Forum Replies Created
- Posts
She won well, even thoiugh not fully fit, as is evidenced by her tiring a little in the last furlong after looking like winning by a street at the 2f marker.
He didn’t jump very well, he looks like a horse that’s been hurdling for too long.
They’ve supposedly been schooling him over fences for 2 years, well, they haven’t made much of a fist of it.
As I see it, if Azertyuiop and Moscow Flyer had taken each other on, then there could only have been one result – a win for Well Chief.
Remember what happened in that KG6 Chase when Algan won after Desert Orchid and the others went off in a "speed duel".
And it seemed sensible for Azertyuiop to be settled in behind Moscow Flyer, when the latter is well known to idle in front and lose concentration.
Lastly, I don’t think the relative fitness of the first three is an issue. I’d be pretty content that they were all fully fit. None of their trainers are mugs, and the Tingle Creek is second only to the QM Champion Chase in its importance for the 2 mile chasing brigade.
To get back to the actual race itself, it was a marvellous spectacle, reminding me of some of the Arkle/Mill House races of the 60s, or any number of top hurdle races in the 70s.
Surely nobody seriously thought that the banning of fox hunting in Scotland would lead to a reduction in the number of foxes being killed?!<br>
You can usually spot those sort of townies – they tend to read Country Living rather than the Angling Times or The Field, and of course their 4X4s are spotless.
It would give police horses something more interesting to do than plod around the streets.
Would they then be qualified to run in point-to-points?
(Edited by Venusian at 6:21 pm on Nov. 19, 2004)
Phunter, I believe the number of Scottish mounted packs is the same as it was before the "ban". (I don’t know about foot packs). There was one that was still closed down a few months ago (I don’t know which), but I believe it’s started up again, or will be doing so shortly.
So you’ve got a "ban" that’s only been in place a couple of years, and with the same number of hunts.
It’s hardly surprising, therefore, that there’s been no falling off so far in the number of young Scottish jump jockeys.
Clivex, I believe there is some legal argument to do with the Parliament Act itself, and also a question of a possible violation of human rights.
I’m no lawyer, and I’ve no idea whether either point has any legal (or moral) merit, but clearly there will be opportunities for m’ learned counsel to trouser some wedges.
Unenforceability will be a big problem for the government. You can pass whatever laws you like, but if they are not accepted as fair by a significant proprtion of the (hitherto law-abiding) population who then disobey those laws, then you’ve got trouble. This is particularly the case where, contrary to what Ian Davies suggests, people are prepared to go to prison.
But, back to the original question, if hunting were to be effectively banned, then it would a small, but significant blow to NH racing in this country.
Where and how are the jump jockeys of tomorrow going to get the vital experience of riding across country at speed – a couple of dozen replacement drag hunts certainly won’t provide it.<br>
In theory it won’t do the sport any favours, although it might take 5 or 10 years for anything to show up – fewer chasers and young riders coming through. It’s the shortage of riders from this country that is the more worrying – the great majority of professional NH jockeys already come from the "island of Ireland", and a hunting ban would hit home-grown talent even further. How many of the current batch of English, Welsh and Scottish jockeys have not come through via the hunting field?
However, all is not lost, the new law might well be ruled out by various courts, and if it isn’t, it will prove virtually unenforceable anyway, the 21st century’s answer to the Poll Tax and the Dangerous Dogs Act.
According to what I read in the paper today, President Tone is now letting it be known that he would now prefer Parliament to opt for the licensing option (as does Alun Michael).
Ian, regarding those points…
1) So the reason that people are going to be allowed to continue hunting rabbits with dogs, but not mink with dogs, is that people who hunt rabbits have more serious expressions on their faces than hunters of mink. Really?
2. So fish don’t feel pain? Well, certainly a lot of discomfort then – but you haven’t answered the question of why anglers on the riverbank don’t get off on animal suffering, but hunters, hundreds of yards away from the "action", do.
3. Certainly, more police would better enable the legislation to be enforced, but what chief of police would use such extra forces, in the unlikely event of them being made available, to police hunting, when there are more than enough real crimes to keep them busy? In the last few years, since the banning of selected field/blood sports became a live issue, all police spokesfolk, while not exactly saying outright that they won’t enforce any ban, have hinted very strongly that they’re not going to waste too much police time and resources on it.
It’s the inconsistency and hypocrisy of this government’s anti-hunting stance which I find most repellent.
If they were to ban ALL field/blood sports, including angling, shooting and ritual slaughter, then whilst I might not agree with it, it would at least have the merit of consistency.
A few questions for anti-hunting folk to answer please:
1. Why is it going to be ok to use dogs to hunt rabbits but not to hunt mink?
2. Why is it that foxhunters are supposed to get off on the "kill" of a fox, when they are most likely hundreds of yards away, yet anglers, who are only feet away from their struggling victims, do not?
3. Since the current problems suffered with illegal hare-coursers receive no attention whatsoever from the police, how do you suppose the police are going to deal with all these newly-banned sports? From what areas of crime prevention and/or villain-catching should police resources be diverted?
I agree with all the sentiments expressed, it’s terrible news, all connected with the horse must be devastated.
At least he went out doing something he really enjoyed.
He really will be missed.
A fine performance on ground he clearly didn’t relish, he would have won more easily on genuinely good ground, or even sloppy ground. Certainly, it’s cheered everyone up and gave us all a break from the various serious problems which have bedevilled the sport in recent weeks.
But I think that comparisons with Arkle, except on the matter of number of Gold Cups won, can now been put to one side. "Himself" would have annihilated this field.
I suppose it depends on how you interpret that Lockinge performance – it was a fine one, but not necessarily superior to, or the equal of, a number of other horse’s efforts. But, at least you can see where they’re coming from, although I personally prefer to see horses "do it" on more than one occasion during a season to earn a particular season’s rating.
But Falbrav’s rating is a complete joke, as is that of L’Ancresse. They appear to have matched horses’ names and ratings by using an FA cup draw kit of marbles in bags.
Oasis Dream’s rating as top sprinter is fair enough, although the sprinting division should have been rated overall a few pounds higher. It supports what most sensible folk believe, that they ran the horse in the wrong race at the Breeders’ Cup – the sprint would have been run to suit him.
