Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Agree with all that CR. In particular …
I’m very surprised that some on here think that welfare issues disappear with the new whip rules and that the sport is not now in
a weaker position to defend itself in future.
No big picture there in my opinion. rules are rules you must follow the rules….
The BHA have set themselves up to fail – any less than 99.25% compliance is failure – success cannot be defined.
With a 99.25% compliance rate under the old rules/arbitrary hit limits I would think most reasonable people would accept the jockeys can comply with rules.
It just seems normally tests of reasonableness went out the window when the review group came to formulating their opinions.
Barry Geraghty’s Greg Wood style demo on irish radio is worth a listen ( they showed it on webcam but not up there)
I would think it is something worth keeping an eye on and is evidence worth gathering. A longer period of review and perhaps an analysis by racing grade etc/ ground conditions etc is probably worth having.
I presume those who put this forward as evidence of more competitive AW/FLAT racing will be happy for tweaks in the NH rules if analysis shows that the winning distance in NH races has increased.
The "old rules werent working" is an interesting one.
What do people mean by this ? The review group seems to express their reasoning most clearly in para 6.7 of the report ..
6.7 The Review Group considers that the penalties currently applied to breaches of the whip Rules do not sufficiently deter jockeys from breaking the whip Rules. This is clearly demonstrated by there being in excess of 800 breaches of the whip Rules per year since 2008, the highest being 2009 with 959 breaches of which 252 were penalised by a caution.
these absolute numbers are given context in para 2.5:
2.5 0.75% of performances resulted in a whip offence.
and
6.4 Despite assertions from animal rights groups, who have linked these breaches to welfare problems, it should be clarified
that these are in essence breaches of thearbitrary
limits
set to control whip use.in spite of this
6.4 (cont), the Review Group recognises that such continued and relatively numerous breaches must not be allowed to be ongoing.
while in 6.6 acknowledging
that no matter what penalties are in place it is not possible to ensure 100% compliance.
I think it all begs the question …what level of compliance (given that it was 99.25% under old rules ) would be considered acceptable and provide evidence that the "rules" are working ?
Whether the "rules" are themselves serving purpose is another question.
He has effectively got the ban because of the way he applied "hits" down the shoulder ( two hands not on reins). AP’s view on this rule is here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/horser … anges.html
2 Slapping horses down the shoulder
I don’t really hit horses down the shoulder with my hand off the rein so allowing this would not be for my benefit but I do not think hitting a horse down the shoulder, with either the hand on or off the rein, should count in the total number of ‘hits.’
It is harmless. To put this in context if where you were hitting a horse on its neck there was a wasp and it caught the full force of the slap you would annoy it but you would not put it in mortal danger. It’s the noise of the slap that keeps a horse concentrated and I believe it should be allowed for safety sake especially when it comes to keeping up a tired horse’s momentum going to a fence towards the end of a race. If horses start refusing or lose all momentum going into an obstacle there are consequences for it as well as those horses and jockeys following it.
If you look at Mcmahons ride – and dont comment on it if you havent – it is hard to see any welfare issues or for that matter perceived welfare issues arising from it. To a very significant extent it illustrates how detached rules and associated penalties have become from the purpose of protecting the racehorse.
I have been having a bit of an exchange with @britishracing on twitter over last few days . I must give credit to whoever is behind it for engaging …
My main points to them were:
1. the main body of the report does not make an express rec on the number of hits ( indeed para 6.4 calls the old hit limit arbitrary)
2. A 0.75% breach rate does not demonstrate a need for the "behavioural change" which pops up in rec 2 in the report.
3. That if the case for " behavioural change" can be made that punishment was not a good tool for attaining it.
@bristishracing affirmed that achieving " behavioural change" was what the process was about . I requested links to evidential paragraphs demonstrating the need and was directed to 2.27/2.28 in the report. These are "opinion" based paras in my view.
I argued that " arbitrary " hit + limits severe punishment = resistance.
The problem to my mind is that the BHA are not sure what the want to achieve from this review. IMO and on the basis that what gets measured gets done they need to articulate :
– an evidential basis for the new hit limits
– what precisely the " behavioural change" they is . If it is a lower level of rule breaches put a % on it and set a target and time limit of attaining it that the the PJA can buy into
– trial other means of getting to these targets before cranking up penalties.At the minute it is all a bit woolly with perception moving ahead of welfare. Hopefully it can be resolved.
