- This topic has 201 replies, 30 voices, and was last updated 13 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I don’t pretend NOT to be the thickest person in the world and, as I’m someone who is always self deprecating I’m sure you realised that I would find your comment quite hurtful. The original rules have proved to be unworkable because they’ve had to amend them, and they will amend them again. I’m not as eloquent as Pinza or as confident as Kingfisher; what I see and feel is more of a gut reaction. Strangely enough, I’ve got a letter in front of me from John Oaksey written in 1994, the last paragraph saying ‘let’s hope the stewards get the whip problem sorted out before too long’, so at least it proves that it’s an issue that has concerned me for quite a long time. As is horse and jockey welfare and the future of the sport itself. But, I’m actually getting too old and too tired for this sort of thing and not up to personal attacks, so I’ll just watch this from a distance and see what happens in a year or so.
Pete – I know this is an emotive issue but I don’t think Moehat deserved any of that.
Boss, you are right. It was a cowardly personal attack by me and I am sorry to have done so.
I shall delete both post and I apologise to Moehat, she is as we all no doubt agree a great member of the forum and I always enjoy her imput.
Sorry once again Moe.
I’d like to point out that I do not post on the memorial section with ‘crocodile tears’; only when a horse dear to me dies; if someone needs a bit of sympathy for the same reason or if there is a welfare issue. However, as both of Pompetes’ posts will be deleted, no one will know what the hell I’m talking about. Think someone’s having a bad day!
- Total Posts 102
It would seem by the Incoming Chairmans comments that the rules may not be in place for the Cheltenham festival anyway
He CAN see the problem with 8 hits over the sticks
That "10 Month" consultation seems to have been a waste of money.
- Total Posts 17716
That "10 Month" consultation seems to have been a waste of money.
"
Consultation
" is evidently not the word for a process "
instigated
" by a third party which was "
promised culture change
", before the review process even began.
One can only guess how much the celebrity rubber-stampers were shown. The
Review
itself (aside from question marks over the worth of the YouGov survey) was full of uncontroversial good sense and moderation, to which most of us I imagine could have signed up.
However, the
Recommendations
(as adopted) were of course quite another matter, as although they delivered almost in full on BHA’s promise to the RSPCA, they produced the unworkable fiasco that is still (two revisions on) in progress.
I checked out the RSPCA’s web site and their document on their Policies On Animal Welfare. The section on Racing reads as follows:
6.3 Racing
6.3.1 The RSPCA is opposed to methods and conditions at racecourses or during training that may cause injury.
The RSPCA is concerned about the excessive production of horses for racing, and the likelihood of future welfare problems for unwanted, retired or injured animals. The RSPCA believes the racing industry should make provision for the future well-being
of these animals.6.3.2 The RSPCA is opposed to the use of drugs which are administered with a view to altering the performance of an animal including by masking pain.
6.3.3 The RSPCA is opposed to the racing and training of horses where distress or injury result from the placing of excessive demands upon the animal.
6.3.4 The RSPCA is opposed to the use of whips which cause pain or suffering. The RSPCA believes that the only permissible whips should be those of proven shock absorbing designs.Many whips used in horse racing are capable of causing excessive pain and injury to a horse. The rules governing the use of whips have been strengthened and better enforced by the Horseracing Regulatory Authority in recent years. The RSPCA advocates that the
rules should further specify only whips based on shock absorbing designs be permitted. The design of such whips, while being perfectly adequate for all normal riding purposes, must minimise any pain and must not injure the horse.You can draw your own conclusions on how racing has been and is now abiding by these policies.
It would appear, on the face of it, that David Muir has his own agenda.
Rob
Thank you Rob , much appreciated
Perhaps the Mac will have a look and consider his position , or maybe consider changing it
cheers
Ricky
- Total Posts 17716
It would appear, on the face of it, that David Muir has his own agenda.
He does indeed. As you’ve seen too, his agenda goes beyond the RSPCA Charter you’ve quoted, and he needs to explain himself.
The surprising thing is, that it’s taken all this time for Racing people to tumble to the fact that Mr Muir has been chipping away at this "ban the whip" agenda for years.
Not that this is likely…. as a slightly gossipy sidelight, I’ve been having lunch today with a friend, a former MP who told me that during 18 years in Parliament he’d only thrown people out of his office twice. One occasion the people he asked to leave were (you guessed it) the RSPCA.
His description of the way they turned up (two of them, one in those paramilitary uniforms and big boots they like to sport) and behaved – smug, intransigent, disrespectful of other people’s beliefs, determined to get their way even if it meant acting illegally (which in this case they had done), callous in their attitude
to the animal under discussion
as well as the people concerned – made him see red, and he had them out of his office in no time. And this from a tolerant man, and a canny politician who’s seen it all!
This idea that David Muir has his own private agenda is a desperate and cynical attempt by Pinza to drive reasonable opinion against a trusted and highly respected charity.
The RSPCA’s view on the Whip is very clear and available on the website.
Use of the whip in horseracing
Whips are used in many areas of horse use and equitation, including horseracing. Using whips can cause pain and suffering to the horses, both directly and if they cause horses to exercise beyond their capability. In addition, whip use on television provides a bad example to viewers and makes the sport look cruel.
The use of the whip in horseracing has been a high profile issue in 2011, since excessive use of the whip was seen in the Grand National. In fact, the number of breaches of use of the whip in racing had been increasing since 2002.
While using a whip is not specifically illegal, the Animal Welfare Act 2006 includes a duty to prevent unnecessary suffering, and this law applies to jockeys, racehorse owners and racecourse managers. The British Horseracing Authority has both a legal and moral duty to minimise whip use to avoid any unnecessary suffering, and to take reasonable steps to ensure the needs of racehorses to avoid pain and suffering.
We believe that reducing welfare problems with the use of the whip need to:
Ensure horse and jockey safety
Limit the frequency of use
Limit the method of use
Restrict the timing of use
Apply sufficient and appropriate penalties, including legal penalties
Provide training and information for jockeysThis and other improvements that we are calling for can be found in our Position statement on the use of the whip in horseracing (pdf 345kb).
The RSPCA welcomed and assisted the British Horseracing Authority enquiry.
We hope that the BHA and jockeys will respond to the challenge and make substantial changes to the use of the whip in horse racing. Otherwise, the British Horseracing Authority’s position in law could be questioned, and the future of British horseracing could be threatened.
They really couldn’t have spelled it out any clearer prior to the review….
Yeah Pete , with the threats at the end , they are fooling nobody (except you and Corm perhaps), this organisation should run their own ship and stay the hell out of racing
Anyway we have nothing to fear from them , they are a joke in my opinion
Carry on with doom and gloom dear boy , nobody is paying any attention …..
My support for a reduction/ban in whip usage has nothing to do with the RSPCA.
My support is based on my
own
views so whether or not the RSPCA has any underlying, deeper agenda is incidental to my position which I hold independently of any views I may or may not have aout the RSPCA. The fact that I share the gist of their views on this doesn’t mean I’d support any further action they may call upon racing to undertake. And nor does it mean I wouldn’t. I’ve said several times during the debate that I believe there WILL come a time to stand firm and say ‘no more’. That time isn’t now though, IMO.
Pinza/Ricky –
which, specifically, of the policies in the section quoted by Rob North do you disagree with and why?
I’d think anyone of a reasonable disposition would find it difficult to argue against ANY of those policies. Can you both address that question please and not avoid it?
Pinza – attempting to disredit the RSPCA with idle tittle tattle, in the manner you usually reserve for attacking the person rather than the issue, is a bit transparent, even by your standards.
- Total Posts 17716
Pinza/Ricky –
which, specifically, of the policies in the section quoted by Rob North do you disagree with and why?
I’d think anyone of a reasonable disposition would find it difficult to argue against ANY of those policies. Can you both address that question please and not avoid it?
Pinza – attempting to disredit the RSPCA with idle tittle tattle, in the manner you usually reserve for attacking the person rather than the issue, is a bit transparent, even by your standards.
Sigh….
Corm
, my own position is that I am in full agreement with
ALL
of the policies quoted by Rob from the Charter – not least the clear call to use the shock-absorbing whip
developed and welcomed by the RSPCA themselves
. And I am proud to say that British racing is in full compliance with all of them too.
So you tell me: where does their Charter mention the
whip ban
(except for safety reasons) which
David Muir
advocated overtly in his statement last Friday?
You
, not Rob or I, are the one who needs to answer that question, if you are insisting on continuing to support the unsupportable.
I don’t call an honest disclosure about the RSPCA’s methods and approach, from a good friend of mine whom I know to be a person of probity and honesty – a man still in public office, by the way, so I am
not
going to reveal his name –
"idle tittle tattle"
.
You are heavily aligned with David Muir’s chapel of the RSPCA on this issue, which appears (sadly) to make you believe that this amateur charity should be above criticism. It is not. Quite the reverse, as their diminishing support in the country at large (and fiscal problems of their own making) indicate very clearly.
This is quite apart from their consistent and unwarranted interference in Racing’s internal legislative process over the last 20 years. But I maintain that their broader problems help to account for this ongoing harrying/bullying of the BHA, so those broader problems need to be advertised, as a service to our Sport.
You are heavily aligned with David Muir’s chapel of the RSPCA on this issue, which appears (sadly) to make you believe that this amateur charity should be above criticism. It is not.
It does not make me believe that they are above criticism. Why would my agreement with them on much of this partiular issue make me believe they are above criticism?
And I take issue again with your arrogant usage of language.
You’ve admitted yourself that you are in agreement with their policies. You are not that far away, bar a whip stroke or two, from their stance yourself was all I wanted to ‘out’. And you are an ‘amateur’ too, another thing you have in common.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.