Can always rely upon you to be ad hominen, Figgis.

Try this though: Soumillon made the point that racing is an international sport like rugby. Should the BHA and British racing be more concerned to be in line with the rules of international racing, or with the prejudices of British puppy huggers?

Whadaya think, mate?

Horseracing Authority *

And good luck to you walking hand in hand with the BHA!

Problem is you give too much respect to the British aunties of the RSPCA than you do to Ryan Moore and Richard Hughes.

BHA cannot expect to smuggly and arbitrarily change rules of racing -- no more than British Rugby can go soft and still get respect from international rugby.

Ryan Moore is right. That is not equivalent to reverence. Ryan Moore knows more about proper treatment of horses than you, BHA or RSPCA. That is respect.

Yank, I'm not sure how Figgis has kept a civil tongue in his head during discussions with you.  Glad you rose to the bait anyway.  I can assure you I won't be as patient as him.

Now let's get this straight, an American - yep, an American - is talking about international harmonisation of racing's rules.....and I'm not just talking about whip rules here, Yank.

Out of Australia, Japan, UK, Ireland, France, Germany, Italy and USA...which country, do you think, would have to change the most? Clue: it ain't good ol' Blighty, my friend.

That's cop on to yourself.

Go back to the school where, apparently, you are used to your word being law. But you are wasting your snottiness on me. David Cameron wanna be?

'Keep up' wasnt bait -- it was patronizing twaddle, like I said.

You answer my question first: Which jockies were consulted, in what way, and who said? [posted a little after 1:00 pm]. It isnt a matter of me not keeping up with the debate, dude, but you being so condescending -- occupational hazard? -- that you cant see the real issue. Which is that there was no proper consultation by the BHA, nor a proper trial. Hughes, Soumillon, Moore, [and also McCoy adn Dettori who originally were on board for the pr exercise], have now expressed their views. I agree with them.

And, yes, they are genuine horsemen -- not sideline 'animal lovers' who think hitting an animal with a stick is cruelty! [That will do for defining puppy huggers.]

Like many of the regrettable instances that have prompted this debate, you appear to be flogging a dead horse, Yank.

Zil, but do you think it was right that jockeys/connections saw the penalty as a price worth paying?

No, I mean under the old rules.

I dont watch every meeting Figg, but if Dettori's was rated the worse over here then it imo doesnt hold a candle to Cape Blanco which i rated as very harsh on the horse.

However that was high profile and i understand that over the jumps that there have been far worse

Headmaster.
Both McCoy and Dettori have retracted. Keep up, mate.
Nichols and Cecil are as well as those two were simply going along. Numerous jocks noted that there was no REAL consultation and there was certainly no real testing.
Keep up, mate.

Blimey Yank.  Do you expect the consultation process to involve every second, third and fourth rate jockey in the country?  We'd be well into 2015 before anything could happen!

This is why there are trade bodies - such as the NTF and PJA, who are there to interact with other industry groups and offer a single view that represents the majority of their respected members.  Anything more than that would just result in a whole load of noise that would be impossible to listen to.  If the jockeys are now, rather strangely imo, reporting a lack of consultation, they should be asking some serious questions of the PJA, should they not?

...and if you think McCoy and Frankie made those initial comments with some sort of gun to their heads you clearly aren't aware of their (strong-minded) make-up. 

Keep up indeed.....ffs

Do you work for the BHA, TH, by any chance??

zil - that's poor mate.  I thought British Champions' Day was tremendous and government should get to grips with Gibraltar but it doesn't mean I'm Paul Roy!

Yank, cut the patronising cr@p and get down to it.  I'm answering all your questions, chasing you round the room, in fact.....but you continue to spout away, creaming off over these jockeys...well, I'm afraid to say there is only one group that has got us where we are.  It's not the Jockey Club, HRA, BHA, RSPCA, AA, NTF or any other flipping acronym you can think of.  It's your beloved jockeys, cocker.  900 breaches, Yank.  900.  You can keep ignoring the facts and telling yourself THAT Twice Over ride was a thing of beauty....an example of man and beast in perfect harmony....you can look at Rewilding and think what a wonderful horsemen Frankie is....you can marvel at how Maguire kept Ballabriggs 'honest' or how Cool Mission gave his all at Donny.....but I won't agree with you and never will.  Quite amazing that you also think the BHA, who couldn't organise the proverbial, have somehow lined up all those industry pros to crack one off (against their will) over how wonderful the review was?  That would be a career highlight and no mistake. 

People need to man up a bit here and admit...if we obeyed the old rules we wouldn't be in this mess....if we hadn't asked for a number we wouldn't be in this mess.....if we could count to seven we wouldn't be in this mess.....you get the drift, Yank?

Anyway, you keep praying at the jockey altar, old boy.  You're not going to change your view so best of luck in future and I hope you can still enjoy the racing without all those whips flailing around.  In my honest opinion, not that you've asked for it but hey-ho, I'd dump the final furlong/final fence thing tomorrow and make it 9 for all races flat and jump.  I fully understand the difference between a 5f Sprint and the National but this is about how many times we think it's acceptable to hit a horse right?  How can that number change based on whether the horse has fast-twitch or slow-twitch muscles?  Are slow-twitch horses a bit thicker than fast-twitchers or summit?  Nonsense.  I would absolutely keep the 'draconian' penalties though.  Brennan going off about Molly today.  Gotta drive to the races, gotta pay the petrol, gotta pay the valet, the agent, gotta feed the kids....yeah well, you know what boys, you don't gotta hit the horse 10 times when you know the rule's 8.  I know I'm not allowed to smoke at work so I don't sit here puffing away and then, when they sack me, scream 'but I gotta feed the kids'.  Sort it out ffs.  The mere fact the jocks are squealing shows it's a deterrent that's going to work...not like the old rules everyone's such a fan of.  900 breaches.  Yep, they worked great, eh?  Good grief.

P.S.  Which country????

Telling people to calm down when you're being owned on a forum is the last act of a desperate man, Yank.  Thankfully, you and your views appear to be running out of steam.

See ya.

Anyway they've had a climbdown on the flat with the "Final Furlong" rule, im glad that most of my bets are on the level though and dont envy punters who rely on jumps for a living

zil - thank the Lord that's gone, eh?  Illogical that it was ever there imo.

Sandown,

Absolutely agree that not trying is far worse than trying too hard.  I am also deeply concerned at the penalties imposed on a rider at Plumpton on Monday, that by implication seemed to lead to the death of a horse, when compared with those you outline. But rather than water down one set I believe the others should be beefed up.

That 50K fine sounds outrageous to many it seems, but may I ask what you think would be a suitable deterrent to stop jockeys breaching the whip rules?

Yep TH, I know that the argument was that "Its Big Enough" but in a pack of horses you dont want to be looking around for the thing.

Over the jumps i think you will see slightly different races that will favour the stronger travellers and i dont think the fine will stop anyone at the Festival from giving them "One Over"

That would only happen if you took the owners prize away.

In Short imo this rule is just about ok for the flat, i can imagine there will be many races over 3m+ that will see very few finish at all, maybe they will abandon on Heavy??

Sandown

It depends how far you think the minority interest groups can go while remaining in tune with wide public opinion? I'd argue that where we are now is pretty much the middle ground. I'm doubtful that the mass public would ever be as opposed to horse racing in general as they would fox hunting, well certainly not in the near future anyway.

Figgis

One of the problems in today's world is that minority groups are more vocal than majority groups and it is the majority who are now persecuted. A few letters of complaint to the BBC (usually orchestrated) and the Beeb will jump and down. People who do not object do not write in.Those of the public who are not bothered about the whip issue are not interviwed becasue they do not make good copy. And I know that the BHA conducted research and apparently found a majority against the use of the whip, but I'm very sceptical of that. It all depends on the question. Ask someone if they think horses should be whipped and you will get a strong negative because of the way that the question is phrased.So, to answer your question, I wouldn't assume for one minute that "the middle ground" has been reached.