- This topic has 281 replies, 32 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
I see now the
Racing Post survey
is showing
25%
for the new rules,
75%
against. Same difference…
Someone else must have voted, that would show a stultifying level of apathy!
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!Bang on Eddie,a complete bunch of muppets who never even discussed their new set of rules with our Jockeys,what does that tell you about what they actually think of them….Nothing! You can see when they put the cameras into a stewards enquiry and these Gin slingin dodderers put it to Kieran that ‘you caused interference to the runner up by wandering off a true course’ as if he’s a naughty schoolboy Ffs and Kieran politely responds ‘yes Sir i did but it didn’t affect the result as i went 10 lengths clear’….erm banned for 2 days says Captain Tarquin Smythe Arskin Crum.What Jockeys in that situation really want to say is have you,you great fat lazy lump ever actually sat on a ton of horse at 35mph whilst trying to steer said beast through the eye of a needle? Thought not!
Bang on Eddie,a complete bunch of muppets who never even discussed their new set of rules with our Jockeys,what does that tell you about what they actually think of them….Nothing! You can see when they put the cameras into a stewards enquiry and these Gin slingin dodderers put it to Kieran that ‘you caused interference to the runner up by wandering off a true course’ as if he’s a naughty schoolboy Ffs and Kieran politely responds ‘yes Sir i did but it didn’t affect the result as i went 10 lengths clear’….erm banned for 2 days says Captain Tarquin Smythe Arskin Crum.What Jockeys in that situation really want to say is have you,you great fat lazy lump ever actually sat on a ton of horse at 35mph whilst trying to steer said beast through the eye of a needle? Thought not!
Anti-snobbery nonsense Gord.
Some stipes are ex-jockeys too, like Robert Earnshaw.
Stewards are educated in what is needed. You’re not.
The stewards room is similar to a jury, which is exactly what it should be to enstil some dicipline.Value Is EverythingIt is the jockeys who wanted definite figures in the first place. It is they who want less "flexibility", so to know exactly where they stand.
Value Is EverythingSome stipes are ex-jockeys too, like Robert Earnshaw.
Ginge,dont ever call Robert Earnshaw a jockey,he was privelidged enough to be a passenger on the wonderful
Silver Buck
in the 82 Gold Cup,but a jockey? You must be joking,he was the worst ‘rider’ of a horse i have ever seen,Fred Archer sat a horse with more style than him and yes i have seen him mumbling through a Stewards Enquiry having to be reminded what to actually do! Your defence of Stewarding falls flat on its face with that one!
It is the jockeys who wanted definite figures in the first place. It is they who want less "flexibility", so to know exactly where they stand.
I can assure you Ginge a Professional Jockey does not need telling how to ride a horse and in particular how many times they need to hit them.Any Professional of any sport or trade has the experience to assess a situation without the need of a ‘clown’ counting how many times they whip a horse! Apparently just so everyone knows how many times a horse is struck these clowns will be located at every 1f pole with their binoculars and clickers,they will be wearing bright red noses too,much the same as your average steward looks already!
As I mentioned on the other thread the thing this will take away for me is the brilliant rides we see where jockeys seem to galvanise beaten horses and get them up to win.
It’s taking a lot of the excitement out of it for me and although there’s a hardcore who will carry on regardless I still feel punters will turn their back on the sport when such rides become less and less.
I’d urge anyone to watch a replay of Timmy Murphy’s ride on the David Pipe trained Vertige Dore last week and tell me that taking performances like that from jockeys away from the sport is a good thing.
This is what was posted (by Chester Barnes) on David Pipe’s site regarding that particular ride….
"It was a good weekend for the yard with a double at Fontwell on Saturday with Arab League and Vertige Dore. I thought that Timmy Murphy produced an incredible ride when winning aboard Vertige Dore in the beginners chase. The horse had been a little unlucky in previous starts and this was just reward for his efforts – sadly Timmy didn’t get his just reward and was handed down an eight day ban by the stewards. I firmly believe that if Timmy hadn’t used his stick then the horse would not have won – as I have already mentioned, there are sure to be some different results when the new regulations come in".
Racing is about to lose one of the things that makes it truly great in my opinion….
It is the jockeys who wanted definite figures in the first place. It is they who want less "flexibility", so to know exactly where they stand.
I can assure you Ginge a Professional Jockey does not need telling how to ride a horse and in particular how many times they need to hit them.Any Professional of any sport or trade has the experience to assess a situation without the need of a ‘clown’ counting how many times they whip a horse! Apparently just so everyone knows how many times a horse is struck these clowns will be located at every 1f pole with their binoculars and clickers,they will be wearing bright red noses too,much the same as your average steward looks already!
But the jockeys have
proven
they do "
need telling
". When prizemoney is worth taking a ban they totally ignored the old rules. You can’t have a set of rules effectively suspended by the perpetrators every time there’s a valuable race. It makes a mockery of the rules, therefore they have to be changed.
If the new rules are similarly ignored, there will sadly be little to do but ban the whip. It won’t be the rule makers fault, or the animal rights people’s fault. Just the jockeys.
Value Is EverythingAs I mentioned on the other thread the thing this will take away for me is the brilliant rides we see where jockeys seem to galvanise beaten horses and get them up to win.
It’s taking a lot of the excitement out of it for me and although there’s a hardcore who will carry on regardless I still feel punters will turn their back on the sport when such rides become less and less.
I’d urge anyone to watch a replay of Timmy Murphy’s ride on the David Pipe trained Vertige Dore last week and tell me that taking performances like that from jockeys away from the sport is a good thing.
This is what was posted (by Chester Barnes) on David Pipe’s site regarding that particular ride….
"It was a good weekend for the yard with a double at Fontwell on Saturday with Arab League and Vertige Dore. I thought that Timmy Murphy produced an incredible ride when winning aboard Vertige Dore in the beginners chase. The horse had been a little unlucky in previous starts and this was just reward for his efforts – sadly Timmy didn’t get his just reward and was handed down an eight day ban by the stewards. I firmly believe that if Timmy hadn’t used his stick then the horse would not have won – as I have already mentioned, there are sure to be some different results when the new regulations come in".
Racing is about to lose one of the things that makes it truly great in my opinion….
Opinions of Chester Barnes are hardly unbiased, defending his own jockey.
From what I saw of the ride Murphy used the whip too many times, not allowing enough time between strokes for the horse to respond. There was also no question in my mind that had Murphy used his whip less, he still would’ve won.The way Chester Barnes is talking there, you’d think they were banning the whip altogether.
Value Is Everything
- Total Posts 17716
Personally I find it sad that rides like Timmy Murphy’s at Fontwell get him a ban – and that was under the
old
rules.
To spell the message out, this is why the whip rules should have been
made more flexible
, not firmed up in this unworkable manner. Because there’s
no scientific evidence
that the new whip gives any pain (Prof. Tim Morris) and the
RSPCA are 100% behind the new whip
because it gives no pain or cruelty (as per their charter). So why not act logically, relaxing the rules to
harmonise
with all other major Racing nations?
Clearly, fine artistry in the saddle of this order – doing your best to win the race – is frowned upon. We will see how this impacts on punting enthusiasm and hits the bottom line.
However, the virtual race machines look set to have a field day, which will suit the Books.
A good point brought up by Pinza about the poll.
It is blatantly clear racegoers/punters think these whip rules are a mistake.
For example:- before Asda or any other large company puts a new product on their shelves they conduct surveys. In this day and age any company worth their salt do.
The would certainly not put a product in their stores that 76% of their customers said they did’t want, but by all accounts, if the RP survey is to be believed, that is exactly what the BHA have done.
It would seem, unless someone can prove differently that no matter which way you turn the majority are saying these whip rules are too much.
I agree every sport must change with the times but not if those changes are going to have an adverse affect.
Time will tell but if these bans get out of hand and they easily could then what?
I can see a lot of glee to anger when jockey’s think they have just done a great job only to find they hit the horse once more than they thought they had.
Anyone know if a tap with the whip will be counted? If not how does a Steward define the difference?
What happens, for example if a jockey wins a race, breaks the rule but the Stewards miss the fact he’s done so? The forums all over the country will be shouting for blood.
Said it before and I’ll say it again it should be left totally to the discretion of the Steward to judge whether a jockey has been abusive or not that is what they are employed to do.
It is the jockeys who wanted definite figures in the first place. It is they who want less "flexibility", so to know exactly where they stand.
This excuse is put up by the BHA in an effort to deflect some of the responsibility for the farce, the facts are that the BHA are the sole regulatory authority for horse racing in Britain and it is all their fault.
As for the Racing Post survey on the new whip rules, it’s hard to believe no matter how you dressed up the question the result would be much different.- Total Posts 17716
What happens, for example if a jockey wins a race, breaks the rule but the Stewards miss the fact he’s done so? The forums all over the country will be shouting for blood.
Said it before and I’ll say it again it should be left totally to the discretion of the Steward to judge whether a jockey has been abusive or not that is what they are employed to do.
With strict numerical counts to adhere to, the Stewards are certainly in for "trial by television", even more than Cricket Umpires were. That led to the introduction of a "third umpire"
and it’s not hard to see something similar now being needed in Racing.
If we’re going to have to pay for someone sitting and counting every stroke given by every jockey (well, someone’s going to have to do it for fairness’ sake) how much more is that going to cost BHA? further reducing prize money and increasing the burden on the organisation’s bureaucracy…
It is the jockeys who wanted definite figures in the first place. It is they who want less "flexibility", so to know exactly where they stand.
This excuse is put up by the BHA in an effort to deflect some of the responsibility for the farce, the facts are that the BHA are the sole regulatory authority for horse racing in Britain and it is all their fault.
As for the Racing Post survey on the new whip rules, it’s hard to believe no matter how you dressed up the question the result would be much different.Don’t know if it is the BHA’s arguement or not, it’s my arguement. Fact is jockeys weren’t taking any notice of the existing rules in valuable races. They also constantly complain about
inconsistency
. A jockey would get banned for something one day and the next do a very similar "offence" and not get a ban. Jockeys kept moaning about
inconsistency
, whenever there is
flexibility
there is
inconsistency
. These new rules should help clarify things and help stop the "win at (almost) all cost" attitude of jockeys in major races.
Value Is Everything- Total Posts 17716
These new rules should help clarify things and help stop the "win at (almost) all cost" attitude of jockeys in major races.
Ginger
: I admire your optimism. What odds will you offer against one or more Group 1’s on next year’s flat programme resulting in a ban and loss of earnings for the winning jockey? If you offer better than
2-1
I’ll take it!
If we’re going to have to pay for someone sitting and counting every stroke given by every jockey (well, someone’s going to have to do it for fairness’ sake) how much more is that going to cost BHA? further reducing prize money and increasing the burden on the organisation’s bureaucracy…
I’m glad you want to bring prize money in to the equation Pinza…
If horse racing totally disregards non-racing public opinion, then it is mostly non-racing public which sponsers races.
If the non-racing public believes racing is cruel, then prize money will suffer dramatically.
Eventually even the racing loving sponsers won’t sponser, because it will do the opposite of what sponsering is all about. No firm wants to / can afford to be associated with something the general public believes is cruel to animals.
Value Is Everything- Total Posts 17716
If we’re going to have to pay for someone sitting and counting every stroke given by every jockey (well, someone’s going to have to do it for fairness’ sake) how much more is that going to cost BHA? further reducing prize money and increasing the burden on the organisation’s bureaucracy…
I’m glad you want to bring prize money in to the equation Pinza…
If horse racing totally disregards non-racing public opinion, then it is mostly non-racing public which sponsers races.
If the non-racing public believes racing is cruel, then prize money will suffer dramatically.
Eventually even the racing loving sponsers won’t sponser, because it will do the opposite of what sponsering is all about. No firm wants to / can afford to be associated with something the general public believes is cruel to animals.
That’s a lot of
"if’s"
Ginger, and even without the
education programme
promised by BHA to address public ignorance on the matter, only a small minority believes racing is "cruel" (according to the survey only 33% even wanted to ban the whip, let alone the sport!)
Your fears as to sponsorship (which doesn’t affect prize money in the great majority of cases anyway, as it goes direct to the
racecourse
and not the
race purse
) are groundless – especially as most of this ill-named "sponsorship" comes from bookmakers with a vested interest in promoting the sport, whether it’s considered cruel or otherwise.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.