- This topic has 172 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
Lewisk, the man in the bookies in Newmarket who says he’s gotta a cert is invariably as big a prat as the man in London. The correlation is the fact that they are in the bookies shouting about the little bit of knowledge they have or think they have.
My nephew who was a good apprentice in the 70,s once received a huge bollocking for winning a race. The trainer told him "I bloody told you not to be nearer than fourth" In fact, the horse ran away with him and led from start to finish.
I also experienced "Winding Up" a horse, where a horse due to run in blinkers for the first time is chased around its stable before a race wearing blinkers.This scares the animal and ensures that when the blinkers are reapplied before a race, the horse associates it with fear and runs as if being chased and tormented.How long ago was this?
If a trainer "wound up" a horse like that, all he’d get was a temperamental racehorse, likely to lose his race by fretting away all his chance before the start.
Value Is EverythingSean mentions recreational riding: given that this whole issue might eventually end up in the public domain, here’s a stat from the Whip Review
5.12 Additionally, 58% of all
respondents strongly or
somewhat agreed that
recreational riders should be
banned from carrying a whipI quote this to raise, again, a point which has been quite loosely proposed at times on these threads – ‘educate them’.
I think educating the public would be an excellent way forward. But executing the idea would, I fear, be hugely expensive and would have little effect. Certainly from a return on investment perspective it would be crazy.
Is is easy to educate those who wish to be educated. It is pretty effective even to educate a captive bunch as the Whip Review’s before and after percentages on whip/cruelty results showed.
But trying to educate people who have no wish to put in the time or interest to be educated, is a pointless task. That’s especially true these days when patience is rare: the popularity of twitter reinforces the cultural move towards very limited attention spans.
. . . I could go on, but my last para has reminded me that i’m probably boring you now/again!
- Total Posts 17716
Ginger
Simply that the vast majority of new blood comes into racing because of betting, and not through love of animals.
What the RSPCA think will have far less detrimental effect than a sport where jockeys encourage horses by reasoning with them.Ginger
Simply that the vast majority of new blood comes into racing because of betting, and not through love of animals.Fair point Reet, you’re probably right a "majority", not sure if it is "vast". Do think a significant minority of racing fans come through love of the horse; certainly where racegoers are concerned if not for betting shop punter. But may be I am not the typical punter!
Value Is EverythingWe’re going round in circles on this I fear.
The process that changed a majority of disapprovers of the whip into approvers of the whip in the BHA survey was not a long or complex one. They simply explained in a couple of lines that the whip is designed not to harm the horse and its use is strictly regulated. Hey presto the opinion swung almost 360.
A two minute segment during the Grand National programme this year on the strict restrictions on whip use and the design of the whip would eliminate it as an issue in relation to that race. A couple of well placed spreads in the press (I’m picturing Hayley Turner and Frankie Dettori slapping a couple of celebrity bottoms) and job’s a good ‘un.
The stick is a minor factor in perception of racing anyway and was engineered into the Grand National picture by those behind the review imho. McCoy must have hit Don’t Push it at least 10 times after the last and the great British public voted him SPTY. Viewers are much more concerned about horses suffering fatal injuries.
Outside of Grand National day the vast majority (80%+) of the population has no interest whatever in the sport.
None.
The idea that they would suddenly become impassioned opponents of the sport if the RSPCA stopped working with the BHA is ridiculous.
The RSPCA might try a campaign of some sort on some aspect of racing but to do so would be a colossal gamble. The stance they took on hunting nearly tore them apart internally. There is no way they’d get a consensus in their own ranks to go after racing. Even if they did, an attempt to u turn their stance in relation to a piece of kit that they developed would make them a laughing stock. Racing is not even near the top of the RSPCA’s agenda and they probably can’t believe how much fuss this episode has generated.
Ricky,
My main point’s in reference to Sean’s mention – in support of his opinion – that a significant number of recreational riders are among horse-users and (I assume) that therefore the RSPCA would be reluctant to upset them.
My other point is a bit more wayward, hence the reason I shut myself up on it after a while
Joe
A much quicker way of putting my view would be this.
If you’re so convinced the RSPCA (and or others) could persuade an uninterested public that racing is cruel and should be banned…wrongly.
..why are you not convinced that an uninterested public could be persuaded that racing is well regulated and has a great welfare record…rightly?
A much quicker way of putting my view would be this.
If you’re so convinced the RSPCA (and or others) could persuade an uninterested public that racing is cruel and should be banned…wrongly.
..why are you not convinced that an uninterested public could be persuaded that racing is well regulated and has a great welfare record…rightly?
Because as a ‘nation of animal lovers’ who are largely unaware of any of the political problems within the RSPCA, the public is much more likely to give credibility to the charity’s views than to the the protestations of racing. Although uninterested in being educated about the construction of the whip, they’d be interested in the notion that racing is ‘cruel’.
As I said in an earlier post, we are all entrenched; debate is most unlikely to alter anyone’s take so, dragon-like, I will now declare myself ‘out’.
I think it’d be very hard to convince the public that use of the whip wasn’t in some way harmful. The (negative) response to whip use among the general public is largely emotional IMO and logic finds it difficult, often impossible, to overcome emotion.
Wouldn’t it be easier by a factor of 100 to educate the jockeys on proper (and within rule) use?
- Total Posts 17716
Corm
. You are right about the difficulty of dealing with mass emotions. It is hard, but not impossible. It needs patience, flair and expertise. These things seem in short supply right now in Holborn Towers.
I also think you miss two things: first, the basis of
Seanboyce
‘s argument for making it clear to the RSPCA that Racing will in future be making its own rules. That is, doing what is right, rather than what is politically expedient in the short-term.
Second, you fail to factor-in the other side of the emotional equation: that what the jockeys do is also at an instinctual level – in the moment – especially on the flat (c.f. Steve Cauthen.) You can’t water down the competitive instinct in human beings.
Anyway… we’ve reached a fair consensus here. Batting an easy-sounding solution back towards the jockeys may be expedient, but in my opinion it is neither fair, nor right. The only true solution is to draw
Mark Johnson
‘s line in the sand, draw it firmly, draw it now, and then work to repair the damage that’s been done.
As
Steeplechasing
has left the field,
Pinza
too will now retreat, pennants flying.
(At least until the next battle starts. The fight’s not over yet!)
I’ve already made this point in response to Mark Johnston’s line in the sand argument but I’ll make it again.
How can we possibly draw a line in the sand on this issue when we have jockeys who are incapable or unwilling of abiding by the rules we’ve put in place to manage whip mis-use? I think it is IMPOSSIBLE for racing to say ‘go away and leave us alone our house is in order’ when it is as clear as day that it is not.
I agree there will come a time when will be able to say that (or there should come a time) but that time isn’t now.
Corm, you say:
"I think it’d be very hard to convince the public that use of the whip wasn’t in some way harmful. The (negative) response to whip use among the general public is largely emotional IMO and logic finds it difficult, often impossible, to overcome emotion.
Wouldn’t it be easier by a factor of 100 to educate the jockeys on proper (and within rule) use?"
It’s not ‘very hard’ at all. The BHA’s own yougov research turned a majority of disaprovers into a minority simply with a two line explanation!
You’re right that the response is largely ’emotional’ and certainly my experience on here is that ‘logic finds it difficult, often impossible, to overcome emotion’
The problem with making jockeys compliant (&SC’s observations suggest that compliance is increasing currently) is that it will have almost no measurable impact on public perception whatever. That’s not me guessing. That’s what the yougov polling tells us. Changing penalties, limiting strokes, removing prize money. None of these things sufficiently shift either opinion or behaviour. That’s the fact of the matter. What were you saying about emotion?
Corm , your attitude towards the jockeys is pretty shameful , lets remind ourselves of the true position
The Jockeys were misled , ill advised , and kept in the dark about the draconian penalties as admitted by Mr Stier
Its their living , the matter was dealt with with zero integrity , they feel affronted , insulted , and pretty much anti BHA , its only a question of time before a strike happens
So before you make any more snap judgements about them , try putting yourself in their position
The BHA ARE inept at everything they touch, imo you really should be aiming your venom at them
cheers
Ricky
I am pretty unconvinced by the Yougov survey on that aspect Sean. Ask any marketeer how difficult it is to sway public emotion and they will tell you it is often extremely costly and very difficult. That said, some of your ideas earlier in the thread might help, and I’m sure a gimmick such as McCririck having his bottom smacked on the One Show could do even more. But I think the emotional reaction of anyone witnessing a Ballabriggs type ride (and I use that example as it is high profile – there were loads of similar examples last winter) would be that it was unnecessary and unfair on the horse. Regardless how often you told them it wasn’t.
But that’s NOT the point.
The point is that if you get whip usage under control within the sport you don’t need to concern yourself with the difficult task of educating the public.
You simply won’t have an issue to contend with.
Reducing the number of allowable strokes helps manage that. It is very logical that if you allow 8 instead of 15 you are going to reduce the
scale
of mis-use, even if you don’t reduce the number of offences (i.e. offenders now might average 9-12 strokes for argument’s sake while under the old rules they might average 17-20). That issue of
scale
is important. It means that offences will not challenge public goodwill for the sport in the way that offences under the old rule would.
I’d also point out that it is not just the ‘general public’ that need convincing. Plenty
within racing
including, as you know, recognised the need for change and welcomed the new rules. And most of them already understood the improvements that had been made to whip design.
Horses arriving back after a race with marks or weals was running at one every two and a half weeks before the new rules. That will be an important indicator of the efficacy of the new rules in impacting welfare. I’m not sure how that has been since the new rules were introduced. Anyone?
On competitiveness – I simply don’t think there is evidence that racing is in any way less competitive now than under the old rules. Sure you will get a jockey or two saying ‘another smack and I’d have won’. Just as you get jockeyts saying ‘if they’d watered the ground a bit I’d have won’ or ‘if that gap had opened sooner I’d have won’ or ‘if there had been a faster pace I’d have won’.
Ricky –
I don’t buy that.
I think the jockeys and/or their collective Association, the PJA, were asleep on the job. You had the leading jumping and flat jockeys publicly supporting the rule changes on the eve of their introduction and the PJA looking to have done a poor job of communicating with their membership priot to the rule introduction and changing their tune every day or two since.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.