- This topic has 281 replies, 32 voices, and was last updated 13 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
And where are you having this "fight"? On a racing forum? Or would you care to let us know who you are and to who, in power, you talk to?
Good luck with your fight. I think you’re wasting your time as I’m sure we will all be dead when horse racing stops being a sport!
- Total Posts 17716
And where are you having this "fight"? On a racing forum? Or would you care to let us know who you are and to who, in power, you talk to?
Good luck with your fight. I think you’re wasting your time as I’m sure we will all be dead when horse racing stops being a sport!
No – I wouldn’t like to let you know who I am, or what I do.
But your attitude that "it’s OK as we’ll all be dead by the time it’s banned" is selfish. We owe a duty to the next generation not to allow the things we love to be screwed up terminally in our time, when we’re in a position to stop it happening.
- Total Posts 17716
I’m also wondering why someone would feel it necessary to open a new thread on this subject when we already have another long with many people expressing strongly held opinions still going strong.
Kenh
, I think this thread seems to be for some emotional name-calling and blood-letting, whilst the original thread was notable for reasoned debate, analysis of facts and information. I’m out of this one now!
And where are you having this "fight"? On a racing forum? Or would you care to let us know who you are and to who, in power, you talk to?
Good luck with your fight. I think you’re wasting your time as I’m sure we will all be dead when horse racing stops being a sport!
No – I wouldn’t like to let you know who I am, or what I do.
But your attitude that "it’s OK as we’ll all be dead by the time it’s banned" is selfish. We owe a duty to the next generation not to allow the things we love to be screwed up terminally in our time, when we’re in a position to stop it happening.
Thought not Pinza. Safe to assume you are a nobody who’s moaning on a forum. How’s that going to get anything done? Especially as you’re not even prepared to let "racing fans" know who you are and how they can join you in your paranoia, sorry, fight.
I think Kingfisher felt the other Whip thread was about whether the changes are right or wrong. And what the new rules are.
This I believe was an attempt at a debate on how it will change the way punters look at races and how it might change tactics etc.
Perhaps inevitabley, unfortunately the two subjects can not be separated by us members.
Value Is EverythingRight, I’m off now. I’ve had my fun. Going to put my big stirring spoon back in it’s draw & going out into the real world
- Total Posts 17716
Perhaps inevitabley, unfortunately the two subjects can not be separated by us members.
Deep Sensation
, judging from his/her vulgar rudeness (and lack of attention to any form of reasonable question) clearly wouldn’t be up to separating an
egg
, let alone a subject!
I just hope
Reve de Sivola
doesn’t go and hose up on the bridle now! 10 cracks of the whip as per usual methinks….For the last time i’m afraid!
- Total Posts 17716
Racing Post
online survey
(as of today):
Are you in favour of the new whip rules introduced on Monday?
Yes:21% No:79%
Like all online surveys Pinza, they tend to get people voting who are against it / against change. I know I wouldn’t bother to vote.
Means very little if anything.
Give them a chance and you never know, it just might change your mind.
Just seen that flying pig again.
Value Is Everything- Total Posts 17716
Like all online surveys Pinza, they tend to get people voting who are against it / against change. I know I wouldn’t bother to vote.
I agree with you. But
21% in favour
is hardly a great mandate to start the new rules with – and it’s bound to be further reduced when the jockey bans and confiscations mount over jumps.
Strange, though, that nobody (either here or at BHA) made that same criticism of the
anti-whip online Survey
upon which these new whip rules were constructed!
The basic figures are quite interesting. In that infamous Survey BHA have given ground to a minority –
only 33% of the 2071 surveyed
– who believed that the whip should be banned!
33% of outsiders wanted a ban, 21% of insiders approve of the new rule. So what exactly
was
BHA’s mandate in the first place?
And you’re right about those pigs…
Pinza
won’t rest quiet until we’re fully harmonised with France, USA, Ireland, Hong Kong, Australia and the rest of the civilised Racing World.
I have heard nothing but plaudits for Dettori’s ride on Never Can Tell today, I’m still waiting for someone to criticise the ride.
Yet amazingly from Monday the ride he gave the horse is being outlawed, he would receive a hefty suspension as well as having to forfeit all his share of the prize money.
The BHA, you are a disgrace!I have heard nothing but plaudits for Dettori’s ride on Never Can Tell today, I’m still waiting for someone to criticise the ride.
Yet amazingly from Monday the ride he gave the horse is being outlawed, he would receive a hefty suspension as well as having to forfeit all his share of the prize money.
The BHA, you are a disgrace!Except that from Monday, none of the other jockeys today would have been able to give their mounts the same rides either.
Dettori has been banned for his whip use on Rewilding this season & yet today, according to you, has done it again.
Clearly the previous rules & the sanctions for breaking them were massively ineffectual.
For what it’s worth, in my opinion Never Can Tell would have won today no matter that the whip rules were – best horse on the day won. And that shall continue to be the case.
Once again Pinza, the only person who keeps banging on about the Animal Rights people, is you.
Having seen the comments boards on the Racing Post website, those people would have a negative outlook on being handed a million pounds. And when only a small sample respond, surveys are pointless anyway, aren’t they?
Ignore the ‘animal rights’ people, ignore the RSPCA.
Sport in general is accepting ambiguity less & less. For me, it’s far better to say, ‘these are the rules’ as opposed to ‘these are the rules as interpreted by the stewards on the day.’But
21% in favour
is hardly a great mandate to start the new rules with – and it’s bound to be further reduced when the jockey bans and confiscations mount over jumps.
Summed up perfectly as usual Pinza and if the RP figures are accurate then its a damning reflection of what their readers think of this lot of muppets known as the BHA,incidently i would consider these voters opinions more than any other,its still the best source of information in the world of horseracing and those who read the Post are knowledgeable and loyal.The clocks tickin,doomsdays approachin the Geese are still gettin fat on the crumbs from racing fans tables,its gonna be a harsh winter.
- Total Posts 17716
Sport in general is accepting ambiguity less & less. For me, it’s far better to say, ‘these are the rules’ as opposed to ‘these are the rules as interpreted by the stewards on the day.’
You hit a bullseye,
Scamperdale
. My favourite work of literary criticism happens to be Sir William Empson’s classic
Seven Types of Ambiguity
, in which Empson shows – with dazzling erudition – how not only literature, but also life itself, is sustained by ambiguity.
This is no literary conceit. Without ambiguity (in its many forms) there is no debate, no flexibility, no rich multiplicity of personal choice, no distinction, no possibility of change – and without change, growth and decay there is no life at all.
Like you, we all crave for simplicity – for a black-and-white world where things are either right or wrong – because that would make life so much easier. The reality is that decisions in life always involve shades of grey. There is always ambiguity, whether we want it or not.
That’s why Stewarding (like Legal Justice in all its other forms) has to retain flexibility. No "
fixed penalty
" law has ever lasted long, because there always has to be room for human interpretation of events. This inflexible new law, which seeks to reduce Stewarding to simple rights and wrongs – no grey areas – will prove no exception, as we’ll all see once the hard cases start piling up from Monday onwards.
Technical aids such as Hawkeye can help judge whether a ball is in or out at tennis, or whether a cricketer is lbw (though there’s still plenty of room for disagreement as to what a particular slo-mo action replay may or may not reveal there) and the photo-finish apparatus has reduced ambiguity over what’s won and what hasn’t to nearly nothing (one or two appeals a year).
Whip strokes are not like that. Was the whip merely waved or did it connect? Where exactly was the horse hit? Was it for safety reasons or not? Did the race’s length / the going / crowd size and noise / affect conditions? To remove flexibility (i.e. "common sense") from the Stewards’s tool box will result in many more appeals, much more litigation, infinitely more time and money – our money – being spent on process as opposed to product.
Is that what we really want? Ambiguity (here, the grey area) is not Racing’s enemy in this area, but Racing’s friend. I sympathise with your craving for simplicity, but the reality is sadly different.
- Total Posts 17716
I see now the
Racing Post survey
is showing
25%
for the new rules,
75%
against. Same difference…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.