Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Another thing, Tuffers: I am not suggesting that "we" – and whoever "we" are, I’m pretty sure I’m not one of them – have the monopoly of correctness on any subject simply by being part of racing. That’s evident in what I wrote, for those who care to read it with any regard to the actual meaning of the words.
Tuffers: I don’t think it’s helpful if you persist in wilful reductivism of the sense of my point down to a pithy soundbite. Does the feeling of Mrs Wilkins from number 63 about the use of the whip in racing, a sport she does not watch, have equal weight to that of a vet with extensive experience of horses? No, it doesn’t.
We are talking here not about the electoral system but about a sport that, at this stage anyway, can regulate itself on this matter. Provided it has a coherent, reasoned and justifiable stance on the use of the whip, should it pander to ill-informed public opinion, often misinformed by agenda-led groups or individuals and starved of the counter argument by bodies such as racing? Or should the sport have the courage in its convictions? Has it done enough research and thinking to know what those convictions are? Would it carry the majority of its constituents, united, with it? Should its conclusions be based solely on science? Or is there an element of modern mores it necessarily has to take on board?
Are you saying that it is right that a majority, who might have a shallow understanding of an issue, should dictate policy to a minority, who might have more experience, facts and empathy at their disposal? I am not saying that such a gloss fits this case – I think you can see from what I posted that I am undecided about what I think about this issue – but you surely take my point?
I think there’s a lot to be said for banning it. It would require more jockeys to show a wider range of riding skills – running through the whole portfolio of physical communication with a horse like Fallon or McEvoy do before turning to the whip, and even then they use it judiciously – before resorting to whipping a horse. It would also arguably allow more willing horses to become dominant in the breed. Would it make any difference to results? If so, would it be a difference we’d all get used to within a few years?
However, why would we be banning it? Because it is bad or because it looks bad or sounds bad? If either of the latter two, I think it is what Uncle Matthew would call The Thin End Of The Wedge (copyright Nancy Mitford) to ban something because the weight of public opinion perceives it to be wrong. I think that would be a very dangerous road for racing to go down. Racing has to decide what it thinks of the whip and stick by it, with coherent and reasonable argument. Obviously, that is always difficult in this sport when we have such a broad church of constituents.
Is the whip actually wrong? Is it wrong to coerce a horse – I stress, within the bounds of using the whip as the current BHA rules require, ie I think infringements are wrong and should be punished – into giving of its available athletic ability? A human can decide to keep running for some self-set goal; a horse doesn’t have that capacity. I was quite taken with James Willoughby’s argument in the Post along these lines: that to remove the whip, a force for or spur (no grim pun intended) to exertion, is to remove one of the fundaments of the sport – to derive the best a thoroughbred can muster – and reduce it to a lot of animals running around a field.
Is it even proven that the whip, used properly within the current rules, does make a horse go faster? Vets I have spoken to place this within the realm of "contestible judgement" – ie they don’t think it is proven but lots of practitioners such as jockeys say it works. I think we all know that a jockey’s premature reaching for it can often unbalance him/herself and the horse and so backfire. Had they just continued to ride hands and heels and steer a balanced horse, they might (more often than not?) get a better result. But I also think it likely that in many cases – not all – it does make the horse go faster. I can’t prove this, however.
Does the proper use of the whip "hurt" a horse? Are we projecting anthropomorphic feeling upon what is a different animal to ourselves? What is the "proper" use of the whip? Is this just a compromise with prevailing public perception or does it have any real, intrinsic meaning? Is it inevitable that the whip will be banned in our lifetime? Are certain of racing’s constituents unwittingly colluding with that denouement?
Sorry so many questions: this subject really interests me. But, as for voting on whether it should be banned, I must confess I am as yet undecided. I look forward to what you’ve all got to say…I was quite prepared to think he’d come on massively for the run in the Betfair Chase from the way he was tanking along for so long. But even then, the fluent jumping he showed last season was absent. He was losing ground at every fence and then travelling between fences. He was never travelling in the King George and holding his head at a strange angle from early on. I came to the conclusion, for my own betting purposes, that there was something more fundamental wrong with him than merely a problem with fences. I can’t help but feel he’ll be lacklustre over hurdles, too, unless a problem has been found and solved. I hope I’m wrong, though!
What O’Brien actually said was that Dylan Thomas was "the best of this type of horse that we’ve had". I took him to mean middle-distance horses, implying that he deemed him superior to such as Galileo and High Chaparral, although he wasn’t pressed on that point. I don’t think he intended comparisons to miling/10f horses, like Giant’s Causeway or Rock Of Gibraltar, etc.
Colin
That is, as you observe, the official line. (I like a good dose of scepticism.) Other commitments meant I was neither at Haydock nor watching Racing UK live, so I can’t put forward an opinion of my own. Racing Replay made no comment.I was thinking of writing about Haydock this week but ended up doing something else. I did ask some questions though, so I thought I might post the answers here.
The delay to the Betfair Chase was apparently not caused by having to wheel the brush hurdles off and the portable fences on. Instead, it was as a result of a request from the BBC to delay the start due to the proximity of the Ascot races beforehand. They were keen to show pictures of the Betfair Chase participants from the paddock and the parade.
There were 2 fences fewer than BHA rules for three miles. Haydock have special dispensation from the BHA for this while the track-building work is in progress. There is an option to add another fence, which will be discussed with the BHA and trainers.
Wetherby is currently operating with only 17 fences due to the recent enforced realigning of its home bend. Their BHA dispensation ends in October when Wetherby plan to have a fifth fence in the back straight once again – although, again due to those changes to the track, it will be sited a little further back from the home bend than previously.
It was the brush-hurdle race, rather than the Betfair Chase, that was run at the incorrect distance at Haydock last Saturday. (See yesterday’s Dikler in the Racing Post.) When the track work is complete, the brush hurdles and portable fences will stand side by side, rather than using the same circuit.
The durability of the portable fences will be monitored. They had been rigorously tested under schooling conditions but evidently race conditions had been difficult to replicate. The dolling off on Saturday was precautionary. Initial thinking is that the portable fences are actually more robust than many semi-portable or permanent fences, however the packing of the birch may need to be addressed.I have been pleasantly surprised by the level of positivity towards Alan’s idea for Cheltenham. A few people raised it after Tristram Ricketts’ funeral yesterday and, at a meeting I attended in the evening, the trainers who were there all felt it was an interesting and viable proposal. I think it might get some serious consideration. At the very least, the idea is out there now. But, as Alan has already suggested to me, it probably won’t be revisited until the first day of the Festival because the Old Course isn’t used again until then.
I was also pleasantly surprised to find that the views quoted on page 3 of the Post on Monday – broadly that the fence has always been like that and that there was no real alternative (Paddy Brennan’s comments excepting) – do not reflect fairly the cross-section of views among professionals. Some agree that the fence is an unreasonable hazard that spoils races, from the point of view of welfare and competitiveness. Others do think that it represents a reasonable test, but there is at least a spectrum of opinion and it has sparked debate, anecdotally, among the professional ranks. Kim Bailey comes at it from a different angle, as mentioned on his website and (I think) cited above: that horses, particularly those arriving from mainland Europe, are not taught to jump on (or soon after) a downhill gradient and that many horses with insufficient jumping experience as a whole are asked to tackle such a difficult track.
All this has restored my (never really wavering) faith in debate!There’s far, far more to Fallon than "brute force". I think he’s a great jockey. (Adjective examined for undue media hype – and approved.)
I would guess that the terrestrial TV media wouldn’t agree with you that the sport is about the horses rather than the people. There may be a feeling that it is easier to sell humans to that wider audience they are intent on capturing than it is to sell horses to them.
I would say the ability of horses, offset against the weight they carry, is the overwhelming factor in deciding the outcome of races. Jockeys have comparatively little imput. Being human, where they do impact (aside from the fact that horses wouldn’t race as we require without someone riding them, obviously), it is likely to be negative in its effect – such as positioning a horse to its disadvantage, mis-timing a manoeuvre, etc. I suppose a great ride, as opposed to an entirely satisfactory one, is when a jockey, through his/her tactical skill, achieves more from a horse than its relative ability should allow.Isn’t the raison d’etre of that cursed tribe, the media, in being the medium between a subject and those who are interested in it? That’s why I always find it a bit odd when fans, in this case those who have contributed to this debate, register pleasure when a subject, in this case Ryan Moore (although this is now historical), is uncooperative with the media. Isn’t it the fans who are missing out if, say, a sporting star doesn’t offer the benefit of his/her insight?
I understand that certain sections of the media in general have and do behave in such a way that diminishes respect for the profession, but if the job is done properly (as I understand it) it’s just the conveying of information. Without that, isn’t our comprehension and therefore enjoyment of a subject the poorer?
Also, just because someone might be a member of the media, doesn’t mean anyone, even a sportsman, shouldn’t accord them the basic respect human beings owe each other. I have seen and experienced behaviour that is simply rudeness.
As for Moore, he has changed completely in his interaction with the media this year. He’s given lots of stimulating interviews and is now easy to deal with. Surely mutual professional respect is best for all parties, not least the reader/listener/viewer?
On the original subject of this thread, Moore’s riding, I totally agree. He’s champion jockey in all but name and by a clear margin, in my opinion.Hello all. I read this thread, like many others on this forum, with interest. It’s always good to get some feedback, positive and negative. I thought I might respond to one or two points. Maxilon 5 said: “We need solutionsâ€Â
Good evening, everyone. I am using my real name and perhaps that’s the reason why my password took a while to be activated. (It happened within 24 hours. The rest of the disparity between my joining time and first post is down to work intervening and sheer laziness on my part.) I’m using my real name because I prefer straightforward communication. When I did the Q&A on here, I said I wasn’t a member of the forum because it would engulf too much of my not-very-frequent time off. To ward this off, I might well be on here sparingly. But I’ve always really liked this forum.
