- This topic has 201 replies, 30 voices, and was last updated 13 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Does anyone actually believe the BHA know what they’re doing?
Bring in new whip rules under cloak and dagger, with next to no consultation on the run up to Champions Day. Swiftly make amendments after a few days and then again a couple of weeks later. Say originally they want clarity with no discretion then change their minds.
Meaningless stats only over a 4 week period to justify their case but if it’s working so well why have they changed it again.
The whole situation would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious.How anyone can support the muppitts is beyond me.
The first big test fast approaches,The Paddy Power Gold Cup on Saturday,looking at the framing of the weights there’s a lot of horses sitting nicely around the 10 stone mark,the latest edition of whip rules will have exactly the same impact as those from yesterday and most significantly they will impact on
Wishfull Thinking
,(No pun intended).This fellow is arguably the most improved horse in the race but he has been handicapped accordingly,he’s a big gross beast who will improve again but because there are plenty ‘Flyweights’ running i can see a couple of those buzzing off at a clip so Richard Johnson will have to be on his guard when it comes to counting whip strikes,i believe due to conditions of the race Richard will need all of 5 after the last to keep tabs on some of those receiving in excess of 14lb.I use
Wishful Thinking
rather than the equally classy
Poquelin
as one is a battler who will pull out more for the whip,whereas the latter is much more of a bridle horse who will find little for the whip but on his day is a proper 170 chaser.Good ground will help the pro BHA brigade but there will come a time when one of these big handicaps is run on testing ground and the Cheltenham hill will see just how rigid the rulebook is then.I’ll stick my neck out and say the rules are broken in The Paddy Power though,thats how strongly i feel they are flawed!
The inability of the jockeys to keep to the rules took almost everyone by surprise, including the jockeys themselves. Most racing professionals welcomed the rule changes (including top jockeys such as McCoy and Dettori and top trainers such as Sir Henry Cecil).
Quite how the BHA were supposed to ‘know’ what would happen next when virtually no one in the industry could see it PRIOR TO THE EVENT, I’m not quite sure. They’ve changed the rules/penalties TWICE in a month since it became apparent there were implementation issues. Hardly the actions of a non-listening, non-acting organisation.
Fooled by randomness.
The count needs to stay, I’ll be suprised and disappointed if they move from that. The stewards now have very clear discretion on use of the whip for safety issues (one of Sean and Pinza’s sore points) and the penalties have been relaxed for a ‘minor’ offence. These are the issues that were contentious and they’ve now been addressed.
I share McCain’s concern that there may now be some disparity in the way that the stewards interpret the guidance but you can’t have it all ways. Stand back and watch how many Ruby-esque slaps down the neck are now given – on safety grounds of course.
I wouldn’t disagree KF (that they’ll be broken in the P.Power). If they are it’ll add more evidence to the argument that the jockeys have a win-at-all-costs mentality in big races which repeatedly manifests itself in a disregard for the whip regulations.
I hope you are wrong though, and there have been ‘good’ NH races run so far in which the jockeys have performed perfectly capably without resorting to additional strokes of the whip administered outside the rules of racing to gain
unfair advantage on their rivals
(isn’t that cheating by any other name btw?)
The hallmark of a professional sportsperson is being able to keep their heads and perform at their best, maintaining control and peak performance, while
‘in the zone’
.
Are you saying our jockeys are incapable of such control Pinza?
You said all that about four weeks ago, and it’s no more penetrating now than it was then. You are quite wrong,
Corm
, but I am not going to go round your island on this again. Try listening to the jockeys such as
Cauthen
, instead of talking at them. Exasperated by your chronic lack of empathy, I’m afraid….
Wishing to be purely pedantic, shouldn’t it read former jockeys such as Cauthen as I do not believe he holds a current licence?
‘The hallmark of a professional sportsperson is being able to keep their heads and perform at their best, maintaining control and peak performance, while ‘in the zone’."
You’ll be able to name for us Corm, the professional footballer that can play 99.25% + of their matches without conceding a free kick for any infringement of the rules? Or the teams that can go through 99.25%+ of their matches without conceding any cards? Or any penalties? They all know the rules after all. They can count how many times they’ve been booked can’t they?
The number of bans is up in both flat and jumps despite penalties so harsh that they’ve caused serious unrest in the profession. Please consider that it’s the rules, not the jockeys, that might be the problem.
You can polish a turd, you can spin a turd, you can even tweak a turd but it will remain a turd. The rules stink and every single flaw in them and every single climbdown we’ve seen, and are yet to see, was entirely predictable.
The reason the rules are so easily broken is that they’re rubbish. They’re not fit for purpose. Nothing that has been unveiled today will alter that fundamental truth.
if the BHA truly believed in the whip restriction and in the stewards to judge that a ride had transgressed the whip rules, they wouldn’t have to bother with the fixed day penalty structure.
The only penalty required would be to disqualify the horse from the race. Simple.
The jockey would not break the rules, there would be no point as he is going to get thrown out anyway.
As it now stands, the BHA have permitted stewards "discretion". How long will it be before RUK or ATR highlight the case of two races from different racecourses where the stewards ban one jockey but excuse the other for an identical "offence"?
Well done BHA. Whilst you may have saved face (in your own eyes), the racing world continues to be bemused by your complete incompetence.
Reinstate the old rules and train and educate your stewards to rule on whip abuse consistently if you genuinely believe there is a problem.
‘The hallmark of a professional sportsperson is being able to keep their heads and perform at their best, maintaining control and peak performance, while ‘in the zone’."
You’ll be able to name for us Corm, the professional footballer that can play 99.25% + of their matches without conceding a free kick for any infringement of the rules? Or the teams that can go through 99.25%+ of their matches without conceding any cards? Or any penalties? They all know the rules after all. They can count how many times they’ve been booked can’t they?
The number of bans is up in both flat and jumps despite penalties so harsh that they’ve caused serious unrest in the profession. Please consider that it’s the rules, not the jockeys, that might be the problem.
You can polish a turd, you can spin a turd, you can even tweak a turd but it will remain a turd. The rules stink and every single flaw in them and every single climbdown we’ve seen, and are yet to see, was entirely predictable.
The reason the rules are so easily broken is that they’re rubbish. They’re not fit for purpose. Nothing that has been unveiled today will alter that fundamental truth.
Have you been on the Shandy Sean?
I take back all the ‘Grey Man’ comparisons
thats the way to tell it Turds and all! Pure class!Sean –
I know you were one of the very few who was actively campaaigning against changes since long before those changes were introduced. But I don’t think it’s entirely fair to say all that unfolded was entirely predictable. You have to agree that the vast majority of participants and media commentators/pundits, including the jockeys themselves of course, have been taken by surprise?
What would satisfy you? A return to the old rules? Are you simply saying the jockeys need leeway to use the whip more frequently?
Agree with the above post that DQ is the real answer to compliance issues, but it would create uproar and chaos on the betting front and, from that viewpoint, isn’t a go-er really.
The reason the rules are so easily broken is that they’re rubbish.
Absolutely correct, Sean. I wrote to the BHA complaining about the bans recently handed out to Ruby Walsh and AP McCoy.
I defy anyone to come even close to justifying those rides as barbaric, cruel, abusive or in any way harmful to the two horses concerned.
Yet isn’t that what the whip changes are all about? Abuse or harm of the thoroughbred racehorse?
If not, can someone please remind me what we are arguing about?
You’ll be able to name for us Corm, the professional footballer that can play 99.25% + of their matches without conceding a free kick
Agree with the above post that DQ is the real answer to compliance issues, but it would create uproar and chaos on the betting front and, from that viewpoint, isn’t a go-er really.
Personally I wouldn’t care a monkeys about disqualification from a punting perspective – if a jockey wins by cheating – i.e. breaking the rules, then why should the horse be a deemed a winner if the runner-up has stuck to the rules.
Disqualification would be a far greater deterrent to jockeys than a ban as they would have to face the wrath of connections and punters.
However the strong argument against disqualification is an integrity issue as it would give corrupt connections a very easy way to throw a race – certainly a hell of a lot easier than taking a pull or deliberately causing interference – it would be a cheats charter.
DQ would create uproar and chaos on the betting front and, from that viewpoint, isn’t a go-er really.
But doesn’t that suggest the BHA do not have confidence in their changes, Cormack?
If they are right, why would punters have a problem? Why would jockeys transgress the rules knowing they are going to be disqualified anyway?
As we have seen with the ridiculous limit (for NH, not necessarly the Flat) in place at the moment, 99% of jockeys are riding within the rules. Does their compliance tell you that the rules are right or that they don’t want to be banned in order to feed their families?
the strong argument against disqualification is an integrity issue as it would give corrupt connections a very easy way to throw a race – certainly a hell of a lot easier than taking a pull or deliberately causing interference – it would be a cheats charter.
Paul, if connections are indeed corrupt, I’m sure there are a million simpler ways they can stop their horse from winning than asking their jockey to hit the horse 9 times.
Buckets of water.
Galloping a horse on the morning of a race.
Not letting the horse out its box for a weekThe list of methods that can be used out of the public eye (which 9 strikes of the whip is not) must be endless.
Hence the corruption argument for not implementing disqualification is invalid, imo.
Paul, if connections are indeed corrupt, I’m sure there are a million simpler ways they can stop their horse from winning than asking their jockey to hit the horse 9 times.
Buckets of water.
Galloping a horse on the morning of a race.
Not letting the horse out its box for a weekThe list of methods that can be used out of the public eye (which 9 strikes of the whip is not) must be endless.
Hence the corruption argument for not implementing disqualification is invalid, imo.
OK so what if it was just the jockey who was corrupt and the connections were not involved?
(I will confess to some Devil’s advocacy here as I wasn’t initially convinced by the integrity argument but was persuaded otherwise by a BHA official)
Any "disqualification" for whip offences needs to be accompanied by a severe ban for the jockey anyway. Otherwise jockeys can not be paid to throw a race by breaking whip rules.
To think it would not be used for "stopping" purposes is naive. Had the BHA come up with disqualification as an alternative, press would have a field day.
Value Is EverythingOK so what if it was just the jockey who was corrupt and the connections were not involved?
That is always possible, though I’m sure you would agree that most non-trier cases would appear to be under the instructions of the trainer and or owner.
Where connections are suspicious of a jockey’s ride, is it not normal practice for them never to employ the services of that jockey again? He/she loses his/her reputation and quickly becomes ostracised by the general racing community, so a jockey is hardly likely to do this of their own accord.
I’m personally only aware of one case where a jockey (prominent on the flat riding today) apparently took a £10k backhander to stop a horse, and he has never ridden for that trainer again. He is also generally not employed by leading stables now, or at least very rarely, surprising given the level of ability he has. So for him, was it worth it in the end?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.