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:
liam the lips Joined: 15 Sep 03
Replies: 420 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 ? We know it can never be fully eliminated so we have to accept it to a certain degree, but part of the allure? Not for me it isn't and now that the racing industry has to compete more than ever for every gambled pound against other straighter (if not entirely straight) sports they have to be doing more to combat it. |
|
By:
Figgis
We're straying away from the central issue discussing temperament issues and integrity. The point is, that even seasoned racing players like ourselves can't agree on what constitutes whip abuse and what doesn't because it is not well defined. We know for certain when we see it at the extreme and we can probably agree on that. Flogging a dead horse can become literally that. The problem is that we are into the verbal argument area i.e. when does stubble become a beard. It's a question of definition and 7 or 8 strikes has the advantage of precision but as with a beard it is a gradation issue - there is no single line in the sand that can be drawn without creating more problems than it solves. Various ranges must be defined , if a number is to be used, and the very serious penalties must be used for the very serious offenders, not for stepping one over the first line. |
|
By:
One other point. The Law of Unintended Consequences could lead to a situation where jockeys say, "right I can't go over x hits so I will damn well make each one of them as hard as I possibly can" leading to more chance of hurting the horse rather than less.
|
|
By:
It is likely that we have the two best jockeys ever to ride over jumps, riding at present, in Ruby Walsh and A.P. Mcoy. They have both now fallen foul of the new rules and McCoy's quote in today's RP sums up the stupidity of a simple numbers rules especially when its so few:
"It wasn't so much as I forgot [that I'd hit him] but I flicked him and it was barely a flick - I'd have done more if I'd patted him - whereas before you wouldn't count it as a smack, now you count it as a smack." On the Flat, two of the best current jockeys riding in England and France, Hughes and Soumillion, have also fallen foul. They are all now on the verge of very lengthy bans and the race going public will be deprived of some great talent. It won't stop here. BF should open a market on who will be next to receive a ban. It would be a lively one. |
|
By:
Sandown
It was the initial rule change that Hughes and Soumillon fell foul of, not the present one. |
|
By:
Figgis
Yes I know.The point is that even the very best find counting difficult when the number is small, and flicks shouldn't be counted as strikes. If that is accepted, then what constitutes a 2flick" and what constitutes a full-bloodied strike needs clarification. |
|
By:
Figgis
Sandown Fair points, but with the new rules "one over" only leads to a suspension, nothing more than that. Only ? Entry suspension is 5 days wages lost and a 12 month hangover where one more equally small breach = 10 days wages lost. The penalties are totally inequitable and not serving their main purpose which was to improve the public perception. There report stated there is no welfare issue with proper whip use and that the hit limits they are " arbitrary" - BHAs own word. |
|
By:
Totally agree grade 1
|
|
By:
According to a report in The Times today,"if the present rules were then in place, (at Cheltenham last year),there would have been a minimum of 35 bans for excessive use of the whip, with jockeys earning suspensions totalling more than a year. Ruby Alash would have received 5 bans and Tony McCoy four. Waley Cohen would have been penalised as he struck Long Run 13 times in the Gold Cup and he would be stood down for 13 days under the new regime."
What a totally ludicrous state of affairs. What on earth has happened that demands such massive changes to the sport need to take place. The claim that the public perception of the sport is that such action is needed MUST BE CHALLENGED. The rules must be restored to the way the were and a public debate needs to be had to see if such drastic revisions to the rules are warranted. The sport has crossed over into pure farce. |
|
By:
Another unintended consequence judging by the poll in the RP whereby 76% are currently voting NO in response to the question "Do you bet as much as you did before the whip rule changes?" Watch this space as this impacts on the Levy.
|
|
By:
Waley Cohen would have been penalised as he struck Long Run 13 times in the Gold Cup and he would be stood down for 13 days under the new regime
Waley Cohen stands to benefit from these new rules. He isnt in it for the money and being an occasional rider is much less likely to fall foul of the rules and the penal totting up system (even if he has a much higher non compliance rate with when riding) How inequitable is the 12 month period before the slate is wiped clean when AP will ordinarily have about 900 rides and Sam 30 in that period ? More unintended consequences. |
|
By:
Interesting Point about last years festival Sandown, i had a feeling that it would be quite high, i think it will be interesting to see if jocks do their sums and see what dates a ban at Cheltenham will occur on
|
|
By:
The death of Joe Frazier this week, and memories of the Thriller in Manilla, the greatest fight ever, between 2 of the greatest heavyweight boxers ever, brings into sharp contrast the relative abuse levels of boxing and racing.
Both Frazier and Ali showed immense courage in that fight and received punishment that perhaps that may never have recovered from. Nevertheless, the sport continues, with little change, and we can safely claim that there is no public outcry against the sport. Compare that with horseracing, where it is claimed that there is a huge public concern over the use of the whip. If true, why the difference? Is it purely because dumb animals are involved who can't exercise choice in the matter? is it because we truly believe that the level of punishment is far greater than that recorded by boxers? Surely it is not for the latter reason because no-one could possibly believe that administering a cushioned whip to a 1200lb animal by a 140lb human compares in any way with 45 minutes over 15 rounds during which maybe 20 punches are delivered every minute. Si, it must be because the former reason, that a dumb animal is involved, that we apparently are so concerned. How irrational is this, I wonder,because if even a tiny amount of reason were to be applied there would be no concern. Does the sight of someone using a whip make the situation so emotional? Why do we have such a reaction? The answer may be, that not ALL of us feel this way and that the some of us who do, have a disproportionate voice in this debate.I would truly like to know how strong the anti-whip feelings reallyare. And I would like to see someone strongly present counter-arguments or are we just going to roll over and allow this minority view steamroller changes to the sport which will change the nature of it forever. |
|
By:
Personally I can't see any relevance whatsoever in the comparison to boxing, as the difference is so obviously about choice.
|
|
By:
Actually, I'm amazed that punters think the new whip rules will affect their betting more than over watering of courses, but really I shouldn't be surprised.
|
|
By:
Dont get me started on that
 |
|
By:
Figgis
You make me laugh, honestly. So, it's all about choice , is it? Horses have no choice in the matter, I suppose, and for that reason different standards must apply. We don't apply that to humans at all times so why apply it to animals? More importantly, I take it that you have no direct knowledge of horses or you wouldn't assume that they do not exercise choice. The old saying, "you can take horse to water, but you can't make him drink" comes to mind. |
|
By:
Sandown
If you could give me an example where it is classed as acceptable to strike a human who has no choice in the matter it would be helpful for me to understand your point? I have some experience of horses as my girlfriend used to own a number of show horses, although I fail to see what difference that makes? It's very naive (or maybe a case of deliberately unwilling to face facts?) to say that a horse can't be coerced into doing something it wouldn't choose to do. |
|
By:
Figgis
No point in debating this further as we come at the issue from very different points of view (possibly there is a considerable age difference between us)and I may be more comfortable with the use of corporal punishment to enforce discipline as was the case when I was younger. I do not believe that outcomes have improved with today's supposedly more "enlightened" approach. As for dealing with animals, I don't believe in projecting our human "values" onto them. I can be as sentimental as the next man and I respect animals, especially horses but I do not believe that normal race riding using the whip is both necessar and acceptable and is not injurious to the horse. Over-us, of course, is counter-productive and is not desirable as I'm sure your girlfriend would agree but that does not mean that we should pursue the vitual elimination of its use. I repeat an earlier point, it is not only the number of strokes but the degree of force used, the area of application, the stride pattern of the horse and the response achieved. |
|
By:
Should read "I do believe" not " I don't believe"
|
|
By:
Sandown
I'm 43 and I'm not against corporal punishment. I'm also not particularly in favour of a complete whip ban, but if it was banned tomorrow it wouldn't make any difference at all to my betting activities or my enjoyment of the sport. What the "pro-whip" people don't seem to grasp, though, is that a continuing situation of jockeys failing to adhere to the guidelines will only increase the prospects of a full ban, not diminish it. |
|
By:
Figgis
Only 24 years difference but it may be a factor. What I will concede is that prior to the current rule changes, jockeys appeared not to take any notice of the whip rule. To that extent, this has been a wake up call and perhaps they may not be so complacent now. However, even with the latest step-back, i still feel that the jockeys have made a mistake agreeing to such a low number and I also feel that the misuse was nothing like that indicated by the number of bans being given with the effect that there is no discrimination between a right old whacking of a tired horse and taps given to wake up and urge forward. |
|
By:
Sandown
I've not heard any jockeys, or race fans, announcing they have a problem with the rules in France, where an 8 strike limit has been in force for a while now. Just to change the subject, without wishing to sound patronising, I'm quite impressed that you still calculate your own time figures, I sometimes wonder how long I'll be doing it for. |
|
By:
Figgis
Experience is the answer. I don't have to spend much time on it as I know when and where to look. Plus its the key to getting an edge so I can't afford to not to do it, given my stakes. |
|
By:
Perhaps the style/tactics of French racing helps or perhap its the whip rule which creates the style?
|
|
By:
I enjoy it, but I sometimes wonder if I'll still be doing this in my seventies, I suspect it will be something tha's difficult to give up.
|
|
By:
Figgis
I don't think it is possible to sustain interest at a full-on 100% level for ever. I did it for 10 years when I relied on my gambling profit in order to live but it was very draining and I lost my passion for the sport. I've since regained it but now I bet much less frequently and to a lower level. Quite honestly, I love horse racing as a sport as much as I do for its gambling opportunities, which perhaps explains why I am still here discussing things like the use of the whip, something which affects me personally not one jot. |
|
By:
I saw that when the RP did an on-line survey recently, 80% of replies were against the current rules.Since then, we've had some farcical decisions and penalties invoked culminating in the disgraceful,petty, unjust punishment for the ride on Swincombe Flame. I cannot believe that this situation has been allowed to continue. How do we persuade the BHA to listen to 80% of the sport's followers and reverse these rules.
|
|
By:
you dont,its not just about horseracing fans,its also about being seen to address the concerns re how the sport comes across to the public- like it or not thats the reality,and you need to get yer head around that,and accept we wont go back to the old rules.
Then you can move on. |
|
By:
The majority of jockeys are coming round and getting on with the job.
Yes a few are struggling to ride within the rules,but they will get used to it. Jockeys have always been banned over the years and always will be in this betting orientated sport,whatever the rules. |
|
By:
It wont matter how many times they are allowed to hit. The plain fact is that Horseracing has to hold it effing breath every April whilst the whole sport is judged on one race per year
Lets hope Aintree tell the Beeb no overhead shots this year... |
|
By:
I hear that new rules are to be introduced in boxing stipulating that no boxer will hit his opponent more than three times per round or no more than thirty times in any fight and that all hits must be delivered from no lower than 90 degrees angle from the floor and no higher than 120 degrees. All punches must be to the body or arms only but not to the stomach. Each round will last one minute. If any boxer bleeds the fight will be stopped immediately as it will if any fighter says that he wants his Mummy.
The authorities deny that they are emasculating the sport and point to the success of horse racing's new rules which have led to a dramatic shift in the viewing figures with 80% of all new viewers under the age of 5. The compulsory introduction of carrots dangling at the end of a stick replacing the use of the whip is reported to be the main reason for this shift.Jockeys are allowed to tickle their horses with their fingers to get them to jump the fences which on the Grand National course have been eliminated and replaced with photographs of what the fences used to look like. Some animal rights are complaining that these photos may prove frightening to the horses and are campaigning for their removal. |
|
By:
In a further escalation in modifications made to our way of life as a result of the sensitivity studies (the effect on public opinion conducted by Mori) the British Army is to replace all its weapons with paint guns, grenades to be replaced by eggs and missiles to be replaced by fireworks rockets. The enemy (currently the Taliban)is thought to be in agreement with this move and is responding by agreeing to wash more frequently and to use a plastic knife instead of a steel knife when conducting beheadings.
The public shows a 70% approval rating for the new measures. |
|
By:
LOL Buddelia. There is no concerns of the public. There is not a single jot of EVIDENCE to support it.
|
|
By:
Sandown |
|
By:
Dont know why you are laughing Sint.
There is no evidence that we know about maybe.Although i believe for a number of years now there have been people making it known that they are unhappy with the sport,notably the Grand National. This has been coming for ages,something had to be done to nip in the bud what appeared to be a momentum growing for changes and even a complete ban. If stopping jockeys from hitting a horse so much helps to keep the sport going,i am all for it. I may not agree with it from a spectator element or a punting element,but i think we have to go a bit deeper than that. |
|
By:
"people making it known that they are unhappy with the sport,notably the Grand National" = some parts of the racing media and animal rights organisations. Not racing followers, not the general public, not politicians (as with fox hunting), not the judiciary, not punters, not anybody at all really who matters.
|
|
By:
Well whatever,i know ive had a fair few discussions down the local where people have said they think racings cruel,and selling Sweepstake tickets i get people refusing to buy a ticket cos they dont like seeing horses hit.Think it naive to think that members of the general public are all of the same opinion as racing followers.
Anyway cant see them going back,whatever we say or think. Anyway ive said my opinion on the matter,dont want to get into a big debate about it. |
|
By:
Racing is judged mainly on one event on a saturday afternoon each year, if needs be get rid of the bluddy thing
|