- This topic has 201 replies, 30 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
The point is MV, if disqualification were used in this case without severe bans, nobody would know if a jockey "stopped" a horse. It would be impossible to say whether any jockey got disqualified deliberately or not. Therefore, as Paul says, it is a cheats charter. What better way to stop a horse than to win?
Value Is Everything‘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.
I’d go further than that and say that professional fouls and diving are seen as absolutely ‘part of the game’. In fact, very few players get red cards as most matches the entire team take turns getting inconsequential yellows to avoid getting sent off. That is when they are not pulling the shirts of the opposition in the penalty area. Cheating is condoned, in fact practised on the training ground and strategised on in the strategy room.
For some to hold jockeys to an entirely different set of morals to some spoilt footballer on £100k per week, whilst they earn peanuts for risking their very lives, is wrong.if disqualification were used in this case without severe bans, nobody would know if a jockey "stopped" a horse
as above gingertipster, I suspect that the number of cases where a horse is stopped by a jockey alone, not involving the trainer or owner, to be miniscule, and not worth giving any weight in deciding what penalty should be handed out for whip abuse.
Do you think that jockeys stopping horses of their own accord is more widespread than I believe?
In clear cases of outright abuse, where the jockey goes into a whip happy frenzy and is clearly "punishing" the horse, then yes, he should be rightfully banned.
But no-one has anything to gain by banning a jockey for a marginal infringement where he has forgotten one whip stroke "in the heat of battle" taking his total to nine, say eg McCoy and Walsh recently.
He didn’t abuse the horse, it was unintentional, he may not even have ended up winning the race. What is the point of banning a jockey for this? He has already been disqualified, lost any forthcoming prizemoney, so has nothing to gain by breaking the rules. If he keeps on breaking the rules and getting disqualified, he would have to be a dimwit of the highest order not to learn from his mistakes.
The thing that I don’t like about these whip rules is a lack of common sense. Ruby was banned because a tap down the neck, counted as a hit. What benefits was they to that?
‘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.
I’d go further than that and say that professional fouls and diving are seen as absolutely ‘part of the game’. In fact, very few players get red cards as most matches the entire team take turns getting inconsequential yellows to avoid getting sent off. That is when they are not pulling the shirts of the opposition in the penalty area. Cheating is condoned, in fact practised on the training ground and strategised on in the strategy room.
For some to hold jockeys to an entirely different set of morals to some spoilt footballer on £100k per week, whilst they earn peanuts for risking their very lives, is wrong.Just because another sport is morally corrupt it means that racing should endeavour to emulate it?
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?
That’s it in a nutshell, MV. There is no big welfare issue with the whip, never was, and the few times I’ve mentioned that, it’s been strangely ignored. What your left with is a gang of straw clutchers, waffling on about competitive racing, a jockeys ability to do his job, integrity, regulation, number of strokes…etc
…. they never the mention the "W" word.
The inability of the jockeys to keep to the rules took almost everyone by surprise, including the jockeys themselves.
If this is true it shouldnt have been.
A 99.25% compliance rate with the old rules was identified within the report. In my opinion this sounds like an excellent compliance rate. If however you start to feed this rate into a power of calculator you get the chance of a breach after a number of rides as tabled below
30 – 20%
55 – 34%
92 – 50%
160 -70%
400 -95%It was inevitable they would struggle. The BHAs own stats showed that.
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.
Quality.
- Total Posts 17716
I think the proof that these amendments are not worth the toilet paper they were probably written on, lies in the fact that here we are again – same old arguments being advanced, going around in circles, four weeks on.
My Boyce
‘s admirable post puts the whole thing in, if not a nutshell, then at least a pooper scooper.
And this is before the Undead of the RSPCA rise from their graves to wreak revenge on Roy….
- Total Posts 17716
The inability of the jockeys to keep to the rules took almost everyone by surprise, including the jockeys themselves.
I can’t let that pass. Where have you been,
Corm
?
Many posters
on this very Forum
predicted
exactly
what was going to happen, so anyone who’s found it a shock wasn’t paying attention, or had their head firmly wedged in the sand.
And for
"the jockeys themselves"
read
"the PJA"
, which as the last four weeks have shown, hardly amounts to the same thing.
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.
Quality.
Greatest post on this forum.
- Total Posts 17716
To refer to the RSPCA as the ‘undead’ is pretty shitty in any context.
Well, do
you
think they’re going to lie down?
Anyone who refers to the RSPCA as the "undead" gives the impression that they have no regard to animal welfare, even if their views are contrary to that impression. It is a poor choice of word.
- Total Posts 17716
Anyone who refers to the RSPCA as the "undead" gives the impression that they have no regard to animal welfare, even if their views are contrary to that impression. It is a poor choice of word.
Sentimental about horses is one thing, but
sentimental about the RSPCA???
You’d think I’d shot Bambi!
And do
you
think they’ll lie down?
That was Ten Pole Tudor. I did point out that it was your use of a deliberately emotive and arguably inappropriate word to describe an organization that has far greater respect than either the BHA, PJA or any dedicated horse charity in the public domain.
A cheap shot at such a body looks just what it is.
And for "the jockeys themselves" read "the PJA",
I’d read ‘Dettori and McCoy’. And if jockeys aren’t going to be collectively represented by the PJA they need to take a long hard look at that organisation (which perhaps they are).
That comment re-RSPCA was pretty low. They are not villains of the piece. Some people need to get a grip.
They do a fantastic job throughout the length of England and Wales (we have a different organisation up here in Scotland who also do a wonderful job) and to refer to them as ‘undead’ would reveal more to me about the character of the person making the comment than it ever did about the RSPCA.
They are acting out of a genuine concern for the welfare of the horse. As I’ve said in earlier posts, one horse coming off the racecourse with marks or weals from whip use every two and a half weeks is too many. It might be low in terms of % runners but try telling that to that one horse, every two and a half weeks.
I’m not sure if any have come back marked since the change in rules but I’d be very hopeful there would be some reduction (but perhaps not elimination) in that number due to the very welcome restrictions on frequency of whip use under new rules.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.