- This topic has 281 replies, 32 voices, and was last updated 13 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
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?
For the avoidance of doubt: my quoted comment concerned how rides of the nature of that given to Casela Park were dealt with in form cards, not by the stewards. HTH.
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.
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.
Of course the jockeys don’t "want draconian bans" on jockeys, but they did want less ambiguity, they did want to know how they stood.
Unless the jockeys who
go way over
acceptable whip levels get long bans, then it is no deterent for that jockey or any other jockey.
Value Is EverythingPhil 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.
For the very reasons I’ve given previously (interference, riding transgressions, etc.), supposition has always needed to be factored into rating some horses’ performances to a greater or lesser extent, regardless of the minute accuracy of the ratings model any given organisation ordinarily strives to adhere to.
Any notion that the performance of every last animal could be rated beyond the realms of doubt and supposition prior to yesterday doesn’t hold up – there would have been no reason for Timeform to award plusses, ‘p’s or ‘P’s, or the
Post
its disc-with-an-up-arrow, were that not the case. An accurate ratings model which will still account for what might have been, should that be necessary, is not a contradiction in terms.
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.
Now that we’ve had it officially confirmed by owner Steve Nunn that yesterday’s winner Orthodox Lad came to no harm whatsoever and was described as ‘bouncing’ after the victory.
What good for the sport has a 15 day ban for Kieran Fox done?
How many non-racing people will have watched the 5.00 at Salisbury yesterday?
As I pointed out yesterday it’s the lower end owners who will suffer as much as anyone and at a critical time for racing trying to get new people interested in parting with their cash to join syndicates etc….this is doing them no favours at all in my opinion…
Steve Nunn also accepts that Kieran Fox deserved to be banned, so having blatantly disregarded the rules that were in place when he weighed out,he cannot have much argument as to his punishment. I think it shows up a problem and perhaps light at the end of the tunnel depending on whether you are an optimist or pessimist.
Now jockeys have realized the severity of the penalties they face for transgression, it is hoped that it will make them realize the benefits of seeking to adapt to the new rules. However it also perhaps highlights that without the ability to disqualify illegally ridden mounts, some owners will encourage their jockeys to ignore the rules.
- Total Posts 17716
However it also perhaps highlights that without the ability to disqualify illegally ridden mounts, some owners will encourage their jockeys to ignore the rules.
I am sure you are right. And as we know, disqualification is not on the table and never will be. An outright whip ban would be a much more likely outcome, as the next stage along the road to a ban on Racing entirely.
Gingertipster as a matter of interest what do you do for a living that you seem to know so much?? Horse phycologist maybe?? Do you know what goes on behind the scenes in racing and breaking yards???
Now that we’ve had it officially confirmed by owner Steve Nunn that yesterday’s winner Orthodox Lad came to no harm whatsoever and was described as ‘bouncing’ after the victory.
What good for the sport has a 15 day ban for Kieran Fox done?
How many non-racing people will have watched the 5.00 at Salisbury yesterday?
As I pointed out yesterday it’s the lower end owners who will suffer as much as anyone and at a critical time for racing trying to get new people interested in parting with their cash to join syndicates etc….this is doing them no favours at all in my opinion…
Yet another contribution from
Zamorston
that is bang on,well said!
Regarding yesterdays incident wouldn’t it be appropriate for owner Steve Nunn to condemn the ride publicly but condone it ‘privately’! All those bets landed as well as the prizemoney will cover Kierans holiday expenses for sure.Of course the BHA will be sat gloating in their ‘Ivory’ Tower (get it)that Kieran will be sat at home miserable as sin dwelling on the fact that if only i had let the best horse lose everything would be OK.
Gingertipster as a matter of interest what do you do for a living that you seem to know so much?? Horse phycologist maybe?? Do you know what goes on behind the scenes in racing and breaking yards???
I am giving an opinion Yort, like everyone else. As you have been disrespectful, unless you tell me more of what you are referring to I won’t answer any of your questions.
Value Is EverythingAnother tweet from Paul Struthers. I think this sums up a lot of the hysteria for me.
The whip hysteria is 2 much for me tonight. It’s like we’ve killed Bambi, the whole cast of Watership Down and Gary Barlow in one go. G’nite
- Total Posts 17716
Another tweet from Paul Struthers. I think this sums up a lot of the hysteria for me.
The whip hysteria is 2 much for me tonight. It’s like we’ve killed Bambi, the whole cast of Watership Down and Gary Barlow in one go. G’nite
So the private (?) response of the BHA Public Relations Officer is that this is all "
hysteria
"? I wonder if he’ll still be saying that when the next Media storm hits, with the first Group 1 bans?
People are very hurt and angry, but
Silvoir
wants to make a joke about it.
I didn’t realise that the Official Bird on the BHA crest was the Ostrich.
It was a public uttering Pinza, and I don’t think he was joking about it. There was/is an element of hysteria about some of the reaction.
Another tweet from Paul Struthers. I think this sums up a lot of the hysteria for me.
The whip hysteria is 2 much for me tonight. It’s like we’ve killed Bambi, the whole cast of Watership Down and Gary Barlow in one go. G’nite
Paul at least is man enough to say ‘The BHA’s thoughts aren’t nescessarily my own’ on his Twitter account!Makes you think!
In my view there is a lot of hysteria around this issue at the moment. This is largely based on it being human nature to be resistant to change. Once the dust settles most people will look back and wonder what the fuss was all about. Individuals who think that the general public don’t care about how often horses are hit in races are deluding themselves.
Jockeys will soon get used to the limited strikes rule – the real pressure will come from connections giving them instructions not to abide in a close finish.
That is why the real solution is to disqualify the horse as well as to punish the jockey. Then both connections and jockey are equally liable and nobody gains by effectively deliberately "cheating".Coggy – I was giving this thought today and it does seem grossly unfair that a horse can keep a race after its jockey has gained an unfair advantage over its rivals by overuse of the whip.
Effectively, the winner keeps the race even though it has broken the rules to win it.
There is far too much emotional hysteria – on both sides of the argument.
However I can see a good money making opportunity in this whole sorry saga.
I am thinking of buying shares in McNeil Healthcare, the manufacturers of Imodium.
After all there is so much verbal diarrhoea being spouted, sales of the above named product will be going through the roof.
- Total Posts 17716
Coggy – I was giving this thought today and it does seem grossly unfair that a horse can keep a race after its jockey has gained an unfair advantage over its rivals by overuse of the whip.
Effectively, the winner keeps the race even though it has broken the rules to win it.
Corm
, I thought you said you wanted to give this "new rule" a chance to bed down before calmly and objectively judging of its success or failure.
It would therefore have been helpful (and stopped me having to post another correction) if you’d read the
BHA Report
before raising this Aunt Sally yet again: to whit, that section which deals with the total undesirability of a disqualification clause. This isn’t me talking, this is BHA (c.f. p28, 6.10
passim
).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.