- This topic has 609 replies, 83 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Paul
, I seem to remember almost precisely these same words being uttered by the BHA Mandarins and "responsible" journos a few years ago, when the original, flawed rule was brought in. Does that ring any bells?
The old whip rules, which I presume you are referring to, were not themselves flawed it was the lack of effective punishment which was flawed.
- Total Posts 17716
Paul
, I seem to remember almost precisely these same words being uttered by the BHA Mandarins and "responsible" journos a few years ago, when the original, flawed rule was brought in. Does that ring any bells?
The old whip rules, which I presume you are referring to, were not themselves flawed it was the lack of effective punishment which was flawed.
As the punishments were a key part of the Guidelines, not an add-on, the "rule" itself was flawed. Whilst the element of Stewarding flexibility was criticised by the ban-merchants as being another serious "flaw".
As you’re aware, it’s not only the punishments which have been firmed up this time, but the conditions of the "rule" too. Once again, the punishments are seriously flawed (by their disproportionate severity for such a minor crime, which doesn’t include cruelty to the horse) and once again you have immediately identified that flexibility of Steward interpretation is bound to have a place. Thus, ban-merchants and pro-whippers alike will find this new rule every bit as "flawed" as the old one.
Would someone be able to post the whip rule in its entirety? I’ve just gone on the Rules of Racing website and can’t even find it!
http://rules.britishhorseracing.com/_documents/guide_to_procedures_and_penalties_2011.pdf
pdf so can’t copy/paste here Tuffers, sorry.
Actually you’ve outlined very pithily precisely why this new rule cannot work – it relies, just as squarely as the old one did, on individual Stewards perceptions. Good work!
Not often we agree but today Mr Pinza, you’ve hit the nail on the head.
- Total Posts 17716
Actually you’ve outlined very pithily precisely why this new rule cannot work – it relies, just as squarely as the old one did, on individual Stewards perceptions. Good work!
Not often we agree but today Mr Pinza, you’ve hit the nail on the head.
Thank you. Ah ambiguity you see, Mr
Scamperdale
, ambiguity!
Actually you’ve outlined very pithily precisely why this new rule cannot work – it relies, just as squarely as the old one did, on individual Stewards perceptions. Good work!
Not often we agree but today Mr Pinza, you’ve hit the nail on the head.
Thank you. Ah ambiguity you see, Mr
Scamperdale
, ambiguity!
Absolutely. Having weighed up all the arguments, I’m just about dropping on the side of supporting the new rules but one of the big ticks in the box for me was the removal of ambiguity from the equation.
If the ambiguity remains then the new rules are a waste of time. It’s as simple as that.
http://rules.britishhorseracing.com/_documents/guide_to_procedures_and_penalties_2011.pdf
pdf so can’t copy/paste here Tuffers, sorry.
Thanks, Corm. There doesn’t seem to be any discretion to allow use of the whip to straighten a horse that is hanging.
How soon before we see a jockey in contention to win start to pull up a horse which hangs on the grounds that he couldn’t use the whip to straighten him up?
- Total Posts 17716
If the ambiguity remains then the new rules are a waste of time. It’s as simple as that.
Spot on. Ambiguity will always remain (as we’ve seen today). The stroke-counting magnifies the ambiguity, instead of decreasing it. Therefore the stroke-counting must go, if we’re to return to workable and sensible rules.
- Total Posts 17716
Thanks, Corm. There doesn’t seem to be any discretion to allow use of the whip to straighten a horse that is hanging.
How soon before we see a jockey in contention to win start to pull up a horse which hangs on the grounds that he couldn’t use the whip to straighten him up?
So all the BHA talk of "
fair use of the whip for safety
" was mendacious. You paint a nightmare scenario which is all too likely,
Tuffers
.
If the ambiguity remains then the new rules are a waste of time. It’s as simple as that.
Spot on. Ambiguity will always remain (as we’ve seen today). The stroke-counting magnifies the ambiguity, instead of decreasing it. Therefore the stroke-counting must go, if we’re to return to workable and sensible rules.
OK then what, precisely, would Pinza’s unambiguous, fool proof, effective whip rule be then and what punishments would be meted out?
So, come on, what are the workable sensible rules you would introduce?
- Total Posts 17716
If the ambiguity remains then the new rules are a waste of time. It’s as simple as that.
Spot on. Ambiguity will always remain (as we’ve seen today). The stroke-counting magnifies the ambiguity, instead of decreasing it. Therefore the stroke-counting must go, if we’re to return to workable and sensible rules.
OK then what, precisely, would Pinza’s unambiguous, fool proof, effective whip rule be then and what punishments would be meted out?
So, come on, what are the workable sensible rules you would introduce?
As I’ve just responded to Ginger (on one of these threads) please see my response to Corm (on another of these threads!) for a detailed reasoning.
In a nutshell,
Paul
,
exactly what we have now
– but with a
ll references to number of strokes removed
. That will solve all this at a stroke [sorry], without impacting on horse safety or welfare one jot – and I have Tim Morris’s scientific backing from the Report to support that conclusion.
In a nutshell,
Paul
,
exactly what we have now
– but with a
ll references to number of strokes removed
. That will solve all this at a stroke [sorry], without impacting on horse safety or welfare one jot – and I have Tim Morris’s scientific backing from the Report to support that conclusion.
So as now without a stroke count – in which case you are making it entirely subjective and at the discretion of random groups of amateur stewards panels- a totally unworkable system.
I’ll get my coat
- Total Posts 17716
So as now without a stroke count – in which case you are making it entirely subjective and at the discretion of random groups of amateur stewards panels- a totally unworkable system.
Not "
entirely subjectiv
e" at all, because the rules as to incorrect usage and marking are very clearly drawn.
And given that there’s plenty of room for Stewarding variation even as it stands (some will notice more breaches than others) my method has the benefit of drawing their focus away from this tiresome sideshow, onto more important matters such as dangerous riding – now open to potentially smaller penalties than poor young Fox got this afternoon.
I seem to have more faith in human(e) judgement than you seem to be prepared to allow our Stewards – always in any case advised and led by the paid and trained Stipes.
John Gosden condemns the timing of the introduction of the rule changes. He has a point you have to admit. Taking the focus away from Champions Day looks a bit of an own goal. One can only assume the BHA didn’t expect the rule change to attract the coverage it has.
One thing you couldn’t accuse Gosden of is failing to protect his own corner and one comment caught the eye.
“You want to change the rules? Fine. Why wasn’t it done intelligently and sensibly in the winter, when people could get used to it and absorb it and be ready for a fresh season?”
Er, aren’t we slap bang in the middle of a ‘season’ in winter? Oh sorry JG, it’s only jumping, my mistake.
From the BHA –
BHA Statement on new whip rules and penalties
The British Horseracing Authority yesterday confirmed that it was listening to jockeys’ concerns about the new whip Rules and that it had asked for and would consider any formal submission the Professional Jockeys Association (PJA) chose to make on this subject.
We have this afternoon received a short submission from the PJA. The BHA has today invited the PJA to attend a planned Board meeting of the Authority on Monday so that they can elaborate further on the submission they have made before further detailed consideration by the BHA’s Review Group. The PJA has accepted this invitation.
This dialogue will build on constructive talks we held with the PJA on Tuesday. Throughout the process of amending the rules on use of the whip and associated penalties the BHA has worked closely with representatives of the PJA and we are encouraged that they recognise our commitment to thorough consultation.
We will not be suspending the current Rules pending these discussions, but we do commit to resolving this matter as quickly as possible while ensuring that due process is followed.
In light of the positive dialogue taking place between the BHA and the PJA we urge everyone involved in racing to engage with this process and to work with us to take the sport forward with no disruption to the racing programme.
Just saw Frankie will miss Breeders Cup.
The rules are pretty simple.
Why are the jockeys having such a hard time abiding by them?
You have to wonder if it is because we have a ‘whip-happy’ culture. I realise that comment will be greeted with howls of dismay but the simple reality is that the jockeys seem wholly incapable of restricting the number of times they hit a horse.
I don’t suggest they are trying to harm the horse or whatever, just that they are so wholly focussed on winning that a red mist must come down, that’s the only explanation, isn’t it?
On the one hand jockeys (understandably, given their inability to abide by the rules) are up in arms about the penalties while, on the other, the BHA see the penalties as the main armoury weapon in getting them to abide by the rules.
Tricky.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.