Whip Rule amendments

[Anonymous]

Corm

, I have to say that I rather agree with you about the calls for mass resignations at BHA.

Mr Roy should certainly have considered his position long before the current fiasco over which he’s presiding, so his behaviour over the Whip Rules has not been any worse than anything else he’s put his hand to. And if Mr Stier’s departure becomes the only way to resolve matters, then he might wish to fall on his sword for the Greater Good. I think he fatally overestimated his powers of persuasion.

But Mr Struthers, though he did serve on the Review Panel, seems to me to have little with which to reproach himself. It is hardly his fault if the person deputising for him while he’s on paternity leave has proved an arrant hobbledehoy.

It’s the BHA structure which has been revealed as unfit for purpose, rather than

all

the individuals who serve the organisation.

[seanryan]

David Muir said

"We maintain our view that

horse welfare has to come first

and that the use of the whip for anything other than safety is unacceptable.

Cormac 15 said

a general and widespread acceptance (backed by evidence) that racing is a sport which puts

horse and jockey welfare FIRST

Spot the difference.

On a seperate point what expertise has David Muir in change management ? He seems to be fixated with punishment/deterrent as the main tool for attaining it. That is hardly best practice ( as I have discovered after 5 minutes on google).

[cormack15]

Seanryan – I think that is a point of pedantic difference. I’m sure the RSPCA would put jockey welfare at the top of any agenda too.

[Pompete]

Thanks for the reply Sean. You do raise a number of interesting points and I accept your knowledge of the day to day ongoings at the coalface, so to speak, is far greater than mine.

Perhaps I’ve been a bit harsh on the Jocks and other connections so will take a little time out to think about it.

[Anonymous]

I havent heard the quote from them for the start that the Whip should only be used for safety purposes in the press before this, have we been led astray by someone along the chain or has this been the stated aim from the start and only just been "Let Out" by mistake.
Do the RSPCA want the whip banned
Do the RSPCA want the abolition of NH racing

I recommend anyone interested in David Muir’s agenda to read his interview with Steeplechasing in April;

http://steeplechasing.wordpress.com/201 … onsultant/

This passage stands out in the light of today’s "leakage" of Muir’s real agenda:

"The whip is a work in progress. The one used now in racing bears no comparison whatever to the whip used five years ago. If I’d have hit myself hard on the back of the hand with a whip from five years ago, I’d break all four fingers. I could do it with the current whip and not even leave a mark.

…used in the backhand position, I can never see a point in the future where I, or the RSPCA, would have a problem with the whip and that is the way I think the BHA will go with this.

“The only alternative I can see to that is that the whip is to be carried for safety and correction only, as in the current hands and heels races."

Yet today, he says this:

"We maintain our view that horse welfare has to come first and that the use of the whip for anything other than safety is unacceptable."

In other words, he is taking a very much harder line now than in April. Whip use which was fully "

acceptable

" to him then is "

unacceptable

" now. Why? What has changed? Where is his evidence? This, as well as the flat contradiction between his praise of the current whip in April, and his condemnation of it on "

welfare

" grounds today, is most striking.

I suggest that we are now seeing the true face of Mr Muir. Not the kind, reasonable and humane man who personally (or so he tells us)

"…must have thrown water over twenty or thirty horses"

after the Grand National", but the domineering figure who

"instigated"

this Review, extracted a "

promise

" from BHA before the consultation process got underway, and who is now it seems threatening big trouble if he doesn’t get his way.

Is this a man Racing should be doing business with?

[cormack15]

Racing should do what is pragmatic and reasonable – and then, as Mark Johnston has said, draw a line in the sand and say, "fine, we have done what we believe is pragmatic and reasonable in the interests of horse welfare, what now guys, take us on?"

But I maintain my position that we haven’t reached that point yet. We are not in a strong enough position. Once horses are coming back unmarked we will have a major milestone reached and the ammunition that can be fired at us severely depleted.

If horses are unmarked then, even with breaches of rules, we can provide evidence that horses are not being harmed physically and we’ll have taken a huge leap to solving the whip ‘problem’.

Yes, there will always be calls to go further, but we can alienate these calls if we can demonstrate and cohesively argue that racing has done all that is reasonably practical and neceessary (in respect of welfare).

[Anonymous]

Seanryan – I think that is a point of pedantic difference. I’m sure the RSPCA would put jockey welfare at the top of any agenda too.

I’ve searched in vain for any mention of

"jockey welfare"

or

"human welfare"

in their charter,

Corm

. Their brief is to campaign for the animal, not the pilot. Their argument would be that jockeys have a choice what they do and what danger they expose themselves to, whilst the horses don’t.

They are not in any sense a sort of Equine Sports Health & Safety Executive – which is

Mark Johnson

‘s point against the unlimited growth of their influence on the Sport. Uk Racing, not they, employ the real Welfare experts.

This of course absolutely does not mean that the RSPCA would condone "cruelty" towards humans, any more than jockeys condone "cruelty" towards horses.

[Anonymous]

Once horses are coming back unmarked we will have a major milestone reached and the ammunition that can be fired at us severely depleted.

When the last time a horse was marked? What were the circumstances? What was the punishment?

From the Whip Review:

"

Definition of a Weal

Out of (approximately) 90-100,000 runners each year, there are usually around 20 occasions where a horse is observed to have a weal. Medically a weal is described as circumscribed accumulation of fluid within the skin in response to a blow. Every such case is examined by a Veterinary Officer on two occasions. The Veterinary Officers look for signs of inflammation including discomfort or pain on examination and in the behavioural response of the
horse. To date no such signs have been seen over the last three years."

20 from 90,000 is 0.002%, or 1 in 4,500. A minuscule number of cases. The report is at pains to point out that many of these cases of wealing were due to whip

breakages

, and explains why this can happen for reasons

other

than brute strength, given the design of the safety whip.

If you want to completely

eradicate

wealing, therefore, to achieve a perfect score (except when weals are caused by clods of earth or kickback) the only way is to follow your preferred solution of banning the whip completely, including for safety reasons.

[BeauRanger]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUQj7SOy … re=related

whip rules what a ride

[Racing Daily]

I dont know about you all, but I think that the main ‘walkers’ are based in High Holborn rather than at RSPCA HQ.
Although those lot at PETA might qualify as zombie undead. Thank your lucky stars that our game hasn’t been infiltrated by the like of those bloodless freaks (yet).

[cormack15]

If that is correct – which I doubt Pinza- why not change the whip design so it doesn’t break …. simple…but effective.

[cormack15]

btw 20 isn’t ‘miniscule – it’s one every two and a half weeks. (2.6 weeks to be axact)

[Anonymous]

If you grabbed 100,000 people by the arm tomorrow id bet 20 or more would be marked

[ricky lake]

Folks its a no brainer , Corm agrees with Muir , ok no big deal , I could sense this from the outset , but heck he is entitled to do that "!!!

This whole appeasment debacle was designed originally to keep them (animal welfare bods)quiet , after serial mismanagement, aided and abetted by an even more inept PJA , WE ARE WHERE WE ARE

But we now know what Mr Muir wants , no whip usage unless for safety ….yeah right , so lets figure out how long it will take for him to get his wish

Hopefully never , but under the present management of racing , it could well happen

Ricky

[cormack15]

This whole appeasment debacle was designed originally to keep them (animal welfare bods)

Aren’t you in favour of animal welfare too Ricky? Pinza? Sean? Do you think horses should be coming back marked from races?

I make no aponogy for lining up with Francome, O’Sullevan and, yes, even McCririck, in favour of a total ban, I’ve said so from the outset, no hidden agenda here.

BUT – I don’t think a total ban is needed to reach everyone’s aims.

Where do you stand on horse welfare Ricky/Piza/Sean? Will you forfeit that for competitive racing? What is acceptable ‘target’ for whip marks/weals?

[ricky lake]

Corm , take a deep breath son

and then go boil your head

There is no welfare issue , 99.99 per cent dont get weal marks , FFFFFFFFFSSSS ITS A PADDED CUSHION….

Your argument Corm is very much akin to clutching at straws …..meanwhile in the real world ….horses happily return home from the races to their palatial hotels and enjoy themselves some more

Please Corm no more emotive posts , it does you no great credit Sir

cheers

Ricky

[moehat]

I’m sorry but, I don’t understand all this. We’re now talking about horses being marked in a sport where they can break their legs or necks at any time. If we accept the fact that it is a sport not without danger and these things can and do happen then surely it should just be banned altogether? How can we argue that hitting a horse with a piece of foam is cruel but throwing it at a fence at thirty plus miles an hour isn’t? I’m just beginning to question everything about the sport that I’ve loved for over fifty years.

[Author]

Posts