Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Jockeys are riding defensively, those who try and win are banned , the rest sit out the back right out of trouble , cheating is allowed , hitting with a foam cushioned stick is not
Ricky – you, Cav and Pinza have argued, more often than not eloquently, against the new rules/penalties.
I hope you understand that I can’t get too involved in the whys and wherefores now that I’ve left, but that sentence simply is not true.
As a general rule of thumb, if the suspension was 5 days then aside from the weal there was no other offence under the old rules (ie force, frequency etc). You’d have to watch the races to see if they would have been in breach of the new rules, wealing apart.
There is nothing on the website now for weals between June 10th 2010 and Feb 23rd 2011, I saw them last night but have they been removed for some reason?
Can anyone see any weal reference between those dates on the BHA website?As I’m not there anymore I really don’t know – can’t believe that’s happened though.
Is there any evidence that the 2 cases of weals were inflicted due to the whip rules?
Did the jockeys break the whip rules then or now apart from the weals?As a general rule of thumb, if the suspension was 5 days then aside from the weal there was no other offence under the old rules (ie force, frequency etc). You’d have to watch the races to see if they would have been in breach of the new rules, wealing apart.
Kingfisher – I was honest and upfront when I posted in my old role and I don’t intend to stop now. If you prefer I’ll happily just write "bullsh**" next time!
Cheltenham – that’s about right. I can only recall one flat wealing and that was the horse Eddie Ahern rode at Southwell when he ended up with three months.
Is there anywhere where I can find the name of the two horses that were marked last year in that time period and which races they were marked in?
Also, what would the ground difference have been in the last couple of months compared to the same period last year having just come to the end of one of the mildest Novembers for quite a few years, could that have made any difference?
Type "weal" into the search box in the above link and you’ll be able to see where and when.
Why do we not have any disclosure of the horses names who were subjected to these weals and marks?
http://www.britishhorseracing.com/resources/about/whatwedo/disciplinary/stewardsEnquiries.asp
It’s not for me to defend the BHA anymore, nor am I trying to
In 2008, the same period would have produced two.
Bit more than coincidence that ‘Silvoir’ comes on within the space of half an hour to support Corms claims!
It is a coincidence. I logged in for the first time in ages yesterday and updated some account info and post on Glenn’s thread about a London meet up, which resulted in my account being deactivated. Corm confirmed this evening that it was active again so I logged in to check a couple of messages and browse the forum, saw Corm’s thread and "Cheltenham Employee’s" comment and simply responded having spent 5 minutes searching the BHA website.
I wasn’t supporting Corm’s claims, just addressing Cheltenham’s point.
Funny how they are just comparing 2010 to 2011, I wonder if 2010 is the only set of results that show marks or weals to horses.
I wouldn’t trust anything that comes out of the BHA.
It’s not for me to defend the BHA anymore, nor am I trying to, but you can search their Stewards Enquiry database and find that you would have been right, no weals for the same period in 2009.
But two on the 29 November 2009, so I guess they’d have waited another day before producing the stats.
In 2008, the same period would have produced two.
Glenn – given my unemployed status both of those dates are good, but will depend on wellness of young ones, who both have rotten colds at the moment.
If you pick somewhere nice I’ll see if Judith will come along too.
Where is it in the rules of racing that horses are not allowed to eat hay the day of a race? If allowed are specific quantities defined?
Cheers.
Well spotted Cav.
Only normal food and water to be given on the day of race:
Your ‘pal’ has made a grave accusation Plenipotentiary, therefore I would not expect you to name names on a public message board as it could well result in a writ of libel being issued on you and hence a costly court case, for which you and your ‘pal’ may or may not be found guilty
However such is the seriousness of the alleged misdemeanour I would expect you – as a racing fan who has the best interest of the sport at heart – to report the incident to the BHA for further investigation. If their enquiries do no more than put the wind up the trainer some good will be served
Just to reiterate what Drone has said, bearing in mind the seriousness of this admittedly unfounded and unnamed allegation, such things should be reported, and can be entirely confidentially. There are a number of options:
1. Call Racestraight on 08000 852580
2. Complete the form at the following link: http://www.britishhorseracing.com/inside_horseracing/integrity/inside-information-where-to-go-for-support.asp
3. Email info@britishhorseracing.comThe reality is that much of the information we receive is intelligence and will not therefore be enough to take action. However, gathering and assessing intelligence allows the Integrity Team to take a proactive, intelligence-led approach and take action, whether that’s investigating or disrupting ("putting the wind up them" as Drone puts it).
I can understand not wanting to name on here, though don’t think it’s especially helpful posting unsubstantiated claims, without at least informing us through one of the above channels.
The falls in the foal crop have obviously been dramatic. Presumably there will be a much reduced need for maidens and nurseries next year followed by a much reduced need for 3yo only races in 2013?
That is quite possible, though on an interpretation of those figures alone the reduced need for 3YO races might start in 2012. Much would depend on how the number of 2yos in training this year compared to last and the year before. I don’t have those figures to hand.
I wonder whether Silvoir is able to share with us the data the BHA has on the likely percentage decline in horses in training next year?
No problem. Relevant data below, apologies if formatting is lost/confusing cutting from a table to the forum.
Weatherbys undertook detailed analysis based on mid/long term horse in training trends – reduction of horses in training in 2012 could fall further by as much as 10.7%. That is arguably a worst case scenario, with a best case scenario likely to be the same as this year, ie 3.2% drop.
Average Number of Horses-in-Training
January to July2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
TOTAL 15,573 15,957 15,581 15,216 14,729
% change +2.5% -2.4% -2.3% -3.2%Average Field Sizes
January to JuneCode 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Flat 10.4 9.6 9.6 9.4 9.0
Jump 10.3 10.7 10.3 9.7 9.0GB and Irish Foal Numbers (2006-11)
Foal crop GB Ireland Total % change
2006 5,489 12,004 17,493 –
2007 5,839 12,633 18,472 +5.6%
2008 5,920 12,419 18,339 -0.7%
2009 5,595 10,167 15,762 -14.1%
2010 4,665 7,588 12,253 -22.2%
2011(est) 4,250 7,050 11,300 -7.8%To be fair, it’s also driven by declining Levy too, but undoubtedly tariffs have contributed. It’s why ‘heritage’ has been dropped from a number of handicaps this year – same race without "Heritage Handicap" in the title – tariff for an open handicap more than 50% lower than if it were "heritage".
I am indeed looking in Corms. Will keep this brief because all if the above comments are either made by people who’ve not read the reasons to both hearings or have, but simply refuse to recognise key, major differences. Why people would do this I have no idea, other than to fuel some (possibly once in the dim and distant past holding occasional merit) prejudicial and out of date view about those that work for the regulator being from public school:
"Each cases warrants closer inspection of the facts. Anabolic steroids are prohibited except in wholly exceptional circumstances, as highlighted within our Rules. This is very different from a legitimate medication, even if administered at an entirely inappropriate and against the Rules of Racing."
Lots of huge, blindingly obvious differences, that I should really wait until 7 days to appeal has expired to lay out.
The Disciplinary Panel has informed BHA that, as the reasons are taking longer than anticpated to complete, the result and reasons in relation to Howard Johnson will not be released on Wednesday 10 August 2011, but on either Thursday 11 or Friday 12.
If you think that opinion churlish (DEF: "Boorish, vulgar, marked by a lack of civility or graciousness) then I think you need a new dictionary or I need a new sport.
Regarding churlish, it might be the wrong word, but another definition would be miserly, which in turn means ungenerous. I would therefore stand by my view that such criticism would, in that light, be churlish, although ungenerous would be clearer.
I think you’re right – we’ll have to agree to disagree. And there’s nothing at all wrong with that I’d say.
Best
Paul
