how long it took for the next wave of pressure from RSPCA to instigate reform. How long before they’re back do you think?
Away from pragmatism though, whatever happened to doing something because it’s right rather than because its politically convenient?Hear Hear Sean , excellent stuff , its the lack of leadership that has got racing to where it is now
I agree with the thrust of your post completely , and while respecting Steeples view , we must not just cave in as the BHA did
Sadly the mess we are in seems to deepen by the day ….do we have to wait until January when PB takes office before any progress is made ?
Ricky
- Total Posts 17716
Beautifully put, Sean. A post which, I think, "shoots the RSPCA’s fox" and puts most cogently the case for taking control back into Racing’s own hands (with the most lucid explanation of why instigating a stroke-count has been the primrose path to extinction thrown in.)
David Muir
is a clever and tenacious negotiator, expertly able to wield both stick and carrot to gain his ends. On the one hand, he praises Racing for improving its welfare and expresses himself satisfied after each round of rules (whilst allowing RSPCA to take the credit for each "
advance
"); whilst on the other he threatens to be back "
banging on the door
" (quote) if his conditions are not met in more or less every detail.
He seems to have mesmerised the current BHA management (whichever individual we’re talking about) to the point where what’s going on is not "dialogue" but "dictation".
I agree of course with those who see that this this is not right, and cannot be allowed to continue merely for political reasons. There has to be a halt, a retrenchment, and an assertion of Racing’s independence from the RSPCA.
Good morning Sean,
As you say, it comes down to a choice of who we think will win should racing finally choose a stand-off against the RSPCA. We could marshall all the equine veterinary expertise at our disposal, and it is indeed a strong band. But it is not independent. All we would hear is "They would say that, wouldn’t they?"
Good luck to racing if it chooses the principled route and defies the RSPCA. The ‘trial’ would take place in the media. The jury would be the general public. How would you price the match?
I have not really got involved in this yet. Partly because I wasn’t actually sure where I stood on it and partly because I wanted to see how the new rules worked before commenting.
To be honest I didn’t really think they needed amending as these whips ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO HURT but I do realise we are now living in a world where The Fat Controller in Thomas the Tank Engine has overnight become The Thin Controller – I kid you not- so something had to be done.
For me it needs to be broken down to the two codes, Flat and NH and also to the two main areas for debate, the rules themselves and the punishments for transgression.
As far as the rules go, on the flat I honestly don’t see too much to worry about. I have seen very few, if any races seriously affected by the new rules and i think the jockeys are quickly learning to cope. It was my understanding that the vast majority of jockeys WANTED a clearer rule on the whip and now they have got it. Now that we have lost the unworkable last furlong rule it seems to work quite well.
As an example I would like to use my mate Silvestre De Sousa. It can be reasoned that this man has missed out on the jockey’s title this year because of the amount of suspensions he has picked up, several of them for misuse of the whip. I would argue that, if you watched a sample video of 20 of his tight finishes this year, you would be hard pressed to guess which of those he received bans for and which of those he did not. The new rule has taken away any ambiguity and I think he will get banned far less often next season. (By the way I am aware that he and Hanagan got banned last week but both knew they would only be missing some all weather action and that the bans would kick in after the season has finished – more on that later). Meanwhile he is still riding winner after winner but perhaps not riding them quite so vigorously quite so early.
Over the jumps I think it is a bit different. It seems grossly unfair to me that a flat jockey who doesn’t have to jump any obstacles and is normally riding over much shorter distances on much better ground is allowed 7 strikes whereas a jump jockey who has to ride for between 2 and 4 miles, jump fences or hurdles on, what will soon become, much more testing ground, is only allowed one more. Having said that, again, SO FAR I haven’t seen too many races affected by it but when the rains come I think the picture will change. I was watching am old video of Red Rum’s 3rd National win yesterday and noticed how many of the horses in behind were being ridden hard from a long way out. Even horses that weren’t apparently in contention but that could be with some persuasion. You won’t see that anymore. You won’t see a jockey try and galvanise a horse mid way through a race to keep it interested, they will just be forced to give up. If the whips really don’t hurt then this is a shame. I think that there needs to be much more flexibility with the rules over the jumps perhaps with a smaller limit only kicking once they enter the straight. One of the things I love when watching NH racing is seeing a horse struggling from halfway start slowly responding and winning against the odds. We won’t see that anymore I fear.
As for the punishments – they are way too harsh and most people seem to agree on that. I can quite see how, in the heat of battle, it would be easy to miscount but to be banned for 5 days for going one over the limit is overdoing it. At the same time I can see that there needs to be an adequate deterrent as I don’t imagine Hanagan and De Sousa would have minded one iota about being banned from riding next week.
I would like to see a sort of Yellow Card system applied. If a jockey goes one over the limit he receives a warning that lasts for 3 months or so during which time, if he transgresses again, he receives the ban. I also think the bans should be more incremental. Going one over should not incur such a hefty punishment but anything more than that and the bans should get longer.
I don’t agree that it is ruining our sport. My thread about Shalambar yesterday was answered by a few people but many of you on this thread who have talked about the welfare and integrity of the sport don’t seem to have been moved to comment on what was blatant cheating. Personally I think that is far more pressing a concern.
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
I don’t agree that it requires some sort of ‘stand off’. Racing has worked with the RSPCA for a long time. The pro cushion whip is one of the fruits of that partnership. David Muir is currently working on other intitiatives, including I understand work on safer hurdle construction. Muir as an individual has put a huge amount of time and energy into working postively with racing but he won’t be around forever.
That’s why it is essential that there is clear definition of where the limits of the RSPCA’s input lie.
The RSPCA had five of its six recommendations implemented.
As far as I can see none of the professional racing bodies (PJA, NTF, ROA etc) even got to make a recommendation never mind have it implemented. That would raise serious questions over the notion that a ‘consultation’ took place and also demonstrates a clear failure (imho) on Racing’s part to limit the direct input of a body not actually qualified to play any part in the sport’s regulation.
I don’t accept for a moment that the RSPCA would embark on a campaign against racing if they hadn’t got their way on the whip. On what grounds would they have proceeded? How could they justify the expense to their members?
As for who would win? Well I wouldn’t price it as RSPCA vs racing. I’d see it as RSPCA vs all equine sport. Given that the British public has voted McCoy BBC SPOTY, that he was the third equestrian sport winner of tha prize that I can think of (along with several placed individuals), that we have 2 dedicated channels, terrestrial channel coverage, space in every national paper, employ thousands of people, generate hundreds of millions of pounds of tax revenue, have friends from the Royal Family to the betting shop regulars in every village,town and city in the land and given that the RSPCA has absolutely no case to bring in terms of cruelty I guess I’d make the RSPCA very heavy underdogs. But it won’t come to that.
The only way it could is if the RSPCA (and other much more extreme groups) managed to spoof racing into gradually edging voluntarily closer and closer to a point of no return. That stealthy long game would be the chosen tactic of anyone who has as a long term aim the banning of all sports involving animals. That’s why the rest of us (that’s the majority of us, not just racing fans and professionals) need to guard against complacency and not make needless, swingeing changes that paint us into a corner.
- Total Posts 17716
Good luck to racing if it chooses the principled route and defies the RSPCA. The ‘trial’ would take place in the media. The jury would be the general public. How would you price the match?
Good morning,
Steeplechasing
. To use your analogy, as a private person presenting my honest view I can talk bravely about "
defiance
", "
standing up to them
" and "
asserting Racing’s independence
". But that is not realistically the way this "
change management
" towards independence should be managed, nor the language which BHA need to couch the distancing process.
Sean
has ably pointed out the weaknesses in RSPCA’s current position. The organisation is in trouble. It has a drastically declining membership, an infamously top-heavy administration, and many questions to answer about its own management of the welfare concerns at the heart of the RSPCA Charter.
Paradoxically, these ills make it the dangerous "partner" it is for Racing at the moment. It gets criticism from its own small but vocal radical wing for not opposing Racing on principle. It sees Racing’s poor and fractured administration as a "soft target" which it can use to publicise "wins" and "welfare advances" for which it takes the credit. It follows the old political maxim of "conducting a foreign war to hide domestic evils".
But what can RSPCA do, if their demands are heard, respectfully weighed and politely declined by BHA?
1.
The
"Royal"
organisation has one of our leading owner-breeders as its patron, and is quite astute enough not to offend HMQ by throwing round press releases to say that
"Racing is cruel"
. Such a move would place its august Patron in an impossible position.
2.
They do not have the resources to devote any more than the one employee already "on the case" to horse racing, when they have so many other, much more pressing welfare concerns to deal with.
3.
I take your point about the weak point of setting up an "insider" body of experts, if opposed by the Charity’s media propaganda. I’ve long thought that the foundation of a small, focused and independent charitable body completely devoted to, and focused on, expert horse racing welfare would solve this difficulty. Tim Morris as an independent expert, rather than BHA Director, would be a much stronger influence to counter the political deftness of David Muir.
So – this is a good time, not a bad one, to draw that line in the sand, respectfully yet firmly. We need to do what (as we seem to agree at least in general terms) is right, not what puts off the evil hour until tomorrow.
Is anyone still convinced that the RSPCA can ever truly be satisfied on this issue, the Grand National, or any other?
The thing is though if Sean can figure it out with the Rspca and the long game , why on earth could’nt the BHA do the same
answer ..lack of brains, leadership, and the skills to lead the sport
They should all resign ,
Steeple , its never ever going to happen , so next case please !!!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.