Forum Replies Created
- Posts
For anyone interested this is the rule :
10.1 Subject to Paragraph 11, a riding suspension imposed on an Amateur Rider will apply
10.1.1 when the Rule Contravention occurs in a flat race, on those days when a flat Amateur Riders race for which the Amateur Rider is eligible is programmed to take place in Great Britain;
10.1.2 when the Rule Contravention occurs in a steeple chase or hurdle race, on those days when either an Amateur Riders steeple chase or hurdle race for which the Amateur Rider is eligible is programmed to take place in Great Britain;
10.1.3 when the Rule Contravention occurs in a National Hunt Flat Race, on those days when a National Hunt Flat Race for which the Amateur Rider is eligible is programmed to take place in Great Britain.A proper beast. The real denman twitter account also gone.
TheRealDenman Denman
But I am afraid that with my retirement from racing must also come my imminent retirement from Twitter. It’s been……real……Neigh.
1 hour ago
Denman
TheRealDenman Denman
It doesn’t even hurt……Neigh
1 hour ago
Denman
TheRealDenman Denman
**** it.
1 hour ago
Denman
TheRealDenman Denman
Wish I was on the gallops up in Scotland today, I’d bloody love it. I am Denman and I am ‘ard…..Neigh
17 hours ago
Denman
TheRealDenman Denman
Just seen Lexus odds & what the **** is Quito De La Slow doing at same price as me? He only just beat ******* Sarando at Aintree……Neigh
17 hours agoPinza is now combining twitter with a blog – probably the future anyway and a format that will allow his musings a wider audience.
Anyway Pinza’s views on this subject are here:
In Paul Carberry’s book there is a piece where he relates an episode in his early career where he thinks he has been unfairly criticised by Noel Meade after a fall. He asks his father (Tommy) that evening what he thought and he advises him something like "when you fall it is always your fault". I am sure most jockeys look at falls and try and figure out what they should have done differently.
To take two falls three(?) weeks apart and try and argue that they form some part of a pattern is however nothing more than confirmation bias. A wider review of data is needed. I dont have this but Chris Cook did look at unseats in 2009 :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/20 … rse-racing
Barry had the fewest.
If it is true that there was
‘A whispering campaign against him from within the BHA [which] appears to have begun while he was on two weeks’ paternity leave’
The BHA and everyone connected to them are a total disgrace.
who might these whisperers be.
Nick Luck has tweeted …
nickluck Nick Luck
Sorry to learn that @paulmstruthers is leaving the BHA as of today & wish him and family wellHe will get blame for mistakes and no credit for the good now.
CH ,
WD on your recent win .
If the 100% books reflected the horses prob of winning then your formula should calculate the prob of having a winning bet.
I am only guessing where you might have been going with this but I suspect that jackpot pools will be very skewed towards favs. If you had some data on behaviour of pool bettors (i.e. the typical profile of horses selected (by price/prob)and you could probably get some steer on this by examining the number of winners in previous pools) then you might then be able to model something to identify overpriced combinations.
Looks like a tricky task/job for a developer/bot.
I’d say the thousand stars owners are happy enough …
Sean,
Although in a way it would be nice to see different groups treated differently, with varied deterrents – I don’t think it will be practical or (possibly) legal. It would be seen as favouritism towards top jockeys etc. if they had a smaller ban for the same offence. So there must be one rule for all and that inevitabley means punishments for top jockeys looking a little harsh. That’s life.
As has been discussed here before I dont think it should be too hard to construct a rule where totting up period was shorter of 100 rides or 12 months.Credit to Eclipse First for the original idea.
Haven’t thought through implications but also wonder whether conditionals might be deterred by structuring something so they "lose" some element of their claim .
Although looking back, those jockeys who have few rides (and so a ban does not matter so much) continue to break the rules.
The report actually highlights a similar point. Between Jan 2010 and June 2011 conditionals had approx double (1.23%) and amateurs nearly three times (1.92%) the breach rate of professional jump jockeys (0.65%). In the circumstance applying the same penalty structure and totting up protocol to all three groups probably needs looking at.
Cormac said
One thing is
clear
– a whip reduction (with appropriate safety allowances agreed by BHA) can’t have a negative impact on horse welfare. That is the only definite point. Argue your way out of that one.
I dont think that is clear at all. Reducing the number of hits has at the very least the potential to result in individual hits being applied with more force .
Lets park minor major a think about what the outcome we all want . Do the new rules and penalties reduce the likelihood of horses being marked ? I doubt it .
The target for marks should be zero. Animal aid equate rule breaches to "abuse" and weals to extreme abuse. I think they will have some success with the public in making this stick. IMO perception has to be given some consideration.
All this in spite of the evidence in the report quoted by Pinza that
no horse has suffered discomfort or pain, physical or behavioural, through wealing, for THE LAST THREE YEARS.
So by legislating to reduce the frequency of permitted hits do you reduce the potential for horses marking ? If all hits were of equal force and with the same equipment then the answer would seem to be yes. On the other hand I think Hughes referred to something along the lines of having to make " every hit count" now. It may well be that the consequence of the rule change is that more speed/force is applied to a lower number of hits . I dont know but maybe in this scenario the potential for weals increases.
There are also other factors unrelated to number or force of hits ie faulty equipment, susceptibility of the animal etc . All in all its a minefield full of potential unintended consequences. I would have preferred to see emphasis on continuing development of the pro-cush than making adjustments to hits.
In relation to moes point about questioning the sport the one thing that made me really question it was the series of head injuries to jockeys towards the end of last season. The continuing development of jockey helmets , monitoring of injuries by ground conditions etc should imo be a BHA priority
(and may well be happening – the on course medical support seems to be excellent).I would like to see weals eliminated but think there is a need for some research before demonising jockeys who have inflected them.
I believe Richard Johnson in March mentioned that horses who had recently been clipped were more likely to mark . Again how you view the issue probably depends on how your confirmation bias filter is working.David Muir said
"We maintain our view that
horse welfare has to come first
and that the use of the whip for anything other than safety is unacceptable.
Cormac 15 said
a general and widespread acceptance (backed by evidence) that racing is a sport which puts
horse and jockey welfare FIRST
Spot the difference.
On a seperate point what expertise has David Muir in change management ? He seems to be fixated with punishment/deterrent as the main tool for attaining it. That is hardly best practice ( as I have discovered after 5 minutes on google).
