Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
All a 20% decrease in entries means is only 40 horses won’t make the cut instead of 60. There will still be a 40 race.
I left the forum because of all you moaning fuckers & you’re still going.
Racing is not doomed – GIVE IT A BLOODY REST.
There’s something very wrong with sending sympathy his way – he’s every bit as corrupt as those recently banned for race fixing.
quote]What kind of thinking is this?
Trying to win in the face of rules which are misguided and have no rationale based the BHA’s own research is the same as race fixing?
Get a grip of yourself.He was trying to win the race in face of the rules? Is that seriously your argument?
Remember a few years ago the stink that got kicked up because a certain Frenchman handled a football in an important match that stopped Ireland from qualifying for the World Cup?
He was ‘just trying to win in face of the rules’ too.
It’s cheating. Deliberately riding a horse to not win, deliberately braking the rules to win. Handling a football so another team doesn’t win. Cheating is cheating.
On the subject of the whip rules, I’m assuming Cooper would have broken them in the old days too.
Anyone know how much a ban he would’ve got pre October?
And if a trainer cheats do nothing to him but ban the jockey and if the owners lay their own horse, ban the trainer?
Jockey hit the horse, nobody else.
DQing as well might concentrate the jockeys minds more though.
I agree that disqualifying the horse completely would deter any jockey attempting to gain an unfair advantage but it would be a minefield for the bookies/exchanges.
I’m quite angry about this, people are talking about the Kennedy ban & the Robert Winston ban like they’re two sides of the same coin when they’re actually completely different.
In the case of Winston, than ban is crazy & stewards need to learn the difference between a stroke for encouragement purposes & one for corrective purposes. And the BHA need to accept the difference between the two.
If I were a jockey I might go out with a pair of spurs on, ‘for the owners’ of course!
PS Where is everybody? It’s like the Forum Celeste?
13 bookmakers in a town of 20,000 people is seen as excessive?
What a very quaint suggestion.
Love it – I’ve don’t think I’ve ever mentioned that I think racing should have more merchandising products.
And if I have mentioned it, it can’t have been more than four or five… hundred times.
I don’t know why people keep brining up Ireland like it’s a better option.
How’s the financial situation over there? Healthy? Progressive? No, it’s on it’s [expletive]. No owner nor trainer is going to move their entire string over there. No chance at all.
It’s already happening,
Scamperdale
. Because, with all Ireland’s problems, Racing is more fun and less plagued by continual wrangling and moral crusades there than it is over here.
Evidence?
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.
I don’t know why people keep brining up Ireland like it’s a better option.
How’s the financial situation over there? Healthy? Progressive? No, it’s on it’s arse. No owner nor trainer is going to move their entire string over there. No chance at all.
But the old rules did not work, ignored in valuable races.
Problem being, they’ll be ignored in valuable races under the new rules too.
The rule should be amended to say that if a ban was triggered by a ride in a specific class of race (Group, Listed, Class 2, 3, seller etc) then the ban should apply to that class of race only.
Even those morons at Animal Aid will concede that the 850 whip bans last year left marks on a little over 1% of the horses involved.
Jockey given 15 days whilst trying for his life.
you couldn’t make it up…
A jockey thinks he can blatantly cheat & get away with it?
You’re right, you couldn’t make it up.
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.
Once again Pinza, the only person who keeps banging on about the Animal Rights people, is you.
Having seen the comments boards on the Racing Post website, those people would have a negative outlook on being handed a million pounds. And when only a small sample respond, surveys are pointless anyway, aren’t they?
Ignore the ‘animal rights’ people, ignore the RSPCA.
Sport in general is accepting ambiguity less & less. For me, it’s far better to say, ‘these are the rules’ as opposed to ‘these are the rules as interpreted by the stewards on the day.’I have heard nothing but plaudits for Dettori’s ride on Never Can Tell today, I’m still waiting for someone to criticise the ride.
Yet amazingly from Monday the ride he gave the horse is being outlawed, he would receive a hefty suspension as well as having to forfeit all his share of the prize money.
The BHA, you are a disgrace!Except that from Monday, none of the other jockeys today would have been able to give their mounts the same rides either.
Dettori has been banned for his whip use on Rewilding this season & yet today, according to you, has done it again.
Clearly the previous rules & the sanctions for breaking them were massively ineffectual.
For what it’s worth, in my opinion Never Can Tell would have won today no matter that the whip rules were – best horse on the day won. And that shall continue to be the case.
I enjoy racing more now than I did ten years ago, although I’ve only really been interested in racing in the last four-ish, I’ve had a passing interest for many years.
As I’ve mentioned in the past, as a former student of non league football, I quite enjoy the racing other people describe as ‘dross’
Perhaps a better answer would be supplied by ‘Get In!’ last night. They showed a replay of the 2008 Arc in which the 150/1 shot I backed e/w named It’s Gino dead heated for third. I enjoyed seeing the replay just as much as I did at the time!
By the way Pinza, claiming that the YouGov poll is worthless because there were ‘only’ 2,707 respondents is a little bit fatuous.
There are routinely only that many respondents to YouGov/MORI surveys on the death penalty, yet every one of them is presented by the media as the view of the population at large.
The rules on how many times you can hit a horse in the final furlong/after the final obstacle have my full support. I’m not too sure of the rest of it. How, for example, can you have a single rule that covers races from 5f to 2m4f on the flat and another single rule that covers races from 2m to 4m4f?
Surely the circumstances over different distances are vastly different?
In my opinion (and no doubt my opinion exclusively) it seems to me they’ve either by accident or design introduced a new Formula One style tactical element to racing. Do you give the horse a couple of smacks early on to your expense later or do you lob along out the back & hope to make it up in the final two furlongs. I’ve no opinion on whether the changes will improve racing or not but it’ll certainly be interesting.
That said, it should make cheating a whole lot easier shouldn’t it? ‘Didn’t ride out the finish? Sorry guv, I’d hit the limit. Hands are tied.’
