- This topic has 281 replies, 32 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
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!
I said
help
clarify and
help
stop the win at (almost) all cost attitude.
These new rules certainly won’t eradicate it and jockeys will take time to adjust. I’m expecting some problems next weekend.
So the offer is
1/2
not 2/1 Pinza.
Value Is Everything[quote="Gingertipster)
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.
Fantasy,
If it is true, how does American racing attract sponsors seeing they have no whip rules at all and the jockeys use much more severe whips?
- Total Posts 17716
I said
help
clarify and
help
stop the win at (almost) all cost attitude.
These new rules certainly won’t eradicate it and jockeys will take time to adjust. I’m expecting some problems next weekend.
So the offer is
1/2
not 2/1 Pinza.
Ginger
, so we agree – the new rules won’t eradicate jockeys breaking the rules to win major races. And if not major ones, why minor ones either? So why support these unworkable rules, unsupported by either scientific evidence or the great majority of the Racing public?
At
1/2
the value’s gone, but it still looks to me like stealing candy from babies!
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!)
Only 33% wanted a total ban, but I’m not talking about a total ban.
It’s not the "
whip
" (as such) that most people have a problem with, it’s how it it is
used
. I myself hate seeing a horse whipped with excessive force or frequency or when not necessary.
If the general public are shown the 2011 Grand National and asked "Do you want (or think it is right) to see horses (for want of a better word) "flogged" to win a valuable race like Ballabriggs"? I suggest much more than 33% of the general public would say "
no
".
With this change of rules to lessen whip use,
far less
of the general public will see
whip use
as being
cruel
. Please note in the above sentence "whip
use
" not the whip itself.
Value Is EverythingFantasy,
If it is true, how does American racing attract sponsors seeing they have no whip rules at all and the jockeys use much more severe whips?Because America is not Britain. Americans are (on the whole) not as
sensitive
as British when it comes to such things. Whether you regard that as a good thing or not.
Which part of "No firm wants to / can afford to be associated with something the general public believes is cruel to animals", do you disagree with Eddie?
Value Is EverythingI was in favour of some change to therules but I think what we’ve ended up with is a mess. The perfect way to ride a ‘non-trier’ now will be to give the horse 8 tiny taps during the course of the race and then not pick the stick up in the finish for the totally legitimate reason that the jockey is prohibited by the rules from doing so. Previously the failure to pick up the stick in a finish could have led to the jockey being banned for failing to achieve the best possible placing but in the situation I’ve described that will be impossible. I imagine a jockey will also be able to use the argument ‘I thought I’d reached my limit’ for not picking up the stick whether or not he’s hit the horse eight times. It would be very harsh if a jockey was banned for not achieving the best possible placing when he’s hit the horse six or seven times.
Potentially a layer’s bonanza.
I said
help
clarify and
help
stop the win at (almost) all cost attitude.
These new rules certainly won’t eradicate it and jockeys will take time to adjust. I’m expecting some problems next weekend.
So the offer is
1/2
not 2/1 Pinza.
Ginger
, so we agree – the new rules won’t eradicate jockeys breaking the rules to win major races. And if not major ones, why minor ones either? So why support these unworkable rules, unsupported by either scientific evidence or the great majority of the Racing public?
Pinza, as I’ve said, it won’t "eradicate", but in my opinion it will "
help
" to lessen the number of times jockeys break the rules in major races. That is a good enough reason for changes.
Minor races should (once jockeys get used to them) be far less of problem, because it is not worth the risk.
There may be minor changes needed to these rules, but they are in my opinion better than the old ones.
Many people within racing have given the rules a welcome.
There is no scientific evidence to say the whip
used in the correct manner
is cruel. But it is sometimes not used in the correct manner. And it is also important how the whip use is percieved by the general public.
Value Is Everything- Total Posts 17716
Because America is not Britain. Americans are (on the whole) not as
sensitive
as British when it comes to such things. Whether you regard that as a good thing or not.
Astounding. Even if this were verifiable (which of course it isn’t!) doesn’t this make you think that perhaps it’s we here in the UK who need to be educated as to what our priorities should be, rather than our
insensitive
transatlantic cousins?
Not to mention our
insensitive
French, Irish, Italian, German neighbours.. and our
insensitive
Japanese, Chinese, Singapore friends… and … well, I think the point has been made.
Remember that BHA also admits (in their report) that it’s the UK public has a problem with sentimental ignorance of the matter, not the rest of the world which is
insensitive
.
- Total Posts 17716
It would be very harsh if a jockey was banned for not achieving the best possible placing when he’s hit the horse six or seven times.
Potentially a layer’s bonanza.
I think it would be nearly impossible to ban a jockey under those circumstances,
Tuffers
. You make an extremely convincing point about yet another way in which the new rule will lead to more, not less, trouble and potential corruption.
- Total Posts 17716
Minor races should (once jockeys get used to them) be far less of problem, because it is not worth the risk.
But Ginger, in minor races (say £2500 to the winner) the jockey’s fiscal penalty is also minor, and winning for the owner just as important. The risk will still be taken.
There may be minor changes needed to these rules, but they are in my opinion better than the old ones.
If "minor changes" are already visible even to you, a supporter, before the rule’s even come into play, what does that tell you about the way in which BHA have gone about this review?
Many people within racing have given the rules a welcome.
And the great majority have not.
There is no scientific evidence to say the whip
used in the correct manner
is cruel. But it is sometimes not used in the correct manner. And it is also important how the whip use is percieved by the general public.
Education, education, education… but what is actually being done to change this ignorant public perception? beyond that, penalties for using the whip incorrectly have not in the main been altered, so we’re now in the situation where jockeys are penalised less for incorrect usage, and more for the (arbitrary) number of strokes. Do you think that is an improvement?
Because America is not Britain. Americans are (on the whole) not as
sensitive
as British when it comes to such things. Whether you regard that as a good thing or not.
Astounding. Even if this were verifiable (which of course it isn’t!) doesn’t this make you think that perhaps it’s we here in the UK who need to be educated as to what our priorities should be, rather than our
insensitive
transatlantic cousins?
Not to mention our
insensitive
French, Irish, Italian, German neighbours.. and our
insensitive
Japanese, Chinese, Singapore friends… and … well, I think the point has been made.
Remember that BHA also admits (in their report) that it’s the UK public has a problem with sentimental ignorance of the matter, not the rest of the world which is
insensitive
.
Please read what I say carefully Pinza, in your last two posts you seem to have either misread or twisted what I’ve written.
Where did I say Americans or anyone else is "insensitive"? I said they are
not as sensitive
. And I did not even say it was a good or bad thing.
Value Is Everything- Total Posts 17716
Fair point
Ginger
. For each use of
insensitive
in my reply to your post, please read
not as sensitive
.
I’m still astounded! Perhaps the reason Americans (and French, Irish, Germans, Chinese, Japanese…) are
not as sensitive
is because many more of them still work on the land, with animals, in daily partnership; and so these countries don’t produce so many Nature-Documentary-addicted, sensitive, Disneyfied urban couch potatoes.
Not that I’m saying that is a good thing or a bad thing, either!
Fair point
Ginger
. For each use of
insensitive
in my reply to your post, please read
not as sensitive
.
I’m still astounded! Perhaps the reason Americans (and French, Irish, Germans, Chinese, Japanese…) are
not as sensitive
is because many more of them still work on the land, with animals, in daily partnership; and so these countries don’t produce so many Nature-Documentary-addicted, sensitive, Disneyfied urban couch potatoes.
Not that I’m saying that is a good thing or a bad thing, either!
Someone has to be first to change Pinza.
If Americans want to see Jamie Spencer thrash Cape Blanco to win over there, that is up to them.
If whip rules around the World were "harmonised" to their standards I’d give up racing altogether.
However, must say I prefer American rules on interference.
You can be British and (on the whole) be in favour of these whip changes Pinza without your emotive characterisation.
I’m a country boy, my neighbours are farmers, I see cattle and sheep every day. I am in favour of fox hunting, I eat meat.
Value Is Everything- Total Posts 17716
Someone has to be first to change Pinza.
[snip]
You can be British and (on the whole) be in favour of these whip changes Pinza without your emotive characterisation.
I’m a country boy, my neighbours are farmers, I see cattle and sheep every day. I am in favour of fox hunting, I eat meat.
It seems to me that the "emotive characterisation" has been on the other side, by those encouraging the ignorant public perception (only held by about 1/3 of those actually questioned, of course) that the whip – never mind the subtleties of how it is used, correctly or incorrectly, for safety or encouragement – is an evil symbol of man’s arrogant cruelty towards the animal kingdom.
If it is emotive to counter this sort of Disney hogwash, than I’m not ashamed to be accused of such things.
You are something of an exception,
Ginger
, as your support of these rules seems to be on pragmatic rather than moral grounds. But part of the ignorant perception of
"whip cruelty"
is that it marks an urban v. rural divide – and there is a degree of caricature on both sides.
There’s no doubt, having said which, that those urban Disneyites have a greater problem with the whip than most country boys such as yourself.
- Total Posts 17716
Absorbing (if rather depressing) interview just now between Nick Luck and trainer
David Evans
, who reckons that jump jockeys are actively considering strike action over the new whip rules, bans and fines (Quote:
"what option have they got?"
) and that flat jockeys might follow suit.
An emotive interview Pinza,Nick using the term ‘The Idiots ruling racing haven’t a clue’ quote from Trainer David Evans just about sums up the feeling of all of us who actually ‘understand’ how racing works,those who think that as from tomorrow nothings going to change for the worse have their heads up something and its not the clouds,i gave a simple example yesterday of a jockey trying too hard to win and paying dearly for it,here’s another example of what Will happen at some point…Jockey rides his race and is counting the times he uses his whip after a lot of thinking he decides i can get to the run-in with 3 to spare,everything goes to plan but in the last 50yds something is challenging him hard,he’s used his 8 strike allowance and knows 2 more will get him home in front but accepts he will win the race but lose his earnings so he trys hands and heels but gets beaten a head! The outcome is he keeps his riding fee and his percentage for 2nd place as he unsaddles in the enclosure the trainer is fuming and the owner knocks him out for costing him his horses victory! Its coming mark my words!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.