Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Dear all
Two final points, for the avoidance of doubt:
1. There is a huge difference between (a) contributing to a thread in your spare time because you choose to do it, and find it pleasurable and (b) feeling obliged to contribute to a thread because its original title contains your name and publicly questions your integrity, and finding it unpleasant. This is an obvious point of difference that should not “grate” with any objective assessment, surely.
2. I do not seek or expect to be treated any differently from any other poster on this forum just because I work in the racing media. Nor have I ever sought or expected that. In fact, I would like to be treated exactly the same, by which I mean I expect to be accorded the basic human courtesy and consideration that we all have a responsibility to extend to each other, whatever our profession or education or whatever. To take just one example from this thread, I don’t think that suggesting without one shred of evidence that I took a biased view for reward, as more than one contributor has implied, corresponds to this premise.
Lydia Hislop
Dear Paul Fitzgerald
What a perfectly horrible response.
To deal with your latest personal comments:
“Now that I have spent several more hours of another day off replying to you…
Although that remark drips with condescension (which is revealing), once again I humbly thank you for your reply.”No condescension was intended although, as you might say, it is revealing that you have interpreted it that way. Perhaps it is grimly amusing that you have strenuously discovered a sentence, amid the near 4,000 or so words that I have written in response to you, that causes you affront – albeit unwittingly on my part. What those words actually betrayed is some frustration and guilt at having used a large amount of my spare time replying when I should have been spending that time with my family. My fault and my problem, but there’s the truth of it. It seems I am pathologically unable to give anything but a comprehensive reply. Those words probably also betrayed some frustration and unhappiness that I should be giving such close consideration to your point of view in the full knowledge that I was only likely to receive further insults in response.
“You’re drawing of elaborate vernacular tangents that are at best circumstantial, leave my opinion unchanged.”
I take this to be a mocking snipe at my use of language and manner of response. I cannot help the way I think and write; like everybody else in the world, that’s part of what makes me who I am. If I think the word fits, I use it. To alter the way I naturally speak and write because I am afraid that someone might judge me negatively for it would be dishonest. I think it would also involve a patronising assumption on my part about whoever is reading or listening.
“There was never any intention on my behalf to make an issue of your general journalistic integrity.”
That is entirely inconsistent with the title of this thread. You might say it is the retrospective changing of a definitive statement.
To move on to the debate itself, as far as my part in it is concerned, I believe it has reached the limit of constructiveness that I thought it might have, if indeed it ever had any. I have already explained at length why I think the two stances I have taken, on Binocular and New Approach, are consistent because of their differing detail. You believe me to have been inconsistent and that any differing detail is irrelevant. Neither of us is going to change our minds.
However, I cannot express my point of view any more comprehensively than I have already. For that reason and because it seems you have appointed yourself prosecutor, judge and jury on this matter, I have nothing further to say. The judgement of such a kangaroo court holds no interest for me.
Lydia Hislop
Colin
It is contemptible, just because you may not yourself use a certain word, to accuse a person who does use it of intellectual bullying.
It is contemptible to express your “disappointment” that I have supposedly taken the establishment line when I have not, in fact, done that. Perhaps it was the assiduous length of my replies that caused you not to read them properly.
It is contemptible to imply that the only reason I criticised the conduct of Jim Bolger is because he supposedly demonstrated a disregard of the British media.
Lydia Hislop
Colin
When a thread is titled as this one is, it would take some disregard of one’s profession to ignore it.
My manner of response is an expression of my personality. As is yours.
Lydia Hislop
Johnjdonoghue
“I believe he was furious with the state of the ground at the Curragh…”
You “believe” that, fine. It was not given by Jim Bolger as a reason for New Approach running in the Derby. He and I discussed this entire issue in the post-Derby press conference and, privately, afterwards. At no point did he mention this. As a journalist, I am obliged to stick to the facts as I understand them.I have already argued where I believe Bolger’s behaviour deviated from the duty of care owed to the racing public, twice in this thread and once in the Times article. Please refer to them.
Regards
Lydia Hislop
Dear Paul Fitzgerald
To take your counter points in turn:
“At length in your reply you list circumstance to defend Henderson, yet you ignore circumstance with the Bolger case. It is entirely plausible and imo highly probable that the decision to run New Approach in the 2008 Derby was made by the Ruler of Dubai and that Bolger had absolutely no veto on the decision taken.”
Your interpretation of the decision to run New Approach is utter speculation and therefore cannot be used as justification for Bolger’s actions, however plausible you believe it to be. We’re dealing with the facts, as we know them, in this thread. Your theory is thrown out under that criterion, I’m afraid. The fact is Bolger said New Approach would not run in the Derby, but the horse did, in fact, run in the Derby. The fact is the horse was said to be well and sound at all times, but that he had an alternative target. The fact is he ran in the one race it was specifically said he would not run in. No mention was made of Sheikh Mohammed and his influence (perceived or actual) at any time. This is an entirely bogus argument on your part.
"Henderson could have picked up the phone after speaking to McManus, called the Racing Post and immediately informed the racing public that he had just spoken to the horses owner and a decision to leave Binocular in the race had been taken but his participation reamined doubtful or 50/50 at most. Henderson never did this! He left everyone in the dark until March 4th, over 2 weeks after a decision to not withdraw the horse from the Champion Hurdle had been made. In the post Champion Hurdle press conference Henderson stated "if we persevered we werent going to do any harm". Why didn’t you tell us you were persevering Nicky? You told us the horse was being put away for the season yet in your press conference you state "I kept them informed of exaclty what we were doing". You did no such thing!"
This is a good point. As a result of what emerged in the post-race press conference, I think it is fair to assert that Henderson could have informed the Press Association of the reportedly McManus-led decision not to scratch Binocular when Weatherbys made their query. It is my stance that Henderson would have been more at fault had he not made public the fact that tests were being carried out on Binocular than what he did, in fact, say. However, it would have been better had he continued in that vein of communication.
Yet once again I maintain that the fact the horse was not, to Henderson’s declared knowledge, healthy is overwhelmingly relevant. In Henderson’s mind, it would seem that he believed he had a sick horse. [From your latest quotes, derived from the post-race press conference: "The bone scan had revealed nothing physically wrong and the treatments for the horse were continuing.”] Bolger was making pronouncements on a well horse. This is not circumstantial, as you airily call it; this is a critically differing detail in the facts as we know them. The wellbeing of the two horses and the impact of that apparent fact on the mindset of their trainers is a crucial item of difference. One might also argue that there is a variation in degree. New Approach was pronounced to be not running in the one race of most vastly preponderant importance of early June. Binocular was cited a non-runner for his target race among the 37 other horses that Henderson actually ran at a Festival – [there would have been even more in training for it at that point] – for which there were many other equally high-profile targets and names.
However, it does come back to the duty-of-care aspect of trainer/owner/jockey relations with the public that I was trying to outline in my original Times article. In an ideal world, Henderson would have notified the PA as suggested. Practically, for future reference, it might be worth Weatherbys flagging up as a matter of course when a doubtful horse has been left in at a forfeit stage, especially as they now have the process whereby they contact the relevant trainer asking whether that horse should be scratched. This would provide an objective check and balance. I will ask the BHA about their thoughts on whether this could be implemented.
"Why are the brave lions(ess’s) who were so quick to maul Jim Bolger over inaccuracies and changes to previously made definative statements, so reluctant to do it now with Henderson in light of the glaring inaccuracies I’ve listed above?"
I am not reluctant to pursue any inconsistencies by Henderson. As I said in my original reply to you, further detail about what happened between Henderson declaring Binocular a likely non-runner and the news that the horse was again a possible runner was very much worthy of interrogation. I could not pursue this line of questioning in the post-race press conference because I was broadcasting. Henderson should have been – and was, thanks to Greg Wood – asked to elucidate.
Your point about my behaviour is quite different. What you have argued is that my negative comments on RUK about those punters who have been caught out or have done the catching at inordinate prices about a horse that has been doubtful due to veterinary problems contradicts my earlier criticising of a trainer for lacking the due duty of care to the public, including the betting public [and to Epsom and British horseracing, I argued in the original article], about a perfectly well horse who has been vehemently said to have an alternative target. I maintain that these two stances contain related points but are not contradictory. I have expanded on that – what I deem to be your syllogism – further down in this reply.
"In amongst the thieving and nicking references I’m glad you’ve mentioned the words "odds" and "chance". What lay odds would you offer on the following statement issued by the one of the leading trainers in the land…
"We have unfortunately decided to put him away for the season to ensure he can begin next term as normal and 100 per cent for a full campaign, which we obviously hope will lead us back to Champion Hurdle"
Taking the trainer at his word, believing that what he says is what he will do, I’d have said a 999 lay was value myself. Or do we have to factor in that Henderson is 50% a liar and only offer a double digit lay? Or is he 75% untrustworthy, what odds then? Is this how the betting public are supposed to approach their antepost betting, by deciding how much a put away merchant the trainer is? I presume you have no idea who laid the long odds bets or what their reasoning was for doing so, thus I think your haste in descriptions of "thieving" and " nicking" are entirely uncalled for. Granted you havent condescended to the "repellant" adjective employed by the puritanical Alan Lee in his Times article yesterday."This is specious and emotive nonsense. What is someone who puts up 1000 – in fact, let’s not use the headline number of 1000 and use, say, 540 – about a horse declared to be a likely non-runner hoping for? He’s hoping someone might be ill-informed or recklessly speculative enough to match him. What is someone who accepts 1000 or 540 [and prices downwards, until they approach a more proportionate figure] trying to do? Either he’s taking a flyer, in the knowledge that such things have paid off in the past, or potentially he thinks he knows something, or perhaps knows someone who knows someone who says or thinks he knows something. (The latter type of action, if or where it exists, would have integrity implications.) I repeat: I have no sympathy for any of these people. I would hope that a great number of them would themselves expect no sympathy because they know the risks involved in betting, especially when putting up or accepting odds wildly disproportionate to a horse’s chance. That’s trying to nick money in my book. You differ. End of.
"I had some sympathy with those who had backed other horses for the Derby on the basis of Bolger’s seemingly unequivocal word that New Approach would not run because the horse had an alternative target. These punters had the goalposts moved on their bets for no tangible reason. However, admittedly, all bets are a risk.
Oh you had more than sympathy, Lydia. In the Bolger case, you commendably stated punters would be "savegely reproachful", the possibility of "perhaps irreparable " damage to the sport, the "whole house of cards falling down". Antepost punters who backed runners after Binocular was declared out, who took shorter prices compared to when he was declared back in, or who were deprived of backing a winner unless they thought the trainer was a total liar have had the goalposts moved in exactly the same manner as Derby 2008 punters."First, on a more minor point, the goalposts have not been moved in “exactly the same manner”. On all known form, Binocular was worthy of being the 9/1 shot he was returned as. I suspect a great many people would have had the same bets on other horses whether or not Binocular was due to run. New Approach’s form claims were of an altogether higher order. His absence made the race an entirely different ball game.
Second, you have again elided the same two points to fashion yourself a plausible but syllogistic conclusion, in exactly the same way as you did in your first post. As I explained in my first reply, the main thrust of my Times article was to point out the duty of care that I believed trainers/etc have to the public, including the punting public, in passing on relevant information. I was arguing that if they did not adhere to these considerations, the information gap between those inside and outside the sport would cause a fundamental breach of trust that would impact on the sport’s perceived integrity and, very likely, on the betting turnover that funds it. My focus was on the behaviour of licence-holders within racing. That is a very different argument from defending the individual punters who take disproportionate prices about perceived non-runners and whose conduct is either subject to high risk (for which they can blame nobody except themselves) or else raises potential integrity issues. It was for those highly speculative (at best) punters for whom I expressed zero sympathy on Racing UK last Tuesday. It is under the umbrella of the former, more holistic argument that I addressed Bolger’s conduct and accept as a good point the comment you made that Henderson should have informed the PA of McManus’s reported decision to keep Binocular in the Champion Hurdle rather than scratch him.
"Regarding your journalistic integrity…
At a time when I’m asking myself amongst others…
Why should I be paying good subscription money to a channel whose presenter of the year, seconds after the race, almost trips over himself to defend the Alan Jones stunt at Wincanton recently?
Why should I be watching racing where the pre and post race comments of Phil Kinsella (Mac Aeda) directly contradict each other, but are never questioned, after the horse has in my opinion been deliberatley kept out of the places?
Why should I buy the trade newspaper when one of its main writers uses its pages to regale us all with tales of his profit from an insider gamble on a duckegg horse?…
In short, why should I be wasting my time on this "sport"?
…your post race Champion Hurdle comments were the straw that broke the camels back. True you are being singled out this time, but only beacuse of the comendable position you took the last time that this happened. Racing journalism in the UK and Ireland is almost exclusively deviod of any meaninful critical analysis of its human protaganists and is in my opinion largely populated by a collection of zero concious insiders, head in the cloud puritans, bullshitters, hangers-on, bookmaker front men, and self publicists. On the whole only youself and Greg Wood consistantly emerge as having the talent, ability and professional conscience to relate stories of racings horses, people, politics and funding in a crediable way to me, a racing outsider but fully paid up racing customer.
For people who cant read between the lines, this is a thread of disapointment. The big picture with all of this tells me that certain sections of the racing fraternity are beyond any sort of meaningful media scrutiny. I find that incredibly disappointing. How does the sport attract new customers or even keep existing ones when its upper echelons do what they like without question the vast majority of the time? What sort of future has a sport in this day and age whose media coverage largely resembles that of North Korea? Whose critics are described as "repellent"."There are some valid points here. However, there is also hysterical comparison and selective referencing. I am not going to comment on the words and actions of others, nor should I have to deal with the anger these have partly generated in you and yet has been directed solely at me, in a thread the title of which directly questions only my integrity.
Your entire argument is based on your interpretation of events being the correct one. I disagree with you on a number of key points. My concluding contention remains that whatever way you dress up your argument – even if I accepted you to be correct, which I do not – it does not amount to a failure of integrity on my part, which is exactly what you have levelled at me. You have provided not one jot of evidence for a failure of integrity, only for a difference of opinion. That is not good enough, especially on a public forum.
Now that I have spent several more hours of another day off replying to you, I must conclude by observing more explicitly that I think you have been rude, your tone insinuating and your choice of some words objectionable. I notice that, despite my specifically objecting to it in my original reply, you have repeated the “brave lions(ess’s)” [sic] jibe in your most recent post. How pointedly unpleasant of you. You seem to be lost in the fervour of debate without regard for equity and self-responsibility. Quite why this discussion could not have been conducted in a polite manner, while remaining entirely forthright, is beyond me.
Regards
Lydia Hislop
Dear Paul Fitzgerald
When addressing what happened with Binocular on Racing UK, I was aware that the New Approach case might be deemed to be a precedent and recalled fully the stance I took in The Times on that occasion. I even discussed how I believed the two cases differed when broadcasting with Jonathan Neesom from Newbury on 5 March, the day that Binocular’s re-emergence as a likely Champion Hurdle contender appeared in the newspapers. However, I am happy to elaborate in response to the points you’ve raised.
I think there are significant differences in the two cases, in terms of what happened to each horse and in terms of the statements made by the trainers. However, what is entirely the same in both cases is my view of those who might potentially have sought to gain an advantage by inside information during these episodes. Two different, but related, arguments should not be elided to create what I think is a false conclusion.
The only thing preventing New Approach from running in the Derby was Jim Bolger’s word that he would not. The only thing that changed from the moment that Bolger said New Approach would not run to the moment he said that the horse would participate was Bolger’s own mind. The horse was not injured, nor suspected to be, and was running to a level of form that justified him being the likeliest favourite for the Derby, were he to run. However, he was definitively said to have another target.
Binocular only ever had one target, but had run below his (then) perceived capabilities in three starts when Nicky Henderson made the announcement that you quoted. Henderson stated that he had been advised that a muscular problem was in evidence (“We have taken a lot of advice this week, short of consulting a psychiatrist, and it appears he has a muscular problem behind.” Racing Post, 17 Feb ). It was on the basis of that initial advice that Henderson said the horse was ruled out for the season. On 4 March (printed in 5 March newspapers), he announced that Binocular might yet run in the Champion Hurdle, as a result of what the Post described as the horse “being given a clean bill of health following a body scan and other exhaustive veterinary tests”. According to Henderson, he was told he had an ill horse and then was told that the initial diagnosis had not withstood closer scrutiny. This would be an entirely legitimate basis for a change of plan for a horse, albeit a dramatic one, in my opinion.
Further detail about what happened between those two statements by Henderson is indeed worthy of some interrogation. I understand that Greg Wood, of The Guardian, pursued this line of questioning at the post-race press conference at Cheltenham and I believe you can view that on the sportinglife website. You know that I was broadcasting on the live RUK programme at the time and so could not attend. I am interested by what was said and pleased that Greg was present to address the subject, just as I had previously taken the opportunity (along with Dave Yates of The Mirror) to ask Bolger what I believed to be pertinent questions at the post-Derby press conference. I want to have a proper look at that Cheltenham webcast and resultant comment in the next few days, now that the duties of live broadcasting are complete.
What I said about a certain type of punter on RUK on Tuesday is a slightly different, albeit related, point. I said (to the best of my memory – I don’t have the transcript) that those who had posted big prices about Binocular winning the Champion Hurdle deserved those who had latterly matched their lay bets because each was an example of one trying to nick money from another. At odds wildly disproportionate to a horse’s chance, each side of the transaction may believe they know more than those who match them about the fact/chance of a horse running (or else its chances of winning, not penetrable in the form). Some will be taking an honest flyer, but they should know the risks and expect no sympathy. However, potentially, one side of the transaction may in actuality know – for a fact – more than the person who matches them. In both cases – that of New Approach and Binocular – the potential was there for people trying to gain a pecuniary advantage from others whom they perceived, or knew, to be gullible and who were not armed with the full facts. I have no sympathy for either side in either case. On a point of integrity within sport, however, I asked Paul Struthers, of the British Horseracing Authority, on Wednesday morning whether they will be investigating this episode as a matter of procedure. He said that preliminary checks had been made, but further checks would follow.
Not all punters fall into this category. I had some sympathy with those who had backed other horses for the Derby on the basis of Bolger’s seemingly unequivocal word that New Approach would not run because the horse had an alternative target. These punters had the goalposts moved on their bets for no tangible reason. However, admittedly, all bets are a risk. The sticking point in integrity terms comes when one side of the bet thinks they’re taking a calculated risk and the other side knows that they actually have no hope, or a great deal less hope than the odds suggest.
Again, this is a separate issue from the reasons why, outlined in The Times article you quoted, there is a burden of responsibility on trainers – and other connections – to acknowledge that punters (along with owners) underpin the existing finances of the sport of racing and to treat their concerns with due respect. It is this issue of transparency and accountability, which I believe has a holistic impact on punters and their faith in the sport of racing, that I was arguing in that Times article. It was my assertion that Jim Bolger did not fulfil his duty of care in this matter as I believe trainers should. I did indeed write: "A bad situation was made immeasurably worse by how definitively Bolger delivered his mutable statements". You could argue that perhaps Henderson should have been less unequivocal in his initial statements – that he should have realised there was a possibility the initial advice might be flawed – but on the basis of the information in the public domain, I believe that would be a harsh stance to take. Once again, the key difference is that there was never any problem with New Approach or the calibre of his form; he was merely said, definitively, to have an alternative target. Conversely, had Henderson not announced that tests were being conducted on Binocular, it could be argued that he would have failed in his duty of care towards the betting public. It is probably worth pointing out that Henderson was consistent both at the point of saying that the horse would not run again this season, in February, and again in the post-race press conference, last Tuesday, in stating that the horse was always “sound”.
I believe my point of view on these two episodes is consistent because there are key differences in the detail. Surely it makes sense to judge these matters on a case-by-case basis? No doubt when I construct or revisit an argument, there will occasionally be (and surely have been) flaws in my logic or inconsistencies that I have not fully perceived – I am a human being, after all – but I don’t think there are in this case.
However, it is quite another degree of accusation to accuse me of failed integrity. Therefore, while I respect you for having the straightforwardness to write your comments under your own name, I found the following accusation offensive: “Like I said they pick their victims carefully these media lions(ess’s). Must be no gravy ’round Coolcullen way.” Unlike the original point that you argued, with evidence and to which I have replied at length, this is just a wild and entirely unfair slight. I rebut it.Regards
Lydia Hislop
PS
Wallace-no7. You are utterly wrong (and more than a little absurd) to assert: “She doesn’t like Irish Horse winning her races or Irish trainers disrespecting her races. She has complete contempt for Aidan O Brien and the Coolmore operation.” Your points, in their ranging degree of silliness, are entirely inaccurate and completely misrepresent me.Goldikova. You wrote: “I hear the sound of a coin about to be dropped… Maybe she is like all the other sell out merchants on tv, and shows preferential treatment towards the person who is alot easier to get a tv interview out of ?” This is another wild and offensive accusation. What you have written is utterly untrue. In fact, if you had an iota of fact at your disposal, what you wrote is so far from reality it’s almost laughable. Almost.
Glenn – no problem. I was guilty of assuming you were talking about me (among others, of course) because I was working on RUK on the day that Fantasia ran and was indeed banging on about how I thought she should clash with Rainbow View in the 1,000 Guineas.
Just a quick note, initially in response to Glenn’s suggestion that what I said on RUK last week was motivated by having had a bet. I have not backed Fantasia for the 1,000 Guineas. Neither have I laid Rainbow View. In fact, the only bet I’ve had in the race is on Tiger Eye and no amount of talking is going to bring her back to life.
If the other RUK presenter Glenn was referring to was Steve Mellish, I happen to know he has backed both Fantasia AND Rainbow View for the 1,000 Guineas. He’s had the same stake on them that he might have had on a horse at Windsor tonight, so whether or not one of them runs is of no greater relevance than that in financial terms.
The case we put forward on RUK last week was because we love racing and like to see the best horses race against each other. Of course, I can understand an owner wishing to keep his horses apart, but that doesn’t mean that I should not voice the other point of view, which also has some validity. Sport is about great clashes and the more one sport can produce them, the better for it. Meeting again and again didn’t do Raven’s Pass and Henrythenavigator any harm last year – and they were colts, with the stallion earnings that implies, not fillies.
Also, the fact these fillies are not meeting in the 1,000 Guineas would have been more palatable had they always been in the same ownership. Instead, the owner of Rainbow View bought the chief danger to his filly and redirected her to another race, one that (if past habits are anything to go by) would not have been the first choice of her trainer. When Godolphin bought Shamardal and the clash with Dubawi never took place, much to the detriment of that year’s sport in my opinion, some of us on RUK also made a similar argument. I had backed neither horse then, too.
Why should we politely avert our eyes when two horses duck each other? Isn’t it healthier for the sport to talk about it? What if George Strawbridge bought Serious Attitude this week and redirected her to the Irish Guineas? Obviously, this won’t happen – I hope – but the principle I am trying to represent is the good of competition. If we never talk about the downside of such decisions, the risk is that they become easier to take lightly.
These are the counter points to the very understandable, financial, pragmatic and realistic point of view of George Strawbridge. It doesn’t seem right that they have been misrepresented in some quarters as financial self-interest. Taken literally, suggesting that people who express this point of view – myself included – are motivated by having had a bet, is suggesting that we all lack any sort of integrity. Let’s trade in debate rather than insults.
With that in mind, it’s good to read the varied thoughts and opinions on this thread.Just noticed this discussion. I agree that stats can often be misleading. I have to bear in mind the audience I’m writing for – the Guardian isn’t the Racing Post, so I can’t overload an article with figures. I was just trying to give a snapshot. There have been 72 British-trained runners in handicaps in the past 4 Punchestown Festivals and one winner. This compares with 166 Irish-trained runners at the past four Cheltenham Festivals and 14 winners. I used Punchestown and Cheltenham as my compare-and-contrast example because they are the leading NH Festivals each country holds.
It can be argued, with some justification, that Punchestown is not as much of an international target as Cheltenham, that it is something of an afterthought for British trainers and that it comes at the end of the season when many horses are over the top. However, you could also argue the perception that a 1 for 72 strike rate creates is that British horses don’t have much chance and so not many try.
The British system is not necessarily better than the Irish one, it is merely different. There is no problem when Irish horses race against other Irish horses in Ireland because they have all been rated under the same system. When Irish horses run in Britain, they have also been handicapped under the same system as their British rivals. Yet in 99 out of 100 cases, this is not the case when British horses run in Ireland.
It goes against the basic premise of handicapping if some horses race off marks that have been achieved on a different basis from that of their opponents. The results of those races – ie whether British horses have managed to win or be competitive in them or not – are actually irrelevant to that fundamental point, I think.First – sorry for the delay in responding. I tend to drop in here only intermittently, especially when I’m on the road a lot.
I think lasix (or salix, as it’s now branded) and bute are different in that they – and I know I’m generalising here – suppress physical problems. I suppose you could say that, if you banned the whip, you would be weeding out more ungenuine horses from the perpetuation of the breed in the same way that one of my objections to the use of the above substances is that it masks a physical problem that could then be passed down from generation to generation as a result of racing success.
I think the point that James W was making was that the whip, used circumspectly, encourages a horse to stretch to its athletic capability in the way that a human athlete can decide to do for themselves. I can see what you mean in that certain drugs offset physical problems to enable a certain horse to reach its literal physical potential. But I don’t think the comparison is ultimately fair.The whip is a legitimate riding aid – its misuse is my only quarrel – and I don’t think it’s proportionate to compare its use with drugs.
Of course, I’m pre-supposing you’re genuinely interested in what someone who hasn’t ridden professionally has got to say, even if their broadcasting brings nothing to your table.
I hope owners don’t put up jockeys who damage horses, Zorro. Unfortunately, many trainers seem ready to defend them – just read what some of them said after the latest incidents involving Eddie Ahern and Michael O’Connell (whose hearing is at the BHA today). (At least O’Connell’s case has the mitigating factor of inexperience.) To that end, the reception Ahern receives when he is allowed to return to riding will be interesting.
Just spotted your point about the media and double standards, seabird. You’re spot on. I think this was a point raised previously on here, and addressed by Sean Boyce, when Andrew Thornton’s Welsh Grand National ride on Mike De Beauchene was nominated on ATR for ride of the week/month/whatever. To be consistent with and supportive of the BHA’s whip rules, I think the media should not be complimentary about rides that breach those rules in any way, much less nominate them for prizes. Mistakes will be made in this, as in all things, but if we were more aware of the philosophy underlying such an attitude, I think it would be a good thing.
Richard said:
Murphy gives an interesting perspective on this in an interview in Thoroughbred Owner and Breeder. Best if people read it and make their own minds up, but I’ll just give a couple of quotes.
"….I’ll have to hit a horse a couple of times when it’s when its getting tired, if that is what they want. It’s a shame but I am bound by their rules."
To repeat, there is a huge middle ground between misuse of the whip and non-trying that the vast, vast majority of runners and riders achieve every day.
So why has Murphy – and he’s not alone – said this? Perhaps he genuinely believes it, in which case the BHA has some educating to do because he’s plain wrong. Perhaps he and others have a vested interest in being seen to interpret the rules this way? Whatever, it is better if such comments are interrogated rather than swallowed whole. In fact, as you said, it’s best if, having read Murphy’s words, people make their own minds up. I’ve read, made up my mind and my interpretation is rather different to yours.
The BHA cannot be held responsible for how some people misinterpret their rules. Nowhere in their rules do they require a horse to be hit to prove a jockey is trying. Hands and heels is all that is asked.Richard
Wrong: we agree. Under BHA (BHA! BHA! Not BHB, dammit!?!) rules, said horse should have been pulled up. All right-minded people – many of whom, it might astonish you to know, are punters – would agree with that.Democracy is of course not as straightforward as some make out. Labour only received 35.3 per cent of the vote at the last general election but they are the party in power, elected to make decisions for us, the public. The BHA (it ceased being the BHB even before it became the HRA) is a collection of people employed to make decisions about the running of racing, one of which is the rules governing the whip. I would much rather they gave greater weight to the view held by those with active or direct experience of horses than that of those with none when formulating those rules. They then have to make a judgement call. This is what they’re employed to do.
Inevitably, however, this cannot be done in splendid isolation to the real world. The BHA has to engage with the rest of society and explain, in coherent and rational terms, why they have set the whip rules as they have. If they don’t do this, those outside racing will have no understanding on which to base their opinion, if bothered to have one, and will be vulnerable to having their opinion shaped by those who have an agenda to push forward, such as Animal Aid. That is an animal-rights organisation without charitable status, whose director has compared racing to bear-baiting and one of whose stated aims is the banning of racing itself. For them, getting the whip banned really would be the thin end of the wedge. If groups such as these seize the lines of communication and racing declines to discuss its policies, the sport really would be in trouble.
I know the self-serving trap to which you’re referring, Zorro, and as you say – and I hope you mean – that doesn’t interest me. (You are quite correct to point out that the idea of the whip making a horse go faster is a fallacy – I should have spotted that sloppy wording as I was writing it. I hope the gist of my point remained, however.) I have slept on this for a few days. I don’t think the whip should be banned, but I do think a discussion of what it actually does do – negative and positive – is useful, if somewhat hazy. I think it is a fact that a number of racing’s constituents’ poor attitude to the whip (I’m thinking of Ahern, O’Connell, etc and all those who defended them) has brought it into the spotlight unnecessarily. Not one MP but many are now interested in the subject. It has given the likes of Animal Aid a stick with which to beat racing (poor pun intended) and has created lots of unhelpful headlines that will have impacted irreparably on many people. The BHA’s existing rules and enforcement of them will be under scrutiny and they will be asked whether they need to tighten them. And that’s not because of the rules or the BHA. It’s because a handful of racing people don’t know how to conduct themselves in a professional sport. I think it’s inevitable that the whip will come under increasing scrutiny, like it or not. My point is that, when that time comes, racing should know its reasons for using it within strict rules and abide by them, or risk having the right to legislate itself on this point taken from it.
Finally, there is no contradiction between the BHA’s policing of the over-use/abuse of the whip and a horse failing to achieve the best possible placing. There is a huge middle ground that the vast, vast majority of runners and riders achieve every day. To suggest otherwise is deceitful tosh.
