- This topic has 281 replies, 32 voices, and was last updated 13 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
The write-up would still make it apparent they finished as close as they were entitled to in the prevailing circumstances, and the plus sign that better still could well have been achieved.
gc
GC,the Timeform plus sign was never incorporated for the purpose of evaluating ‘that better still could well have been achieved'(had it been ridden more aggressively by exceeding whip allowance) it was to suggest that a certain horse had the scope for achieving better still, in the future, as it develops physically/mentally.
How do you think Timeform will interpret yesterdays ‘Wrong’ (according to current rules) result in which Kieren Fox was banned? will it read….Winner won because jockey broke rules by riding to achieve best finishing position possible,runner up should have won but wasn’t ridden so firmly,had 2nd horse been ridden harder he would have won so top rated is the runner up.
Interpreting results like that for the ‘newcomer’ to racing will cause them a massive headache so i doubt there will be any,the culture and history of horseracing has always been about winning thats why we the Real racing fan are 100% against this pathetic rule,yesterday proved 100% that the best horse ridden under a strong whip ride won and thats how its always been interpreted.Those who say the whip doesn’t effect the result look again!
Ginger,whilst we’re at it,you have been interested in racing for as long as myself,you remember Lesters Ratatattat whip style,too many results to mention were achieved by it….
The Minstrel
winning the Derby and
Royal Academy
the Breeders cup mile spring to mind.dont give me ah but we’ve moved on from those neanderthal times rubbish,we aint talking Raping and Pillaging here Ffs.
I cant remember where i read this pearler……’One Elephant two Elephant SMACK,One Elephant two Elephant SMACK,One Elephant two Elephant SMACK……..and so on. I can see the Stewards using that at the next Jockeys meeting,remember these Professional Horseman do have special needs but counting to a full second is not one of them,there will be occassions believe it or not when a Jockey will go SMACK,SMACK,SMACK,SMACK,Elephant,one two,Elephant one two,SMACK! Now once he’s passed the finishing line and Thommo runs up with the mic dont be surprised if you hear a Jockey murmuring to himself Elephant,one two!
Corm,i was always the comedian on here but that one had me in stitches!GC,the Timeform plus sign was never incorporated for the purpose of evaluating ‘that better still could well have been achieved'(had it been ridden more aggressively by exceeding whip allowance) it was to suggest that a certain horse had the scope for achieving better still, in the future, as it develops physically/mentally.
The current Timeform help page indicates that a plus sign denotes "the horse may be better than rated" (their words, not mine), which to my understanding would incorporate anything under the better-than-the-bare-form church.
I’d have thought the small ‘p’ ("the horse is likely to improve") and large ‘P’ ("the horse is capable of much better") more adequately address the issue of propensity for physical and mental maturity.
How do you think Timeform will interpret yesterdays ‘Wrong’ (according to current rules) result in which Kieren Fox was banned? will it read….Winner won because jockey broke rules by riding to achieve best finishing position possible,runner up should have won but wasn’t ridden so firmly,had 2nd horse been ridden harder he would have won so top rated is the runner up.
They’ll find a way. Rides that pique the interest of the stewards (from Casela Park downwards) have long since been dealt with succinctly enough.
gc
Adoptive father of two. The patron saint of lower-grade fare. A gently critical friend of point-to-pointing. Kindness is a political act.
- Total Posts 17716
They’ll find a way. Rides that pique the interest of the stewards (from Casela Park downwards) have long since been dealt with succinctly enough.
Do we trust the Stewards, then, or don’t we? If we do, why has their power to deal flexibly and humanely with questions of whip usage been removed from them, in favour of inflexible countbacks which have no basis in science or sense?
- Total Posts 17716
Do we trust the Stewards, then, or don’t we?
Personally no
So presumably you dislike the new rule, because without doing away with some important grey areas, it places so much greater a burden of micro-policing on this (allegedly) incompetent body?
- Total Posts 17716
I cant remember where i read this pearler……’One Elephant two Elephant SMACK,One Elephant two Elephant SMACK,One Elephant two Elephant SMACK……..and so on. [snip] Corm,i was always the comedian on here but that one had me in stitches!
Corm
was genuinely trying to be helpful, but I would love to see him stand up and try to teach his particular methodology to the Jockeys Association!!
Here’s what Frankie Dettori has to say this morning in the
Racing Post
on the matter of "One elephant, Two elephant SMACK":
"It’s very, very, very hard to count the number of whips … I was trying to train myself to just get to four, but you’re going at 40mph, you’re looking for racing room, for gaps, so it is a lot to get used to."
GC,this whole ridiculous saga is based on public perception or so we are told,i dont believe for one minute the 100 million viewers of the Grand National were affected anywhere near as much as we are lead to believe,giving those bothered the benefit of the doubt we’ll say 20% of them were affected,that still tells you 80% of us accept that 41/2m of the Grand National is a test of both horse and rider and yet the minority wins and changes are made.Someone will drop dead from a heart attack in the London Marathon,will the powers that be now change it from 26 miles to 10 miles of course not,soldiers get killed almost daily,that bothers me a damn sight more than a poor horse being whipped with a piece of felt,will the powers that be only allow a soldier to fire a pea-shooter from now on? It just shows how easily perspective is lost and in horseracings case its gone out the window at the moment.Phil Bull will be turning in his grave at this sorry state of affairs,his ideals were to assess accurately what was achieved on the racecourse,not supposition as to what coulda shoulda woulda have been.Timeform will struggle to maintain accurate reports of events as they will unfold differently now due to whether a jockey wants to achieve the best finishing position or not due to how and when he uses his whip.
Do we trust the Stewards, then, or don’t we?
Personally no
So presumably you dislike the new rule, because without doing away with some important grey areas, it places so much greater a burden of micro-policing on this (allegedly) incompetent body?
Please do not presume to try and represent what my opinions are- my views on the new rules have been clearly and publicly stated and unlike many people I see no need to regurgitate the same arguments ad-nauseum .
I am sure even the most incompetent stewards are perfectly capable of counting up to seven or eight.
The new rules, irrespective of their fitness for purpose, reduce ambiguity, whereas the solution you prefer increases ambiguity.
Did you really find nothing wrong with Jamie Spencer’s ride of Cape Blanco Pinza?
Correct: I found nothing "wrong" with it, and much to admire.
To equate "
whipism
" (to coin a phrase) with
sexism
and
racism
, Ginger, is …. well, an interesting gambit.
I understand your frustration and disappointment that the new rule, which you supported as the Final Fix, has already caused such massive anger and discontent in the Sport. It’s not working, and it’s not going to. But that is no reason to start accusing the rule’s opponents of criminality. We live in a democracy, not some fundamentalist Animal Aid state.
Pinza,
Yet again you’ve twisted what I ‘ve said to suit your own opinion.
I certainly do not "
equate racism and sexism
" to the whip rule and what is more you know I don’t!
All I am saying is my opinions on moral issues (and many other people’s) has changed over the years.
And I have
NEVER
thought of these new rules as the "
Final Fix
". Unlike yourself who’ seen nothing positive in the opposing arguement, I’ve even pointed out what I see as flaws in these new rules.
Why is it that the old rules had
ingringement
after
infringement
, yet these new rules (WHICH WILL TAKE TIME FOR JOCKEYS TO GET USED TO) you dismiss as "
not working
" after just ONE race incident?
Value Is Everything- Total Posts 17716
Please do not presume to try and represent what my opinions are- my views on the new rules have been clearly and publicly stated and unlike many people I see no need to regurgitate the same arguments ad-nauseum .
I am sure even the most incompetent stewards are perfectly capable of counting up to seven or eight.
The new rules, irrespective of their fitness for purpose, reduce ambiguity, whereas the solution you prefer increases ambiguity.
I’m sorry. I assumed you could cope with bald irony.
Your ambiguity is my flexibility. But my solution certainly involves trusting the Stewards, rather than maligning them (and the Stipes) as a posse of old dullards. Your view on their incompetence is indeed well known, Paul, and no surprise to me or anyone else on this Forum.
They’ll need to count to eight, for fields of up to forty runners, without the benefit of complete coverage of every runner at every stage of every race. And they’ll need to do that whilst evaluating many more important matters that might or might not be going on during each and every race.
- Total Posts 17716
Why is it that the old rules had
ingringement
after
infringement
, yet these new rules (WHICH WILL TAKE TIME FOR JOCKEYS TO GET USED TO) you dismiss as "
not working
" after just ONE race incident?
Because it isn’t just the jockeys who are up in arms. It’s practically everyone else too! 21 days worth of bans in just the first incident, in a minor race, on the first day, does not bode well for this new rule.
How much more chaos and controversy, and for how long, will it take before you change your mind as to the likely effectiveness of this thing?
Why is it that the old rules had
ingringement
after
infringement
, yet these new rules (WHICH WILL TAKE TIME FOR JOCKEYS TO GET USED TO) you dismiss as "
not working
" after just ONE race incident?
Gingertipster, You wanted the new rules changed after just the one race, you stated rides like Fox’s should now lead to disqualification rather than a 15 day ban on the evidence of that one race.
There was nothing with the previous whip rules they just needed to tweak the penalties a bit. Rules are broken in all sports, yellow and red cards in football, it doesn’t mean you eliminate almost totally the ability to break the rules.
They have no whip rules at all in America.Why is it that the old rules had
ingringement
after
infringement
, yet these new rules (WHICH WILL TAKE TIME FOR JOCKEYS TO GET USED TO) you dismiss as "
not working
" after just ONE race incident?
Because it isn’t just the jockeys who are up in arms. It’s practically everyone else too! 21 days worth of bans in just the first incident, in a minor race, on the first day, does not bode well for this new rule.
Fox needs to be taught a lesson, should’ve been more. But the jockeys aren’t "up in arms" are they. It is they who want less ambiguity about how many strokes are needed. It is you who wants more ambiguity.
Hopefully I say this for the last time.
IT
WILL
TAKE
TIME
FOR
JOCKEYS
TO
ADJUST
!Value Is Everything- Total Posts 17716
Fox needs to be taught a lesson, should’ve been more. But the jockeys aren’t "up in arms" are they. It is they who want less ambiguity about how many strokes are needed. It is you who wants more ambiguity.
Ginger
, this is getting tedious, I’m sure. But you should read what
Kevin Darley
had to say yesterday on the matter. The JA wanted more clarity on what they could or could not do, technically. They did
not
ask for draconian bans and (dubiously legal) sequestration of their fees and winning percentages. They have been sold down the river, and treated badly. And they will
not
silently agree to be the fall-guys for BHA’s ill-advised attempt to muscle this one through.
Why is it that the old rules had
ingringement
after
infringement
, yet these new rules (WHICH WILL TAKE TIME FOR JOCKEYS TO GET USED TO) you dismiss as "
not working
" after just ONE race incident?
Gingertipster, You wanted the new rules changed after just the one race, you stated rides like Fox’s should now lead to disqualification rather than a 15 day ban on the evidence of that one race.
There was nothing with the previous whip rules they just needed to tweak the penalties a bit. Rules are broken in all sports, yellow and red cards in football, it doesn’t mean you eliminate almost totally the ability to break the rules.
They have no whip rules at all in America.Yeats,
I stated what I wanted before these new whip rules came out. What I’d like is different to the new or old rules.
1) I am willing to give these rules a chance to work.
2) I hope they will be looked at (given sufficeint time to work) at a later date to decide where to change them.Racing is different to football, but when a striker hand balls it in to the net, the goal is disqualified.
Yes, I’d want the horse to be disqualified in Fox’s case,
as well as
a 15 day ban.
But there were cases with the old rules where I thought the same. I’d have to see the race again to be certain, but Rewilding should’ve got disqualified from the Prince Of Wales too under what I’d like to see (and I backed it at 18/1).In my opinion whenever a jockey
blatently has a disregard
for the whip rules the horse should be disqualified.
Also: If by infringing the whip rules a jockey has
probably achieved an advantage that has effectively won him the race
– the horse should be disqualifed. (Although in Frankies case I believe Rewilding would still have won had he kept within existing rules).
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.