Whip Rule amendments

[Anonymous]

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

So – you tell me, where does this lengthy statement you quote once suggest – as did

David Muir

last Friday –

that the whip ought to be banned

, except for safety purposes? You have to answer that question.

His agenda goes way beyond anything in the

RSPCA Charter

cited by me, and quoted at length by Rob.

You should save your righteous indignation for this animal welfare organisation, which says one thing and does another, instead of trumpeting

"a trusted and highly respectable charity"

which, in reality, has a great many questions to answer – not least as to its own treatment of animals – and has got too big for its boots in our Sport.

You seem to think the RSPCA should be above criticism. Why?

[cormack15]

The RSPCA’s position on this is irrelevant to the actual issue at stake Pinza. Discussing the pros and cons of that organisation is pointless with regard to this debate.

Your attempting to isolate myself and Pompete by a strange convuluted process of a)aligning us with the RSPCA and b)discrediting that organisation.

Once again, my opinion is independent of the RSPCA, it matters not to me what they think, I’d hold the same position regardless.

[Anonymous]

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.

Your personal attacks aside, to say that "a whip stroke or two" is all that divides me from RSPCA on this issue is profoundly untrue. I am 100% behind the BHA’s stance on whip misuse, which accords with RSPCA’s charter. I was 100% behind the development of the safety whip, by BHA and Muir, as it removed any plausible suggestion of

"cruelty"

or

"welfare issues"

from the question.

What I have been consistently against has been their clever introduction of

"stroke counts"

as a negotiation tool, and as a lever to diminish use of the whip over the years in our racing, to a point where it becomes unusable (even for safety purposes).

I have been against the RSPCA’s tail-wags-dog

"instigation"

of reviews, and demands for concessions over

"culture changes"

which are at odds with the viability of racing as a sport. I have said that the RSPCA’s hidden agenda is to ban the whip. That agenda is now no longer hidden by the fog of its previous, mealy-mouthed

"support"

for the implement.

I am indeed an amateur in equine welfare. The difference is, that I (like most people in racing) am prepared to trust

professional

experts in the field (qualified people such as

Prof. Tim Morris

and

Mark Johnson

) over and above the interfering amateur

"equine consultant"

who speaks for this animal charity.

And I cannot countenance that amateur’s attempts to

dictate the rules of racing to the sport

, in pursuit of his own banning agenda.

It’s quite up to you whether you chose to align yourself with the amateur, or with the professionals. Who rules racing? Racing itself, or the RSPCA? Which do you prefer?

[cormack15]

Pinza – Plenty racing ‘professionals’ welcomed the new regulations and plenty would like whip restrictions to go further. You can’t pick and choose your ‘professional experts’ to include only those who agree with your own views.

[Anonymous]

Pinza – Plenty racing ‘professionals’ welcomed the new regulations and plenty would like whip restrictions to go further. You can’t pick and choose your ‘professional experts’ to include only those who agree with your own views.

Let’s not go over who rubber-stamped the new rules, or why, again please.

SeanBoyce

dealt with your ideas on that very effectively to my mind last week.

Instead, why not name one reputable expert in Equine Welfare whose research supported the new rules? These rules were never based on the scientific evidence, but set out to improve public perception – a task in which they have failed most spectacularly.

Remember, one of the oddities about this whole scandal is the gulf between what

Tim Morris

had to say in the

Review

from the scientific/welfare point of view, and what the

Recommendations

chose to present for adoption.

And in his own public statements and appearances, Morris – like

Mark Johnson

– has been very careful indeed to distance his own opinions and empirical scientific knowledge from the decision of the BHA to go for a

"culture change"

which he too (like Johnson) felt he had no option but to rubber stamp.

Johnson

has of course changed his position 180 degrees since. I haven’t heard

Tim Morris

speak about the rules since the day the Review was published, when (thanks to his professional status) he was pushed forward by

Paul Roy

to front the

"culture change"

on breakfast TV and elsewhere.

[cormack15]

One thing EVERYONE is agreed on Pinza is the lack of scientific empirical knowledge in this matter.

We don’t know whether or by how much a horse is ‘hurt’ by the whip. We don’t know if and by how much the whip actually helps in its aim of gettign the hosre from A to B faster than otherwise. We don’t if and by how much the reduction in whip strokes under the new regs succeeds in its aim of reducing the impact on welfare. We don’t know if and by how much a total ban would do that either. No one knows the answer to these questions. If they did the matter would be clear.

One thing is clear – a whip reduction (with appropriate safety allowances agreed by BHA) can’t have a negative impact on horse welfare. That is the only definite point. Argue your way out of that one.

These rules were never based on the scientific evidence, but set out to improve public perception – a task in which they have failed most spectacularly.

There IS no scientific evidence – that’s why.

And how do you know they have failed in improving public perception, what are you measuring that on. The opinion of your ex-MP over lunch? It’s early days yet. For me it is the primarily the jockeys who have been crying ‘foul’ and, to be frank, they would, wouldn’t they.

There is no evidence WHATSOEVER racing is less competitive or that turnover is being affected (I’d be interested in figs on that when available). What is clear is that jockeys are finding it difficult to stay within the rules and I agree that does need addressing. THAT is what is causing teh PR problem, nothing else.

All we’ve got from the pro-whip regiment is a lot of hot air and opinion from people who have no real idea what substantive impact the reduction is having.

[Anonymous]

I wont post them up here because its a members only site you pay for but any flatstats members will know there has been a significant development in UK Flat racing in the month since the new whip rules started which could have a significant approach to handicapping in the Uk from now on

[Anonymous]

And how do you know they have failed in improving public perception, what are you measuring that on.

I will address this, and this only. I’m tired of repeating myself to you (and doubtless everyone else is tired of the fruitless tennis match too).

No matter how much quality evidence you’re presented with, you continue to question the integrity of the provider, or of the purveyor. There’s no shame in accepting that you called it wrong. You were not alone. Nobody wants you to apologise, even for your more personal attacks.

The huge amount of negative publicity for the BHA and for British Racing generated by these whip changes in online news and social media outlets; in printed articles in newspapers; and through TV and Radio broadcasting generally, over the last month and a half, is beyond any reasonable doubt. Have there been any positive articles since the day of the launch?

Animal Aid

has achieved what many of us thought impossible: the respectability of an exclusive

Guardian

feature, putting their case for banning racing – and all thanks to this new rule. This is as bad as the National Front getting themselves onto Question Time. And it’s thanks to the New Whip Rule.

And the negative publicity continues every day. You’ve already lost the battle for

"improved public perception"

,

Corm

, when our Racing as a whole is being held up to ridicule around the world as a result of the furore.

Paul Bittar

has said as much. Perhaps you’d care to convince the incoming CEO of BHA that he’s as out of step as all the rest of us?

[seanryan]

Cormac said

One thing is

clear

– a whip reduction (with appropriate safety allowances agreed by BHA) can’t have a negative impact on horse welfare. That is the only definite point. Argue your way out of that one.

I dont think that is clear at all. Reducing the number of hits has at the very least the potential to result in individual hits being applied with more force .

[moehat]

I’ve been wondering recently how much easier it is for a public figure in racing [eg John Francome] to speak openly about his agreement with the new rules, even to the point of

feeling that the whip could be banned completely, than it is for someone to openly say that he believes the opposite to be true, given that he/she could be percieved as not caring about the welfare of the horse which could have a detrimental effect on his/her career?

[ricky lake]

Corm , we need to take a step back , otherwise you will start falling out with people

This used to be a forum where folks could vent their opinions , I am not so sure this is the case on the entire whip issue

You own the site and you make the rules , so rather than fall out with you over semantics , I will leave it

One point I will stress is , the RSPCA should not be interfering in racing , that is my opinion , you have yours , this entire debacle is upon us as the BHA felt they had to appease them

Right or wrong that is my view , I will not change it

I am done with this topic now , you can talk to yourself and Pete all you like ,

BTW , it is VIRTUALLY CERTAIN there will be further amendments to the current rules when Mr Bittar is in place , so get used to it now

best as always

Ricky

[cormack15]

That is true Sean. The BHA need to be vigilant over that issue.

Pinza – you are consistently putting words into my (and other posters), the BHA and the RSPCA’s mouths.

Here are my views, in a nutshell.

I did not and still do not think that the whip is necessary in racing and I welcome any reductions in its use. THAT is the main reason for my support of the reductions that the new rules brought.

I thought that failure to act to reduce the spectacle of exhausted horses being whipped repeatedly would leave the racing industry increasingly isolated.

That view was supported by a

large number

of people within the industry who advocated a reduction in whip usage.

In addition, I don’t accept the number of marked horses, relatively small in relation to total runners as it may have been, under previous rules to have been acceptable.

I think, and still do, that the changes to the whip rules (in particular the bringing in of a count and a count much reduced from previous guidelines) were welcome and necessary.

I think the failure of jockeys to be able to fall into line with the new rules iillustrates not how bad the rules are but how ingrained the ‘whip’ culture has become.

And I personally don’t really care too much either way what the RSPCA think. And I absolutely do not care what Animal Aid think. I don’t even care what Paul Bittar thinks. I have my own mind. He may disagree. You may disagree. That doesn’t necessarily make he or you right or me wrong. In life I’ve usually found the times I have been most right have been the times when most people think I am wrong. Paul Bittar may come in and change the rules back – that still won’t make me wrong, and I’ll still believe that a reduction was/is the right thing in the long term. You can’t bend like a reed to the direction of the wind Pinza, you’ve got to stand like a man if you believe in something strongly.

But I do not think racing can ignore the RSPCA and other organisations. However, I

do

think the time will come when we can tell them we believe we have done all that is reasonable but

that time is not now

.

And I haven’t seen ANY

quality

evidence

to change my mind on any of the above.

BUT

of course

the introduction of the rules could have been handled differently. A trial period, perhaps on all-weather. The timing was wrong, the penalties initially unbalanced. The PJA went missing, the jockeys who supported it publicly ad hoc upfront should have perhaps considered their position more carefully, etc, etc.

However, the BHA have acted quickly to address many of the initial concerns. I’m sure if they could turn the clock back they’d do things differently but what’s done is done.

I think you’ll find the CEO of the BHA made it clear in his interview that while he would be looking at the changes in some detail, he also made it clear he wouldn’t be dictated to by jockeys on welfare or regulatory issues. I wouldn’t be counting on major changes to the current rules as they stand today if I were you P, although of course he may want to make his mark and see this issue as an easy PR job to get people onside rather than taking the harder and more challenging but, in my view, correct option of seeing the changes through and making them work.

There are my thoughts – debate them or twist them all you will Pinza but there they are for all to see. I think they are clear and I stand by them.

[cormack15]

Ricky – I’ve not stopped anyone and will not stop anyone, venting opinions on this issue. There have been some challenging and strong arguments against the new rules and the philosophy or reducing whip usage that have made me think a lot about it. (Including some of your own).

I do find certain posters exasperating though, not because of their views, but because of the way they are expressed.

I AM only human!!

[Gingertipster]

Corm , we need to take a step back , otherwise you will start falling out with people

This used to be a forum where folks could vent their opinions , I am not so sure this is the case on the entire whip issue

You own the site and you make the rules , so rather than fall out with you over semantics , I will leave it

One point I will stress is , the RSPCA should not be interfering in racing , that is my opinion , you have yours , this entire debacle is upon us as the BHA felt they had to appease them

Right or wrong that is my view , I will not change it

I am done with this topic now , you can talk to yourself and Pete all you like ,

BTW , it is VIRTUALLY CERTAIN there will be further amendments to the current rules when Mr Bittar is in place , so get used to it now

best as always

Ricky

Ricky,

I don’t think Corm minds anyone having an opposing view to his. It’s the way his opinion has been twisted or at least badly misunderstood by some people. I know that feeling well. In my case it may be partly my fault for not making my views easy to understand. But it does sometimes seem as though people leap on one particular sentence and use it to mean whatever suits their arguement. Whether that is true or not, it is very frustrating.

Hope you stick around Ricky, there’s no reason to leave.

All the best.

Mark

Value Is Everything

[Anonymous]

Ricky – I’ve not stopped anyone and will not stop anyone, venting opinions on this issue. There have been some challenging and strong arguments against the new rules and the philosophy or reducing whip usage that have made me think a lot about it. (Including some of your own).

I do find certain posters exasperating though, not because of their views, but because of the way they are expressed.

I AM only human!!

So are we all. I for example try hard not to personalise my contributions to this debate. In return I seem to be expected to swallow personal criticisms in post after post from the owner of this Forum – not for my arguments, but for the way I have in your opinion

"expressed"

my views on this matter. You’ve thrown

"twisting words"

,

"arrogant"

,

"hot air"

and

"tittle tattle"

at me for a start – and that’s just this evening!

You’ve also (most oddly) tried to bolster your defence of the RSPCA by belittling the experience of a good friend of mine whose identity you don’t even know, but whose vast experience of types and conditions of men (and women) makes his opinion of the RSPCA (in a situation where they were lobbying him) every bit as valid as your own. Yet you only wish to see one side of their work.

Well, that is up to you. So is the matter of how you choose to behave towards members of your Forum. But please do try to separate the arguments off from the personalities. It doesn’t help anything and makes me, I confess, feel very uncomfortable.
_____________________
Having said which: can we perhaps move from airy, theoretical badinage to a

Real Life Case

? What is your – or anyone else’s – opinion of

Sophie Doyle’

s ride in the

3:40 at Wolverhampton

this afternoon? Yes, Sophie

"broke the rules"

and has been given a ten day ban and lost her prize money, but that’s not the question. What do you think of it as a ride?

[ricky lake]

Corm /Mark …thanks for comments

Pinza dear boy , best to leave it for I am afraid you are flogging a dead horse !!!!

Lets all take a pull and see what happens

cheers

Ricky

[Anonymous]

Pinza dear boy , best to leave it for I am afraid you are flogging a dead horse !!!!

All too perfectly put!

[Author]

Posts