- This topic has 609 replies, 83 voices, and was last updated 11 years ago by
.
- Posts
There’s no reason why jockeys can’t stick to the rules and the racing still be ‘competitive’ and exciting with everyone trying as hard as they can WITHIN THE RULES to win.
Get real Cormack
Corm , no offence dear boy , but thee and the Ginger one , who in fairness has a lot of good stuff to post as well , seem to have a total blind spot for this issue
how about stepping back and thinking about it
best
Ricky
- Total Posts 17716
BOTH jockeys involved in the jockey’s title race incurred whip bans today.
Both suspensions will start AFTER the end of the turf season.
More evidence, if any required, that winning is more important to the jockeys than doing so within the rules AND more evidence that penalties are too LENIENT rather than too harsh.
Yet another thread started. Why?
But to address your polemic: indeed today’s bans do provide incontrovertible evidence that winning the race is more important to the jockeys, especially when a title is at stake. I agree with you absolutely.
It is illogical, though, to draw from these facts the erroneous conclusion that the new rules are "
too lenient
". Too lenient for what, precisely? This isn’t about welfare, remember, but "
public perception
", and "
changing the culture
".
Yet we can see perfectly well that by stiffening the penalties and nailing down a stroke count we are getting many
more
bans, not
fewer
– and from jockeys not known for over-use of the crop at that.
So even if you cut down the number of strokes allowed to one per race, and banned offenders for the rest of the season, when push comes to shove winning the race will still be the most important thing to the jockeys. Because this is horse
racing
. That is what most people like about it.
No. With rules as draconian as those now in place, doesn’t it rather suggest that a
different approach
is needed? That is, if you are insistent on "
changing the culture
" (a change which of course many of us here feel completely counter-productive).
So
Corm
, this isn’t a welfare issue, as we know. So what precisely are you suggesting we need to do now, given that the draconian penalties and conditions already proving
ineffective
and
unacceptable
to the Sport, are clearly not working?
(PS I see Victor Chandler today is reported as adding his voice to those fearful of the impact these stiff rules are having, and will have, on the Sport we love. Has anyone read his words?)
- Total Posts 17716
PS
Barry Geraghty
‘s earlier
tweet
says it best:
"The new whip rules were been compared in the sauna today, to a lad sitting on his hands at a lap dancing club"
Both suspensions will start AFTER the end of the turf season.
more evidence that penalties are too LENIENT rather than too harsh.
Nothing to do with this on-going whip malarkey nor your "win at all costs" hypothesis Cormack, but I’d be sympathetic to a change in the rules that makes all suspensions immediate (from the next booked ride), forbade appeals, and stopped this ludicrous ‘window’ allowing jockeys to ride in a Group 1 during a suspension
Knowing that a transgression means no ride in the next race nor any other over the next 3, 5, 7…days may just help curb a tendency to over-enthusiasm
PS
Barry Geraghty
‘s earlier
tweet
says it best:
"The new whip rules were been compared in the sauna today, to a lad sitting on his hands at a lap dancing club"
And you say my driving analogy is wrong Pinza!
Value Is Everything- Total Posts 17716
PS
Barry Geraghty
‘s earlier
tweet
says it best:
"The new whip rules were been compared in the sauna today, to a lad sitting on his hands at a lap dancing club"
And you say my driving analogy is wrong Pinza!
Well, his is at the very least amusing,
Ginger
!
Both suspensions will start AFTER the end of the turf season.
more evidence that penalties are too LENIENT rather than too harsh.
Nothing to do with this on-going whip malarkey nor your "win at all costs" hypothesis Cormack, but I’d be sympathetic to a change in the rules that makes all suspensions immediate (from the next booked ride), forbade appeals, and stopped this ludicrous ‘window’ allowing jockeys to ride in a Group 1 during a suspension
Knowing that a transgression means no ride in the next race nor any other over the next 3, 5, 7…days may just help curb a tendency to over-enthusiasm
Nice idea Drone, but wouldn’t work in practice. Which jockey would want to ride immediately prior to the Derby?
Value Is EverythingPS
Barry Geraghty
‘s earlier
tweet
says it best:
"The new whip rules were been compared in the sauna today, to a lad sitting on his hands at a lap dancing club"
And you say my driving analogy is wrong Pinza!
Well, his is at the very least amusing,
Ginger
!
Like that lad Pinza, you’re easily pleased.
Value Is Everything- Total Posts 17716
I’d be sympathetic to a change in the rules that makes all suspensions immediate (from the next booked ride), forbade appeals, and stopped this ludicrous ‘window’ allowing jockeys to ride in a Group 1 during a suspension
Knowing that a transgression means no ride in the next race nor any other over the next 3, 5, 7…days may just help curb a tendency to over-enthusiasm
An interesting sidelight
Drone
, and there would be something to be said for it, if it weren’t for the reality of the situation.
Many owners, trainers and punters go to great lengths to book a particular jockey for their horse, for a variety of reasons (often to do with knowing the animal) and they often shell out a great deal of money to do so.
Like disqualification of "offending horses", this "spot fine" method would therefore not be practicable or acceptable to the Racing insiders, attractive though the idea might be.
Beyond that, the "
enthusiasm
" of the jockeys is more than enough dampened by what’s going on at the moment, as we hear from weighing rooms around the country; yet the bans are still piling up like flies on a heap of horse manure.
BOTH jockeys involved in the jockey’s title race incurred whip bans today.
Both suspensions will start AFTER the end of the turf season.
More evidence, if any required, that winning is more important to the jockeys than doing so within the rules AND more evidence that penalties are too LENIENT rather than too harsh.
Exactly right Pinza, there should be a financial penalty for going just 1 over the limit.
I don’t think it is a coincidence that most jockeys who have broken the rules seem to be either journeyman jockeys (with fewer rides) or those with an added incentive (SDS and Hanagan).
It is not until the totting up process hits the jockeys that they’ll take notice. And then they’ll cry foul for "penalty not fitting the crime".
Value Is Everything- Total Posts 17716
Don’t you think all the evidence now points to an incontrovertible need to
make the rules
more
lenient? In fact, to a complete and immediate removal of these well-meaning but lethally inflexible
"stroke counts"
which are making the situation worse, and reducing UK Racing’s standing by the day.
If Hanagan and de Sousa’s rides were bad or insensitive rides, there might be some reason to feel the rules were too lenient. But they weren’t. They were good, sensitive and highly professional examples of the kind of expert jockeyship we should be welcoming, not trying to destroy.
No, the inflexible whip count (and the ridiculous penalties) have to go, unless you want to destroy the sport we love.
- Total Posts 17716
It is not until the totting up process hits the jockeys that they’ll take notice. And then they’ll cry foul for "penalty not fitting the crime".
They will indeed. And with
Rob Havlin
‘s second ban today at Newmarket we’re back into that totting-up which nearly led to the jockeys walking out at Aintree a week ago.
Many of us are clear about what needs to be done:
the new rules must be scrapped with immediate effect, and "stroke counts" made guidelines, not inflexible rules.
Can you suggest anything more likely to be effective at reducing the number of bans
immediately
and taking the spotlight off BHA and UK Racing as a worldwide laughing stock?
- Total Posts 17716
Nice idea Drone, but wouldn’t work in practice. Which jockey would want to ride immediately prior to the Derby?
We’re already committed to it being "After you, Sir" for 6 weeks before the Cheltenham Festival, anyway.
Cormack, you have a terrific forum here but your ‘mentality’ on this is comparable to Colonel Nicholson in The Brisge Over The River Kwai .. tragic.
Listening to you people is like hearing a bunch of fundamentalists…you seriously need a reality check here. These great and noble creatures run for our money and you are advocating a rule that allows them to be beaten mercilessly just in order that you win your stake. It sounds like pure avarice.
Pinza…here’s a little experiment for you. Get a pair of trainers on, get jogging with a partner…maybe 3 miles – over hedges, park benches, road signs etc. Then, when you are getting tired and not putting in the effort your partner beats you every stride for a good thirty strides until you collapse in pain or else flip and scream at him/her for hurting you.
Let me know how you feel about whip abuse after, okay?
On to more important things – anyone else for whipping lazy overpaid football players? Oops…guess the HUMAN Rights Act prevents that…how about a Horse Rights ACT…
An interesting sidelight
Drone
, and there would be something to be said for it, if it weren’t for the reality of the situation.
I was at pains to write a non-commital "sympathetic to" in that I’d neither regard the introduction of such amended rules as
die endlosung
(just for you Pinza
) so ridding the game of riding offences, nor feel inclined to start an angry thread on TRF berating itMany owners, trainers and punters go to great lengths to book a particular jockey for their horse, for a variety of reasons (often to do with knowing the animal) and they often shell out a great deal of money to do so.
Sure, so wouldn’t the threat of immediate disqualification mean that an increased onus of responsibility would fall on the jockey in preceding races? Knowing that a transgression doesn’t mean an immediate ban, is open to appeal, and wouldn’t preclude him/her riding in a Group 1 (have I got that bit right?) in my view, if not actually encouraging irresponsibility, does little to prevent it
Furthermore, all jockeys, particularly NH, ride in the knowledge that they may suffer an injury resulting in an enforced spell without rides. This unhappy circumstance too means that "owners, trainers and punters who’ve gone to great length and shelled out money to book a particular jockey" will have their hopes dashed. It’s accepted as one of the risks the game provides and, rightly, is met with a stoical shrug. I see no reason why it shouldn’t be accepted in the same manner and met with the same stoicism should a jockey suffer an unenforced spell without rides
To reiterate: this funny little idea of mine has nothing to do with the current whip rules constraining jockeys, but is more a generalized idea to reinforce a system that is easily manipulated and abused
No more from me, just a little brainstorm really
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.