- This topic has 28 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 13 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
- Total Posts 17716
Paul
, I am of your party on this one. I’m not sure the racecourses (eccentric Towcester apart) have ever shown much interest on this question at all, and the last thing family parties (let alone those corporate suits) are going to be noticing is whether or not a whip’s used twice or ten times on a particular animal.
My own experience on the racecourse is that there’s so much to take in during a race that even experienced race readers don’t have time or mental space to take much notice of whip use – at least on the Flat.
One of the significant factors about this fiasco – and one which I can’t recall anyone has thus far mentioned – is that the "stroke counts" are made by Stewards, not in the moment, but whilst watching the countless replays available to them after the event.
Actions which bother absolutely nobody in the moment suddenly become heinous crimes in replays and slow-mo, freeze-frame analysis. Just count the number of times a commentator reflects in the moment on
"a fine ride from [xyz]"
, which under the microscope of the inflexible count has to be slammed for a five day ban. Pity the poor Stewards.
This stroke-counting is, in effect, Trial by Television, and not by expert human perception. Another token of why so much of the "reasoning" behind this unworkable rule is just plain wrong.
It’s worth noting, but no real surprise, one course manager admitted, albeit "off the record", that the racing is a loss leader and their profit comes from non race day activities.
If the racecourses can make a bigger profit from non-racing and betting shops make bigger profits from other sports and AWP machines, then the inevitable conclusion must be that racing has a very bleak future. The current levels of horses in training, horses bred, racecourses, trainers, stable staff, betting shops and their staff are simply unsustainable under the current model.
Unfortunately the some preservationists will fight the loss of any racecourse with the same dogma they employ in their arguments re the whip. Unless you accept that some severe rationalization at all levels is required for the sport to survive, then there will be nothing left to debate.- Total Posts 17716
Unfortunately the some preservationists will fight the loss of any racecourse with the same dogma they employ in their arguments re the whip. Unless you accept that some severe rationalization at all levels is required for the sport to survive, then there will be nothing left to debate.
Interesting that (without evidence) you equate "preservationists" with pro-whippers. Most "preservationists" on this Forum (in so far as they form a distinct group at all) argue that there is too much racing, not too little, and I imagine their opinion is pretty much divided on the W question.
And what, pray, have the Whip Rules to do with "rationalization"?
Your argument is thin in any case: the time to worry will be when Sheikh Mohammed and his family up sticks. Until then, there will be all the racing that really matters. For me, as it happens, I’d welcome a much smaller, higher quality racing base, funded by a pari-mutuel system….
But guess what? It ain’t going to happen….
wit, interesting break down of the vote structure amongst the members.
I wonder who decided that the Racecourses should have what seems a disproportionate count of 3?
Do you know what happens in the case of a tie, will someone have a casting vote?
The Whip rules have nothing to do with rationalization. Paul had made a comment about the interests of racegoers and their entertainment. You then launched into a diatribe about stewards counting etc that was nothing to do with the point he made. While you seem to think that the whip issue is a live or die question, I think it is a sideshow diverting attention away from the real problems facing racing in this country.
I share your hopeless desire to see a pari-mutuel system that would lead to a healthy and sustainable racing industry but as you say, while the human rectum points downwards it isn’t going to happen. I would be less certain that Sheikh Mohammed and his family are a guaranteed permanent fixture.
I share your hopeless desire to see a pari-mutuel system that would lead to a healthy and sustainable racing industry but as you say, while the human rectum points downwards it isn’t going to happen. I would be less certain that Sheikh Mohammed and his family are a guaranteed permanent fixture.
A properly run Tote monopoly would be the ideal but with the opening of the Pandora’s Box of fixed-odds bookmakers it is unlikely ever to happen unless there is a total implosion and the sport has to effectively be re-launched – arguably no bad thing.
I have been saying for years the current fixture list level is unsustainable, yet when the 2012 fixture list is finally published, I believe next week, my understanding is we will still be looking at around 1,450 fixtures (making a mockery of the BHA announcement of a 1,400 cap made on 5th August) – why?
Because it is what the bookmakers want.
. . . . and I would argue it is the bookmakers who have the biggest influence.
The BHA should be investing in an exchange to rival, and hopefully surpass, Betfair from which they can fund racing including prizemoney.
As more and more individuals / private groups become willing to lay horses as well as back on the exchanges, racecourse (and even the high street as far as horseracing is concerned) bookmakers and the tote will be history in a few years time, and the exchanges will be the chief media by which to bet on horseracing.
So whilst going down the Tote route to fund horseracing in the future is the right principle, it is not the right vehicle.
- Total Posts 17716
You then launched into a diatribe about stewards counting etc that was nothing to do with the point he made. While you seem to think that the whip issue is a live or die question, I think it is a sideshow diverting attention away from the real problems facing racing in this country.
Not a "diatribe", with respect, but a reasoned point which has not quite been made before. And it stemmed from
Wit
‘s and
Paul
‘s debate about what racegoers actually notice (if they’re watching the racing at all). So there was no need for rudeness.
But yes, it has become a
"live or die"
question in my opinion. As BHA and Paul Roy have insisted that they are "leading the world" on this non-issue internationally, the fact that they have managed to divert all press and public attention away from Racing and on to such a peripheral matter has placed UK Racing in a weak and unsustainable position. Its reputation around the world has plummeted, as its fractured state and lack of intelligent governance has become clear.
I have the likes of
Steve Cauthen
and the
CEO of the Hong Kong Jockey Club
to back my judgement of the seriousness of this as a "live or die" issue. Who rules racing? BHA or RSPCA? And who listens to the opinions of the insider professionals? "Culture change" and "animal rights" have led to the humiliation and demotivation of the human beings who ride those animals.
It ought to be a sideshow, I quite agree. As I said in what you please to call my "diatribe", who actually notices the whip in practise? But just as the first tiny crack in the dam can lead to a mighty inundation, so the ramifications of this issue spread far wider than the mere fact of "seven smacks or eight".
Pinza , it pains me to say it , because I passionately want to agree with you , but Eclipse is on the money
Racing under the present leadership and power structure has a limited shelf life ….the courses will have to look at new ways to attract customers …interestingly none of them chose to try the Towcester model …but hey , its their party ….
To add a little spice to the mix , funding of racing will be totally undermined if punter confidence wanes , I really strongly believe , that the new whip rules will put punters off from betting in serious numbers ….then the whole moral /perception issue will be ditched , as always the money or lack of it will dictate the order of the day
If I am wrong then punters will bet as normal and the levy battle will continue , but Aussie Paul will have to be careful , as his first priority will be to sort out the funding , wonder what his take on this sorry saga is ??
Ricky
Ricky
The BHA should be investing in an exchange to rival,
But they would back the wrong one, remember the Tote sale?
I have little doubt the BHA also supported Betamax against VHS and HD-DVD against Blu Ray!!!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.