- This topic has 201 replies, 30 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
Bring in new whip rules under cloak and dagger, with next to no consultation on the run up to Champions Day.
This is nonsense. Read the statement by the PJA when the original rules came out. They state that there was full consultation throughout.
Corm, I don’t claim any special powers of prescience.
My theory, for what it’s worth, is that very few commentators/pundits/pros had even read the Review document when they first commented on it. Having not taken the necessary time to read it, it is of course highly unlikely that they would have put in the necessary time to arrive at an informed opinion on it.
This is entirely normal practice in my experience.
I would also be very surprised to hear that board members at the BHA who signed off on this Review had all read it closely. Jim McGrath, in his letter in the Racing Post pointed out the massive gap between the Reviews
findings
(which are interesting) and its
recommendations
(which are barmy).
The willingness to sign off on this Review at board level and the willingness amongst professionals to be seen to support it had nothing to do with substance and everything to do with the way the issue was spun.
There has been much criticism of McCoy/Dettori/Nicholls/Cecil for lending their names to the report at launch. But, ask yourself, whose is the biggest sin. The pro who is asked to rubber stamp a 10 month report ‘for the good of the sport’ or the Review Group itself which had 10 months to come up with recommendations? Or, the board that signed off recommendations that were so badly flawed that they have undergone constant redrafting and review in an ongoing process which is still not complete?
When recommendations are not based on a reports own findings it’s likely there will be problems. When the recommendations in question are based upon false distinctions, false premises and spin then problems are pretty much guaranteed.
This is nonsense. Read the statement by the PJA when the original rules came out. They state that there was full consultation throughout.
They’ve since taken that back, they trusted the BHA to do a good job (wrongly it turned out). It is common knowledge the jockeys were hoodwinked, obviously the PJA are not blameless and it didn’t help having Darley as leader.
I’ve got the impression that throughout this process that the BHA have always been deceitful in an attempt to get their own way, the 2 sackfuls of mail, ringing McCoy & Dettori up when they knew they were busy, even now with their selective stats regarding the first 4 weeks of the new rules.
- Total Posts 17716
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.
I respectfully suggest you examine the respect/reputation of the RSPCA, which is suffering a nosedive, before shooting cheap shots at me.
- Total Posts 17716
That comment re-RSPCA was pretty low. They are not villains of the piece. Some people need to get a grip.
Scene from a melodrama
"Oh yes they are!"
"Oh no they’re not"
"Oh yes they are!"
(and so ad infinitum)
Listen, RSPCA is not Holy Church: quite the reverse. Nobody is saying that they do not do a heck of a lot of good work, of course they do. But their spend on bureaucracy and much of their methodology and failure to prioritise is heavily under fire, and has been for several years.
They are
using
British Racing to gain some cheap, good publicity for themselves. Their agenda is clearly to get the whip banned in the medium term. And they are not experts in racehorse welfare – anything but.
And anyone who cannot see that they are behind this unworkable piece of foolishness really must be on a different planet. Remember, according to
David Muir
himself, they "
instigated
" the review and were
"promised culture change"
by BHA.
That, as commentators as diverse as
Mark Johnson
and
Willie Carson
have said very clearly and publicly, is why BHA need to stand up to them now.
Wach auf, Leute! Die Untoten kommen!
Corm , this is not about the RSPCA,, its about the way this debacle came to happen
The truth lies somewhere in the following opinion , somehow the Bha were pressured into changing he whip rules , probably by animal welfare groups , and probably after the horrid Grand National , somewhere along the lines , a report was made , rules were drafted , agreement was reached , no doubt the PJA have a lot to answer for in this debacle
prominemt jocks endorsed , and then romoved it , after rules were implemented , it seems the penalties were not explained properly
So agreement was given without knowing the full scale of the penalties ….a bad show all round
Jocks revolted , and now after 2 sets of amendments , we still do not have total agreement
I ask the following question
Did the review need to happen , dod the BHA NEED to appease the animal welfare groups , and then did they need to make a complete hash of it
Whatever side you are on , one thing remains clear , Roy , Steir , Struthers and Darley should go ….racing has been tarnished and continues to be ,until this mess is cleared up for good
I dont think it helps posting emotive stuff ….horse welfare has never been better , and the whip marks you refer to are a rarity , especially with the cushion whip they use nowadays
Hopefully the new leader Aussie Paul will be able to sort this, as plainly the current leaders are either unable or unwilling to do so
The PJA NEEDS to be restructured , the current leadership is very inept IMO OF COURSE
Ricky
- Total Posts 17716
When recommendations are not based on a reports own findings it’s likely there will be problems. When the recommendations in question are based upon false distinctions, false premises and spin then problems are pretty much guaranteed.
That is the heart of the matter. When I read the Report, I was surprised how far the Recommendations were removed from the facts and positive statistical trends so painstakingly documented – as
Seanryan
has consistently made clear, too.
There was a strong sense that BHA were in effect saying to UK Racing
"There’s no evidence for this, but we’ve promised to do it anyway, so let’s close our eyes, jump into the water and hope we float".
They’ve had that sinking feeling ever since….
IMO the BHA are listening to some extent but have put racing in a very tight corner. I suspect they are now awake to the fact that racing is in a poorer position to defend itself because the new rules and penalties were not structured to allow measurement of behavioural change (aka fewer breaches) against the old limits and the 99.25% compliance benchmark.
A protocol (agreed with the PJA) as to which hits might be disregarded might give all parties a bit more wiggle room.
This may be ridiculous but I notice the raceday pro-cush whip includes a microchip . What does this do ? Could some mechanism to measure speed/force of the pro-cush be introduced and hits below a certain force disregarded ?
Corm, I don’t claim any special powers of prescience.
My theory, for what it’s worth, is that very few commentators/pundits/pros had even read the Review document when they first commented on it. Having not taken the necessary time to read it, it is of course highly unlikely that they would have put in the necessary time to arrive at an informed opinion on it.
This is entirely normal practice in my experience.
I would also be very surprised to hear that board members at the BHA who signed off on this Review had all read it closely. Jim McGrath, in his letter in the Racing Post pointed out the massive gap between the Reviews
findings
(which are interesting) and its
recommendations
(which are barmy).
I find that absolutely astonishing.
For commentators/pundits/pros not to read through thouroughly such an important document, and for that to be seen as "entirely normal".
And you Sean talk of barmy?
If they don’t "put in the neccessary time" then why is anyone taking any notice of what they say?
What would we say if an econonomics journalist said "I didn’t bother reading important documents on the Euro before commenting on them"?
If someone doesn’t do his/her job properly sack them. It should not be seen as "entirely normal".
Or is it just a way to excuse your colleagues original support for the BHA changes Sean? May be they did read it all thoroughly, and like the BHA did not foresee some problems.
Value Is Everythingif disqualification were used in this case without severe bans, nobody would know if a jockey "stopped" a horse
Do you think that jockeys stopping horses of their own accord is more widespread than I believe?
No, at the moment MV I do not believe it is a widespread problem, and want it to remain so.
If disqualification came in without a hefty punishment for jockeys, it would increase to unbearable levels.
Value Is EverythingMy theory, for what it’s worth, is that very few commentators/pundits/pros had even read the Review document when they first commented on it. Having not taken the necessary time to read it, it is of course highly unlikely that they would have put in the necessary time to arrive at an informed opinion on it.
This is entirely normal practice in my experience.
Entirely normal in mine too and in regard to matters of much more importance than the BHA’s review.
Consider the infamous irish bank guarantee …it was reportedly signed off by the then (and now deceased) finance minister after reviewing the executive summary (and not main body) of the report outlining his options.
This is amazing.
The ‘End of the Worlders’. ‘Hat Jumpers’, ‘that bloke off the telly’ and the ‘8 good 9 bad’ have all failed to to understand the jockeys don’t give a **** about the so called ‘big picture’ or the RSPCA or punters or anything else, but rather their own financial self interest….and I’ve no problem with that.
But please let’s stop pretending it to be otherwise.
The BHA as leading Responsible Regulators have shown themselves to be responsive and pro-active to the legitamate concerns raised by the jockeys and have acted accordingly.
I don’t know why you sound so surprised Ginger. It’s a big document. Many people responded to what they thought was the ‘gist’ of it. Also, many people didn’t think through the process and what it would lead to. There is a tendency to trust authority in these matters. When one is told this is the fruit of 10 months of specialist work and consultation one is inclined to trust the headline summaries of such documents. This is especially true if one is already pre-disposed to a certain position. As we know, considerable work was done prior to the release of the report to lay the groundwork of the acceptance of the ‘something must be done’ theory. It’s no accident that articles ran in our racing pages and in the Racing Post which erroneously linked the bad publicity surrounding the Grand National to a single whip offence in that race. No accident either that our dedicated racing paper ran articles floating the idea of whipless racing. The report was the culmination of a lengthy strategy.
This sort of thing happens all the time in all walks of life. A report is produced which may or may not be a good piece of work. If people like the basic premise as given to them by whoever’s ‘spinning’ it they will support the report. Thus, everyone who wanted to see less/no whip use or who harbours some misplaced guilt about racing was ready to support it without reading it. It’s known as ‘confirmation bias’. The reason some continue to argue that the basic premise of the report is sound is not because this is a fact but because it is what best supports their own beliefs.
The people most likely to read it critically were those who have a confirmation bias that leans the other way. We sceptics were always likely to give it a closer reading because we were looking for reasons to challenge its orthodoxy.
Good science, good research and good governance would ensure that an objective critical eye is brought to the process. This didn’t happen in this piece of work. No critical analysis was invited. No challenge was made to judgements which were not based on evidence or data. No rigour was applied by those who should have taken responsibility for protecting the sport from bad regulation. It’s a failure of the report and, more significantly, the board that signed it off.
While many didn’t read it, some of us did. And we have been as vocal as we can be about the report’s shortcomings. It’s difficult to put those shortcomings to the BHA though when they repeatedly refuse to be interviewed on the topic.
Sean, have any jockeys you have spoken to expressed concerns about the shortcomings?
This is amazing.
The BHA as leading Responsible Regulators have shown themselves to be responsive and pro-active to the legitamate concerns raised by the jockeys and have acted accordingly.
Who are you referring to when you say the BHA? You said Paul Roy was a cnut earlier on, he is the BHA. Jamie Stier? Paul Struthers? Morris?
They all piss in the same pot for me.Not ‘any’ but
every
jockey I’ve spoken to about it has expressed concern about the rule changes. Every single one. And every single trainer too.
The only jockey I’ve heard specifically highlight the flawed logic of the report itself is Ruby Walsh. Being a very smart guy I think he’d read my blog postings on it
Paul Roy, offically works two days a week, one of which is going racing on Saturday, for his c.£100.000 a year. He has been taken the piss for years, we all know that….
The Chairman’s role was specified as a two-day a week position with remuneration of c.£100,000 per annum.
BHB, 9-10-2006
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.