- This topic has 609 replies, 83 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
Flat bans only today? What about the glut of bans the big NH Saturdays were going to bring? Jocks seem to be adjusting fine and I enjoyed all jumps finishes I saw today.
I suspect by end November we’ll be wondering what all the fuss was about.
What a naive title to a thread, it presumes that the rules and the penalties are correct in the first place which they clearly aren’t.
This has been ably explained numerous times on here since the fiasco began 3 weeks ago, alas all to no avail.
The people responsible for the massive cloud that now hangs over racing and the sour taste in many peoples mouths are not the jockeys.
There was / is a problem with jockeys ignoring whip rules in valuable races.
Is it time that for whipping offences made in valuable races, any ban should
only
be applied when there is racing of similar standard?
Perhaps if jockeys thought they’d miss out on Aintree / Grand National they would be more inclined to keep to the rules at Cheltenham.
However, offences in poorer quality races should not be restricted to poor class races. Otherwise a jockey would have little deterrent in breaking the rules.
Value Is EverythingThe people responsible for the massive cloud that now hangs over racing and the sour taste in many peoples mouths are not the jockeys.
As jockeys ignored the old rules as and when it suited them, they have to take some responsibility. Particularly as (before they knew how it was going to be applied) they seeked a number to work to.
Value Is EverythingYes SC, the doomsayers who predicted that NH racing would not survive the changes have been proven wrong. Top class action today, some tight finishes and not a whip rule violation in sight. They (the rules) CAN be abided by and racing won’t fall off the end of the earth as some have predicted.
Question for those who want to abolish current rules.
How long do you think a horse should be given to respond to the whip before he is hit again? Roughly? One second, three seconds, five seconds? What is a reasonable time for a jockey to judge if he is getting a response?
- Total Posts 17716
Flat bans only today? What about the glut of bans the big NH Saturdays were going to bring? Jocks seem to be adjusting fine and I enjoyed all jumps finishes I saw today.
I suspect by end November we’ll be wondering what all the fuss was about.
I’m delighted to see that you have recovered from the near-terminal attack of
tristis acerba
you suffered earlier this week,
Steeplechasing
, and have returned to your familiar, entirely lovable sanguine self.
Four major bans today, including Mr Sensible, Gentle-hands Hanagan is no evidence that it’s all the fault of those silly flat jockeys. You see, the going was bad at Ayr, not at Wetherby or Ascot.
And have you not read
Sean Boyce
‘s interview with the rider of the Fontwell refusnik? This, as I’m sure you’ll agree, augurs not well at all for either the safety or the competitiveness of the jumps season ahead.
http://boyciesblog.wordpress.com/2011/1 … ow-so-far/
As
Ruby Walsh
has said, just wait until the 3 milers at Chepstow in the New Year before getting complacent. Meanwhile, your notion that this furore is simple going to "softly and silently vanish away", like Lewis Carroll’s Snark, is touchingly naive. Unlike the Snark, these rules are no Boojum. They’re all too real in their disastrous effects. Not least on poor
Rob Havlin
today, the latest jockey to lose a large amount of income for trying too hard to win the race.
- Total Posts 17716
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…
You haven’t grasped that nobody inside the sport –
nobody
– looks upon this as a
welfare
issue. Time for you to try out the light crop used by our jockeys on your palm, like Greg Wood did. Oh – and maybe read the BHA Report before coming out with such irrelevant stuff again.
- Total Posts 17716
Particularly as (before they knew how it was going to be applied) they seeked a number to work to.
You do not know what number they sought to work to. Neither do I, but I guess that they didn’t have in mind both (a) an inflexible number, and (b) such a huge reduction from the stroke counts in the guidelines, to the unworkable pittance in the new rules.
You’re not going to make any progress with grasping this,
Ginger
, until you think outside the (stroke)box.
- Total Posts 17716
There is no theoretical or logical explanation behind the value of the numbers and the system they are used in.
Would also like to point out that this is just as much a welfare issue than an organisational decision.
- Total Posts 17716
Question for those who want to abolish current rules.
How long do you think a horse should be given to respond to the whip before he is hit again? Roughly? One second, three seconds, five seconds? What is a reasonable time for a jockey to judge if he is getting a response?
Personally, those are questions I’m happy to leave to the professionals. And of course the first thing anyone who knows the first thing about it will tell you is, that
"it all depends"
.
Your question cannot be answered until you’ve defined going, course, size of field and length of race. Then there will be a multitude of answers. Not that the question has anything to do with abolishing the current rules: misuse was perfectly well dealt with, in a discretionary way, under the pre-2009 rules, to which we’d be wise to return straight away.
That’s why you people are having such trouble with getting to grips with the realities of the whip rule fiasco. You think it can all be solved like an algebraic problem, with definite numbers and hard facts. It can’t. There are too many grey areas. Which is why the stroke-count and inflexible lack of discretion have to go.
Not that you’ll ever accept that. I’m not sure why you wanted to start the Whip debate off again tonight, though I appreciate the
Hanigan
ban must have further shaken the BHA’s confidence that they can – ahem –
"ride this one out"
.
- Total Posts 17716
Would also like to point out that this is just as much a welfare issue than an organisational decision.
So you say. But in doing so you’re at odds with even the BHA themselves! Read the report.
Welfare is not an issue
.
- Total Posts 17716
Would also like to point out that this is just as much a welfare issue than an organisational decision.
So you say. But in doing so you’re at odds with even the BHA themselves! Read the report.
Welfare is not an issue
.
Welfare is not an issue, although the principles of their whip rule is based on the fact horses are being hit too often.
A very confused organisation, no wonder we struggle to move forward with them in charge and maybe some should go back into education because clearly some high level understanding is amiss.
nobody inside the sport –
nobody
– looks upon this as a
welfare
issue. Time for you to try out the light crop used by our jockeys on your palm, like Greg Wood did.
I wonder if his next experiment will be to run round Cheltenham for three miles in heavy ground wearing a backpack, and then get himself hit to give even more when he is absolutely exhausted ?
Snarks, Boojums and tristis acerba . . . you been on the magic mushrooms again Pinza?
My rage has runneth over and weariness hath enveloped my mind.
As for Boycie’s piece, it was a good ‘un and I left a comment there; another poster dissected Sean’s interpretation quite clinically regarding the horse in question and you will find another look at that thread enlightening.
As to the soft ground/Chepstows/Towcesters etc, I still have a feeling the storm has passed. We shall see.
The "end of the world" crew will soon realise that all this posturising is simply that. The sport will continue, we will all wonder what the fuss was about. As I have said previously , the professionals (jockeys) should be consulted and listened to, but should NOT be allowed to dictate. Quite often there is a resistance to change which is part of human nature. I speak from experience with changing and improving regulatory issues.
you people
‘you people’
– Pinza, come on, you can do better than that. Someone said (early on in this debate, I think it might have been Rob North) that you doth protest too much and you do. Snarks indeed!
I’ve been swayed by two sets of arguments. Those of Sean Boyce and Cavelino Rampante. I can see the arguments on both sides and realise (and have realised all along) that the whole issue is by no means black or white. The penalties may need adjusting, the count may need a tweak, etc.
But I remain committed to the central tenet of my argument: the whip is not necessary for racing, other than for reasons of safety. The societal view on animal welfare issues is changing, just as it has/is on human rights issues, and racing (worldwide) will find itself increasingly isolated on the issue of the whip unless it aligns itself with the way public opinion is shifting. You can deny that or shove your head in the sand but it won’t change the fact. Therefore I support the BHA in acting responsibly on behalf of the sport.
They may have got some of it wrong (the timing, perhaps a trial would have been better too, perhaps a period where the penalties ramp up to give the jockeys time to adjust, etc) but they’ve got the central issue spot on: control of use of the whip is strategically vital to racing’s success and growth in future years.
- Total Posts 17716
Snarks, Boojums and tristis acerba . . . you been on the magic mushrooms again Pinza?
No need for Magic Mushrooms when I have
Alice in Wonderland
at hand… nothing chemical can hold a candle to Carroll.
Though my feeling about tonight’s spat is illuminated more by
Alice Through the Looking-Glass
. Much talk about increasing penalties and clamping down on these disruptive little flat jockeys… people only seeing the imminent reality as through a glass, darkly. I can only suppose you chaps have got dyspeptic over the Hanigan ban(igan).
I ask you to calmly consider two rides. Put aside your prejudices for one brief shining moment, and try to judge them from the point of view of the Art of Jockeyship.
First, the
15:55 listed fillies race at Newmarket
. Watch
Rob Havlin
‘s calm, unflurried ride to extricate
Coquet
from a pocket, tenderly cajole her to the front and keep her going sweetly to win valuable black type in a close finish. He hits her elegantly, lightly, in stride, getting her to lengthen and hold on gamely. He is not using his whip in an excessive or ugly way to cause any negative public perception.
Result:
14 days loss of income, stripped of his fee and share of the prize money.
Second, the winning ride of
Nicky Macka
y on
Starscope
in the
13:00 Maiden at Newmarket
. Mackay stays within the rules, but his waving and frantic whip action looks unsightly, and perhaps unbalances the filly when a couple of the smart taps he’s not allowed to give her would have made a quicker and better effect. An uninformed outsider watching casually would think Mackay was belting the daylights out of his horse. He most certainly isn’t. But from the point of view of
perception
this ride looks far worse than Havlin’s.
How do you justify this clear anomaly? Of course Mackay should not be penalised for how his ride looks, but Havlin’s was a lovely piece of horsemanship of a quite different order.
How do you justify a 14 day ban and taking away Havlin’s fees and prize money, for such an admirable ride, beautiful to watch?
"He broke the rules"
will not do. Rules which drag the sport into the mud like this are bad rules, and do not deserve lip service. This is nothing to do with welfare, everything to do with perception? But the perception of Havlin’s ride is good, not negative, for anyone with half a shred of feeling for race riding.
To quote Mr Bumble in
Oliver Twist
, "The law says so, does it? Then the law’s an ass!" The sooner this asinine rule is changed – and it’s increasingly obvious that it will have to be changed later, if not sooner – the better for the increasingly beleaguered state of British Racing.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.