Horse Antepost
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 238 comments are related to the topic:
Whipped into a state of stupid frenzy
Whipped into a state of stupid frenzy
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 238
|
By:
Sandown
Yes I take your point about them being more vocal, but they will only strike a chord with the masses if they're in tune. Now we can all talk about educating the wider public about the whip, but living in the real world that isn't going to happen, as horse racing will continue to be a "minority" interest itself. Like it or not appearances matter. Personally, I can't see the problem with the 7 strikes limit, I think it would be a pretty clueless punter who would blame that for his lack of success at the game. |
|
By:
Agree with Sandown 11:09 post, except for the overly optimistic view that common sense has prevailed. Holding the line would have cost the BHA more than the back down.
But the whole problem is that 'the line' is the will-o-the-wist PR game -- someone manufactures a 'public opinion' and then declares 'That's the fact of the matter, you cant argue with it.' And they tailor a policy to accomodate that preconceived view of what public opinion is. That apologetic position is a loser's game. Racing has nothing to apologize for on the horse welfare front, certainly not in the UK! Any abusers can and should be dealt with -- but there was no problem, only a perceived problem. There is no argument with the RSPCA -- they have an attitude that will never change. How far that view reflects so - called public opinion is anybody's guess. I dont think any community that actually lives and works with large animals that that view has legs. It is your maiden aunt with a kitty cat and puppy dog who thinks it is not nice to whip horses. The BHA report on whip use raised no issues of horse welfare -- it was always only about a pr game. And as the jocks have rightly grasped, the BHA has both lost the pr game and now damaged the competitive edge of the sport. Just ask yourself: two horses in a tight finish, one jock drops his whip and other doesnt. Now with some horses that would not be an issue, but most of the time -- well, which horse would you rather be backing? Ruby said it right on Saturday RUK. Great horseman, Ruby, from a horse family in a horse community in a horse country. Let them write the rules -- oh, I forget, that wouldnt be the BHA making rules for BRITISH racing, but a real sensible and proven horseman. Cant have that! |
|
By:
Sandown
As a big fan of some American comedy, like Seinfeld and Curb Your Enthusiasm, I thought the view of them having no sense of irony was grossly exaggerated, it seems not. |
|
By:
Whadda ya mean? My shirts never have wrinkles, I got a brilliant sense of ironing.
|
|
By:
 |
|
By:
Pax vobis.
|
|
By:
Daarley on Morning Line clearly indicates there was no proper consultation and that statements made by PJA and jocks were merely pro forma endorsements.
BHA cocked up and is still not getting it right. |
|
By:
I am absolutely convinced that there is no groundswell of public opinion against the use of the whip. If the question was put to the public in a manner that was not leading, I doubt that there wiuld be a majority against. In any event, why should the views of those not involved in, not interested in, and ignorant of the management of horses, be allowed to have the dominant sday in the sport. The urban majority, and I include myself in the "urban" part, are sheltered from the realities of dealing qwith livestock. Certainly, there have been cases, such as the Howard Johnston case, where one would say that mismanagement will occur, but in the main those who have been brought up managing thoroughbreds know that their livelihood is bound up with the proper care of their horses.
This issue is not the most important issue in racing, far from it, yet it seems to so. The BHA is running scared of the minority groups and opinionated know-alls like McCririck. The BHA have shown ,once again, that they appoint weak people to the top positions. |
|
By:
Dont get Darley OR Stier
As most followers of Systems will tell you, the difference between what might look good on paper and applying it practically can be a lot different. I dont think the limit, esp over jumps can be workable and if it isnt then the fire will be fed as MORE jockeys will be reported by the Media for whip abuse and thus it will be used by Animal rights groups that there are now MORE offences and therefore it should be taken away. Some Drink driving limits in countries are so low that a glass of Sherry and something cooked in a wine sauce could send you over, if they suddenly made it zero and subjected EVERY driver to a test then the numbers breaking the law would INCREASE and that could be the self fulfilling prophecy we get here. Why someone didnt ask the WWH guy on the blower(he's supposed to be worldwide??) about the pressure's being applied to the respective racing authorities in the Countries involved is beyond me Didnt anyone think about Challenging this assertion that whip offences are "Three times what they were" and not point out that if they had been applied to the respective years before that with the amount of racing being collated Pro Rata that it would have showed a different side?? |
|
By:
Sandown
Can you tell me what is so wrong about the current limit, what you think the limit should be, or do you think there should be no limit? As far as I've read, most of the flat jockeys, even the ones calling for militant action like Spencer, have said the limit itself is fine. The big problem they have with it is the financial penalty, hardly surprising. So far, all I've heard from them is they want to return to the old rules, they mean those same old rules that obviously weren't strong enough as a deterrent. |
|
By:
Figgis
You must know the answer to your question in that I have never said "no limit" .If there has to be a simple metric involved, and counting the number of strokes although flawed, does have the merit of being simple, then it surely cannot be right to have a single arbitrary figure as the marker between what is acceptable and what isn't.Even a spread of 2 strokes doesn't make sense to me as you are left with the full penalty being imposed as soon as the jock goes "one over." To my mind, a sliding scale is the only sensible way out of this mess. I would start with 6 and below being non-punishable and then a sliding scale being applied for anything over that. The scale needn't be linear; it could exponential increasing in severity as the number increases. The penalties should be less than the penalty for non-triers or criminal acts. It is highly confusing to have penalties that are harder on the jockeys for trying to win and succeeding than jockeys trying to lose. I would also have a scale for trainers and owners so that the pressure is felt by them as well. I would never move to the disqualification of the horse, because the horse that wins with a severe use of whip shows tremendous courage and to deprive him of the prize and breeding rights for responding under duress, is just stupid. |
|
By:
Sandown
Fair points, but with the new rules "one over" only leads to a suspension, nothing more than that. |
|
By:
Sandown, by the way, I totally agree with you about non-triers. Maybe some people on here think we should also take notice of jockeys and trainers when dealing with this issue too? Jockeys and trainers who remain sickeningly silent whenever one of their own has been caught duping the betting public.
|
|
By:
The BHA are ruining horseracing with this approach. I hope that all jockeys come out in solidarity and refuse to ride until the port swigging, fois gras munchers in charge are booted out and replaced with people who have a regard for and an understanding of the sport, and don't pamper to the do-gooders outside of the sport.
|
|
By:
Isn't it ironic that two of the most talented jockeys riding on the Flat and over Jumps, Richard Hughes and Ruby Walsh, are amongst the first jockeys to be banned under these rules. These riders are easily amongst the most talented riders we've seen and never could remotely be called whip riders. They are consumate horsemen and role models for countless young jockeys.
The real consequences of these stupid rules will be that top jockeys will be seen less often as they will not want to lose top rides for the sake of getting bans on low grade horses. This in turn will lead to race goers being deprived of seeing the best in action andcan only lead to fewer people going. Can you imagine what football would be like if top players were so easily banned? I believe that the jockeys would be right to take a stand now rather than accept this imbecilic state of affa. No jockeys, no racing. No racing, no levy. They need the trainers and owners to get behind them if this course of action is to be acceptable. i would dearly like to see how amny of the racing public would support them.I believe that they would get a large majority supporting them. |
|
By:
the new rules are 7 hits on the flat and 8 over the sticks.
how does that compare to last year? |
|
By:
The animal rights groups must feel that they have the racing industry by the short hairs now. Expect them to press their position further and raise their demands.
|
|
By:
seeing horses routinely beaten in public for sport
WALOFS |
|
By:
It was the original "inside the final furlong" rule that Hughes fell foul of, the same as Soumillon. Incidentally, France has had an 8 strike limit for a few years now. Our jockeys have had to comply with the rule when riding over there and nobody predicted the hasty demise of French racing because of it.
|
|
By:
Ruby Walsh has lost his appeal and the scene is now set for a showdown between the jockeys and the authorities. I, for one, will be a supporter of the jockeyss whatever action they embark upon, because no-one other than them is putting their lives at risk everyday and its their livelihood that the clowns at the BHA are jeopardizing with their "rules is rules" myopia.
At the heart of this standoff is the premise that it is public perception that matters. This is the foundation of the never-ending bend-over backwards attitude of the BHA that the "public's" concerns must be assuaged at all costs. Just where does this assumption come from, exactly? To start with, the campaign to limit or even abolish the use of the whip has been driven by the likes of McCririck, who has undeservedly laid claim to being the conscience of the sport and to being the spokesmen for the general public. There are other sports journalists who have jumped on the bandwagon, amongst them Alan Lee of The Times. I like to think that I am pretty well read and well-informed of events outside this sport and to the best of my knowledge there is no public concern, no public outrage, no public mood of antipathy to the use of the whip within horseracing. There are much more major issues going on the world to be concerned with. The anti-hunting lobby won a victory of sorts driven on by an alliance of animal rights groups and political opportunists and to be sure there was maybe a genera negative public view of the hunting scene. But is was never a major concern and if the law had never been changed the great British public would surely not have minded a jot. To be sure, the BHA conducted some research and found that a slight majority of the general public were against ther use of the whip but this is not sufficient evidence upon which to make such a drastic change to the rules. Amongst the race-going and racing enthusiast audience I doubt very much that the number would be anything other than a small minority.The BHA must go back to the evidence and re-do the research with questions that are not loaded in favour of a particular response or at least they should present the evidence from scientific sources about the actual harm or lack of it that the new type of padded whips actually produce. The BHA must step back to the old rules and interpretation of the rules together and they must scale down the level of penalty which is draconian depriving a group of fundamentally vital people of their livelihoods. |
|
By:
Sandown
So basically you're saying go back to a rule that the jockeys see as a price worth paying. |
|
By:
What gets me is when you get Dave Yates on tv, constantly referring to the whip as a "piece of foam", asking what all the fuss is about but not having the brains to realise he's defeated his own argument, if it's just a piece of foam then why is he so bothered about it?
|
|
By:
Figgis
Yes, I am saying that. A breathing space needs to be created to take the heat out of the situation. The "simple numbers" rules, which I know the jockeys wanted, breaks down when you get to single figures. Despite what every (non-rider) says, it is not that easy to count in the heat of the moment, and many of the instinctive uses of the whip, such as a flick down the neck, can happen without the jockey even being aware that he is doing it. You cannot sit in post-judgment in a nice warm safe room with freeze frames to help, and legislate on what happens in split-second decisions in the course of riding a race. There is a difference between the strength used, the place used, the character of the horse etc. Going back to the drawing board would not be admitting defeat it would be commonsense. |
|
By:
I'm not getting into the jumps argument, as I don't follow jump racing anymore, but as far as the flat is concerned I can't see a problem with the current rule. Any lessening of the penalty will just see a return to jockeys viewing it as a holiday.
|
|
By:
And Dave Yates may not be wrong either. It is the actual movement that horses respond to, and the reaction can be much greater than the apparent cause might warrant. Horses can go beserk from seeing a piece of paper. They can respond to heels being dug in and legs squeezing none of which could be described as abuse. The use of a padded whip may not cause any pain but it will still be felt and the horse will respond. Perhaps he didn't explain sufficiently.
|
|
By:
Sandown
Equally I've seen countless poor rides owing to a hasty resort to the whip. |
|
By:
Figgis
You can't see a "problem" with the current rule!! And to say that the jockeys will see a return as a "holiday" is a touch sarcastic, isn't it? |
|
By:
Equally I've seen countless poor rides owing to a hasty resort to the whip.
I have too, but that's not the issue. |
|
By:
Sandown
So under the old rules when a jockey was in for a big prize, how much consideration do you think they gave to those rules? |
|
By:
Basically you are arguing that a jockey can try "too hard" to win and he should be severely punished for doing so. He should also be punished for not trying hard enough, so somewhere in between is OK.
If trying too hard means abuse of the horse, then I'm with you, so the issue becomes one of what constitutes "abuse." It makes no sense that 7 strikes is not abuse but 8 strikes is. A better WORKING definition is required and that is what should be agreed by all concerned. |
|
By:
Sandown Joined: 06 Dec 01
Replies: 932 04 Nov 11 10:35 Equally I've seen countless poor rides owing to a hasty resort to the whip. I have too, but that's not the issue. It may not be the issue for the BHA, but it should be an issue for punters, many of whom seem to think the whip is nothing but positive. |
|
By:
Sandown Joined: 06 Dec 01
Replies: 933 04 Nov 11 10:42 Basically you are arguing that a jockey can try "too hard" to win That's only if you believe that more whip equals faster, I don't. |
|
By:
Maybe, but this is not about punters. For what its worth, the use of the whip, when used in rhythm with the horse's stride, is an aid which wins more races than its misuse loses, imo, and the correct use of the whip is fundamental to the training of both jockey and horse.
|
|
By:
Ok, so we go back to the discretion of the stewards (even though the jockeys claimed they didn't know where they stood). We get another situation like Dettori on Rewilding, if I was in there I'd be arguing that I didn't see it as an over the top ride, but I can perfectly understand why another person would take the opposite view, and many punters did, where does that leave us?
|
|
By:
Sandown
As you've already acknowledged that the new whip rules would make no real difference to your punting, the same as I have, why are you so keen to support jockeys on this issue? As most of those same jockeys have very little regard for the concerns of the punter and none of them ever speak out when one of them is found guilty of corruption. |
|
By:
My concerns are that the changes introduced are too black and white and leave no room for the grey area which is much larger than the rules suggest. As with any law, I am against people being found guilty and being punished on circumstantial evidence and for me it is circumstantial that the number of times a whip is applied is exactly correlated with abuse to the extent that this can be measured by a difference of one or two strokes. It makes no sense to me as it is currently drafted.
Should this road lead to disqualification of the horse, which is a probability imo, then that would introduce an unacceptable variable which would put off thousands of bettors, imo. The courage of a horse is an important quality in that horse, and courage when responding to pressure from the jockey and competition from other horses, should be rewarded with prizes and breeding rights. Eliminating or even reducing the use of the whip will tilt the scales towards the talented but less courageous horse, which again imo, is not to be encouraged. It is of no concern to me that jockeys are not outspoken or complicit in breaking the rules.They are human beings who have all the same flaws as the rest of us. What matters is whether the rules themselves can be respected and the present rules cannot, imo. |
|
By:
And you believe the discretion of the stewards will eliminate the grey area? The jockeys previously believed that is exactly what made things grey for them.
I'm always curious about this courage of the racehorse argument, what makes people believe that the only courageous horse is one that (supposedly) finds more when whipped? Couldn't it be argued just as well that a horse that's already freely given its all is just an honest runner, with nothing left to give, unlike one that's holding something back until fully pressured? As for jockeys behaviour, I'd say they're far more insular than other sportsmen and their refusal to condemn known cheats can lead to the impression that they all p!ss in the same pot. |
|
By:
Figgis
Have you seen the latest rule book that the stewards have to follow? It's page after page of verbiage and has been written by bureaucrats for imbeciles. A little more discretion would be a good thing. But, I repeat, the situation requires a working definition of abuse which makes sense. As for courage, well yes I do believe that some animals won't put it all in unless they are persuaded to so so, just like humans. As for jockeys, well they can't all be tainted by the same brush. |
|
By:
Sandown Joined: 06 Dec 01
Replies: 936 04 Nov 11 12:03 As for courage, well yes I do believe that some animals won't put it all in unless they are persuaded to so so, just like humans. I don't disagree, but I don't see why that should be deemed any more worthy than one who doesn't need persuasion. I also think the argument some have used that it will negatively affect the breed is garbage. As for jockeys, well they can't all be tainted by the same brush. I never said they should be, but they do little to help themselves in that department. |
|
By:
Surely we all know the game is not being played on a straight wicket all of the time. Isn't that part of the allure ?
|