Forum Replies Created
- Posts
1,2 in order..
Race 1
Divers
Daves DreamRace 2
Quantatative Easing
Loosen My LoadRace 3
Poquelin
Noble AlanRace 4
Fingeronthepulse
Oiseau De NuitMy theory, for what it’s worth, is that very few commentators/pundits/pros had even read the Review document when they first commented on it. Having not taken the necessary time to read it, it is of course highly unlikely that they would have put in the necessary time to arrive at an informed opinion on it.
This is entirely normal practice in my experience.
Entirely normal in mine too and in regard to matters of much more importance than the BHA’s review.
Consider the infamous irish bank guarantee …it was reportedly signed off by the then (and now deceased) finance minister after reviewing the executive summary (and not main body) of the report outlining his options.
IMO the BHA are listening to some extent but have put racing in a very tight corner. I suspect they are now awake to the fact that racing is in a poorer position to defend itself because the new rules and penalties were not structured to allow measurement of behavioural change (aka fewer breaches) against the old limits and the 99.25% compliance benchmark.
A protocol (agreed with the PJA) as to which hits might be disregarded might give all parties a bit more wiggle room.
This may be ridiculous but I notice the raceday pro-cush whip includes a microchip . What does this do ? Could some mechanism to measure speed/force of the pro-cush be introduced and hits below a certain force disregarded ?
The inability of the jockeys to keep to the rules took almost everyone by surprise, including the jockeys themselves.
If this is true it shouldnt have been.
A 99.25% compliance rate with the old rules was identified within the report. In my opinion this sounds like an excellent compliance rate. If however you start to feed this rate into a power of calculator you get the chance of a breach after a number of rides as tabled below
30 – 20%
55 – 34%
92 – 50%
160 -70%
400 -95%It was inevitable they would struggle. The BHAs own stats showed that.
The totting up is clearly wrong.
Cormack would you be happy with:
NH guide limit – 8 base but increasing to 9 for 2m4+ and 10 to 3m+
from base
• 9/10 hits – referred to stewards ( max 1 or 2 day bans no totting up)
• 11 hits – 5 day ban
• 12 hits – 10 day ban
• 13 hits – 20 day ban
• 14 hits – 40 day ban + horse disqualifiedThe cherry picking continues. Neo-cons indeed.
There is a shocking amount of "confirmation bias" at work on this subject. The absence of an evidential base for the changes is at the heart of the current difficulty or non-difficulty if your filter is working in that way.
Excellent stuff again Pinza.
I have been thinking about a point raised by
Eclipse First
in relation to the 12 month totting up period.
If we assume that the average jockey when racing has a 99.25% chance of complying with the whip rules then his chance of getting ban becomes 100% – (99.25 %)to the power of his number of rides.
As AP ordinarily rides about 800 times during the season by my calculation if each ride had a 99.25% chance of compliance with the rules then there is an overall
99.9%
chance that AP will incur a further ban in the next twelve months.
Anyone care to check my calculation ?
If I am correct it reflects the impossibility of the current situation for the jockeys.
I have been reflecting on the guardian response article and in particular the animal aid tactic of equating rule breaches with " abuse" . In my view this is a tactic that they are likely to have some success (in manipulating public opinion) with. In setting the penalties for frequency breaches ( however marginal) at a minimum of 5 days the review group seem to have had a similar concern.
Measuring breaches under the old and new rules though is comparing apples and oranges . Despite the increased penalties the levels of breaches are up and this puts the sport in a much weaker position to defend itself. This could have been avoided ( with the benefit of hindsight) by setting targets for higher jockey compliance against the old rules ( and I know base compliance rate was 99.25%).
Would the BHA have improved the sports ability to defend itself and improved the public perception if it had set a performance target to reduce breaches as measured against the old limits by say 80% ? By my reckoning this sets a target of 99.85% compliance with the old rules.
Measuring compliance against the old rules does not preclude setting a lower guide limit for hits . For reasons related to competitiveness, safety and integrity I do believe this needs to be higher than the new levels. The objectives of proportion and fairness suggest one or two hits over the guide should not be automatic offences and entry level penalties should be much lower. The totting up regime should be removed for minor breaches. There also needs to be some discretion for stewards to disregard slaps down the shoulder.
Having reflected on this my thoughts on hits and penalties for frequency would be something like:
• NH guide limit – 10
• 11/12 hits – referred to stewards ( max 1 or 2 day bans no totting up)
• 13 hits – 5 day ban
• 14 hits – 10 day ban
• 15 hits – 20 day ban
• 16 hits – 40 day ban ( breach under old rules)Dont know if it has been picked up elsewhere but I see animalaid got a "response" in the guardian.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree … intcmp=239
Does not reveal " the campaigning organisations " true agenda – to ban all horse racing. Depressing reading and horrible to think that by producing the report the BHA have advanced these people’s agenda.
Yesterday …
AP_McCoy AP McCoy
Sad 2 see so many accomplished jockeys still getting banned by rules brought in by a governing body thats done our sport more harm than goodToday he joins the banned list.
it´s worth pointing out, though, that pro-rule does not necessarily mean anti-whip, and vice versa. To simplify the complexities of the TRF debate in this way is the lowest kind of idle trouble-making.
+1
Facts ? It all depends how you choose to look at things.
For those that decided a compliance rate of 99.25% was nor acceptable this initial 20% increase in non-compliance will surely allow them to shove the wedge in further.Whilst I am in favour of much stiffer penalties to stop jockeys blatantly disregarding the rules, I think there needs to be some fine tuning to the scale of totting up. Given a 99% + compliance rate under the old rules, it would seem only fair that after riding 99 races without breaking the rules, the jockey should have wiped the slate clean.
The 99 rides idea is way too logical EF !
While I am not against the idea of stiffer penalties for repeat offenders ( animal aid table b people) Ruby did not blatantly disregard the rules and I do think those for marginal breaches are way too high.
The appeals panel today was certainly not looking for scope for agreement: rather, they were intent on closing off any possible face-saving loophole.
That is a pity. It is a real shame if there is no will to understand the jockeys difficulty with the punishment arising from a marginal/technical breach of what is an arbitrary hit limit.
BHA still seem to be at the "fixing the blame rather than fixing the problem" stage.
Would Ruby case have been stronger had the hit down the shoulder been the last stroke used ?
There seemed to me to be some scope for future appeals in the way the BHA chose to defend the penalty i.e. one reason they did not accept it was for safety was because although corrective it was administered 15 strides from the fence.
I wonder if they would accept the general principle that hits in excess of the limit – if administered for safety – can be disregarded ?
If so then outlining the limited circumstances in which hits might be disregarded could allow all sides some scope for tweaks without backing down from the original report recs.
23. On the basis of the data reviewed, the Review Group did not believe that six year olds have made any meaningful contribution to the race in recent years. Therefore, it is recommended that the minimum age for a horse to be eligible to run in the Grand National be increased to seven years old.
Its a strange kind of logic. French breds havent really made a significant contribution either. Had they conducted this review before Mon Mome’s win ?
In general I am not that bothered about the report but then I am not really that bothered about the race.
This made me smile …
PhilipDaviesMP Philip Davies
I see the BHA is leading with its chin again with its Grand National review. More solutions looking for problems. Will they ever learn?In the meantime the "unintended consequences" of this include impacts on the " integrity of the race " ,competitiveness, and as Pinza has again highlighted the welfare of the horse or worse again the welfare of the jockeys.
Evidence please?
Point taken. I should have included the word potential before "unintended consequences". Time will tell . At this point the main " evidence" is probably Andrew Glassonbury’s comments on boycies blog http://boyciesblog.wordpress.com/2011/1 … ow-so-far/
For me that would have been enough to go back to the old rules pending a consideration of the issues raised.Jockey welfare should be paramount.
However given that we are where we are then I think a way forward might involve:
1.Putting in place a measure of success for compliance.
To do this I would think that breaches under the old rules should be split into those attributable to frequency and those attributable to technique ( I accept there will be some overlap.) This becomes the benchmark against which behavioural change is measured. The BHA can demonstrate the achievement of change by monitoring the number of instances in which the old rules would have been breached ( in each category). This can be supported by :
2. An escalating punishment scale for frequency breaches between the new limit and old limit.
The details can be worked out – but a ride that is 1 or 2 over is still well within the old limits – compliance with which is the measure of success. There is no need for draconian penalties at this level. I do think some discretion is needed in the count – eg the Paul McMahon incident was a failure of technique rather than frequency imo.
3. Publish compliance stats ( % and absolute numbers) for Jockeys/ Trainers and Owners and identify severity of breaches. This should include the 2010/11 season comparative.
This will illustrate that the vast majority are compliant. For those that get exposed so be it. Repeat offenders do need to be dealt with – Animal Aid Table B is shameful.In my opinion the absence of National Hunt bans this week end probably reflects jocks riding well within the arbitrary hit limits in order to avoid a ban at the November Cheltenham meeting.
As Pinza has pointed out these guys and gals are not as dumb as someone would portray them. I am sure they will try and adjust in order minimise the potential injustice that these new rules can deliver.
In the meantime the "unintended consequences" of this include impacts on the " integrity of the race " ,competitiveness, and as Pinza has again highlighted the welfare of the horse or worse again the welfare of the jockeys.
As for the general level of noise falling I am hopeful some kind of resolution process is happening in the background.
