Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Just WTF these new rules about. OK to kill the fuc*ing horse as long as you don't get caught!
Show More
But, of course - Francome isn't a PUNTER.
- and if he is - then heaven help him.
- and if he is - then heaven help him.
If i was fed, groomed, mucked out, braided, transported to destinations, washed down, had me feet checked, patted, transported home, had my bed laid out for me , fed dinner, checked for any worries, kissed ,then you can whip me a few times to make me concentrate and try to win a race for you . 
P.S You can fook the public perception and see the reality
P.S You can fook the public perception and see the reality
he's right. break the rules you lose the race. its so easy.
What hasnt been asked is that in the world of international racing is unilateral action by any one country a good idea????
well said zilzal,its like playing under different rules when playing football in other countries
they dont think that far ahead Zilzal. In other countries the jockeys went on strike to maintin the status quo. surprised at McCoy to be honest...not so much Frankie as he'll just say whatever's popular.
I'm sure thought...then when everything's on the line they'll still break the rules and take the ban.
I'm sure thought...then when everything's on the line they'll still break the rules and take the ban.
Other countries already have different rules!
And if they want everything to be about public perception we'll look forward to the castration of sex offenders, getting out of the EU, the death penalty and stricter immigration
Are ours now the toughest though???
Cant see Calvin Borel even coming over
Cant see Calvin Borel even coming over
Wasn't Francome the one who used say something to effect of..."it's a 7 stone guy hitting half-a-ton of horse with half-an-inch of hide to protect it"?
That's the point, Onlooker, how many 'proper' punters want to see the whip banned? So long as there is NO welfare issue, why give in to the namby pamby wishy-washy liberals?
And it's a point made by Richard Hughes in the paper today, once punters see jockeys are limited in what effort they can get out of a horse, how will it affect betting turnover?
That's the point, Onlooker, how many 'proper' punters want to see the whip banned? So long as there is NO welfare issue, why give in to the namby pamby wishy-washy liberals?
And it's a point made by Richard Hughes in the paper today, once punters see jockeys are limited in what effort they can get out of a horse, how will it affect betting turnover?
deano and carter didnt get much out of a horse,and they increased turnover,
John_Cherry 01 Oct 11 15:20
he's right. break the rules you lose the race. its so easy.
Carl 01 Oct 11 15:22
JC - Spot on.
-----------------------
That would get BETTING on Horse racing stopped overnight.
he's right. break the rules you lose the race. its so easy.
Carl 01 Oct 11 15:22
JC - Spot on.
-----------------------
That would get BETTING on Horse racing stopped overnight.
How So?
Would you have a Monkey, or a Grand, on a horse - to then have to 'sweat it out' EVERY BET, as to whether the horse was going to be disqualified due 8 slaps instead of 7...
especially if/as it became debatable as to whether one, or two, of those movements were only direction corrections (in the interests of safety -
yet now, perversely, potentially punishable ... after the STEWARDS had held an ENQUIRY to decide as such.
PLENTY punters most certainly would NOT bet under such circumstances.
The LEVY would be decimated even further.
It would be like those awful days of the early 1990s - when the military minded moguls at the Jockey Club tried to get the jockeys to ride in straight lines throughout the race.
There were STEWARDS ENQUIRIES every other race.
One Magnet Cup day at York - there were SIX Stewards Enquiries out of 7 races.
Channel4 were going mad because each successive race was delayed by these Enquiries.
Bookmakers were going barmy because they could not take bets on each race, as punters belatedly queued to collect winnings.
Eventually all the Bookies declared ... 'Pay after the next race' - so that they could take bets on this race.
Punters were apoplectic - because some wanted their winnings from one race to bet on the next - but could not draw in time.
Eventually, at a later stage - Andrew Franklin of Channel4 Racing arranged a meeting with the Stewards to 'clear the air'
The first thing that they said to him was.... "Franklin, take your hands out of your pockets."
- and you want to place your Monkey or Grand at the behest of these STEWARDS.
'nuff said'.
Would you have a Monkey, or a Grand, on a horse - to then have to 'sweat it out' EVERY BET, as to whether the horse was going to be disqualified due 8 slaps instead of 7...
especially if/as it became debatable as to whether one, or two, of those movements were only direction corrections (in the interests of safety -
yet now, perversely, potentially punishable ... after the STEWARDS had held an ENQUIRY to decide as such.
PLENTY punters most certainly would NOT bet under such circumstances.
The LEVY would be decimated even further.
It would be like those awful days of the early 1990s - when the military minded moguls at the Jockey Club tried to get the jockeys to ride in straight lines throughout the race.
There were STEWARDS ENQUIRIES every other race.
One Magnet Cup day at York - there were SIX Stewards Enquiries out of 7 races.
Channel4 were going mad because each successive race was delayed by these Enquiries.
Bookmakers were going barmy because they could not take bets on each race, as punters belatedly queued to collect winnings.
Eventually all the Bookies declared ... 'Pay after the next race' - so that they could take bets on this race.
Punters were apoplectic - because some wanted their winnings from one race to bet on the next - but could not draw in time.
Eventually, at a later stage - Andrew Franklin of Channel4 Racing arranged a meeting with the Stewards to 'clear the air'
The first thing that they said to him was.... "Franklin, take your hands out of your pockets."
- and you want to place your Monkey or Grand at the behest of these STEWARDS.
'nuff said'.
Once it becomes part of the culture onlooker, punters would soon get used to having races taken away because of jockeys breaking the rules. That's if it happened.
Plenty of punters in the USA must feel aggrieved at the way horses get demoted because of very minor infringements, but the horseracing game over there doesn't lack for punters.
We can't have a jockey hitting a horse 20 times and beating another whose jockey stood by the rules and gets second and then the jock banned for a few days.
That is farcical.
I would ban the whip altogether tbh and then there's no problem at all.
Plenty of punters in the USA must feel aggrieved at the way horses get demoted because of very minor infringements, but the horseracing game over there doesn't lack for punters.
We can't have a jockey hitting a horse 20 times and beating another whose jockey stood by the rules and gets second and then the jock banned for a few days.
That is farcical.
I would ban the whip altogether tbh and then there's no problem at all.
We are talking about a fookin horse here, a beast, not a fookin child
How come you can shoot a defenceless rabbit but cannot tap a horse on its hind to make it run faster
What the fook is up with this world.
Wish trainers and jocks would join together and not be moved by these stupid rules
How come you can shoot a defenceless rabbit but cannot tap a horse on its hind to make it run faster
What the fook is up with this world.
Wish trainers and jocks would join together and not be moved by these stupid rules
Na, you've got it @rse about face.
I don't think rabbits should be shot for sport either.
Because one wrong doing is allowed it doesn't mean another has to follow.
I don't think rabbits should be shot for sport either.
Because one wrong doing is allowed it doesn't mean another has to follow.
The Main problem will be in jump racing imo, some pickings will be ripe for the punter who can pick the right type of horses. mind you some allowances could have already be used quite early on
'Break the rules and you loose the race'. O.K., so if a jockey comes over towards the rail within the first furlong,without in any way interfering with other runners and the horse canters in by 10 lengths....Disqualified.
A jockey forgets how many times he's used the whip and, while 10 lengths clear with 50 yards to go in the Derby, taps the horse to keep it straight.....Disqualified.
All occasions when the jockey fails to keep a straight course... Disqualified
Jockey 'drops his hands' before crossing the fin. line, 10 lenghts clear,.....Disqualified.
Jockey fails to give the horse time to respond to the whip (how long is enough time?).....Disqualified.
All cases of interference...Disqualified.
Of course,these D.Q.s would be absurd. While Francombe's opinion as to use of the whip has to be respected,his assertation that any breaking of the whip rules should result in a D.Q. is ill thought out.
By the way,can a trainer or jockey lodge an objection if they think the new rule has been broken? We could be in for an era of outrageously long enquiries!
A jockey forgets how many times he's used the whip and, while 10 lengths clear with 50 yards to go in the Derby, taps the horse to keep it straight.....Disqualified.
All occasions when the jockey fails to keep a straight course... Disqualified
Jockey 'drops his hands' before crossing the fin. line, 10 lenghts clear,.....Disqualified.
Jockey fails to give the horse time to respond to the whip (how long is enough time?).....Disqualified.
All cases of interference...Disqualified.
Of course,these D.Q.s would be absurd. While Francombe's opinion as to use of the whip has to be respected,his assertation that any breaking of the whip rules should result in a D.Q. is ill thought out.
By the way,can a trainer or jockey lodge an objection if they think the new rule has been broken? We could be in for an era of outrageously long enquiries!
Long enquiries is a problem with the admin of the sport.
That could do with an overhaul too I suspect.
If you use the whip too much then you lose the race.
If we suppose that whipping a horse does make it go faster and it appeases the punter at home that the jockey is actually 'trying', then we must assume that more whips means more speed and breaking the whip rules means an unfair advantage.
Rewilding would not have beaten So You Think w/o breaking the rules.
That's not right.
Either let the jock hit the horse as much as he wants or not at all.
No stewards would get involved then.
If you put a number on the use of the whip then a penalty strong enough to deter
jocks from not adhering to those rules is needed.
A multi-millionaire getting pocket money fines whilst his horse's stud value is driven up because of cheating is not right.
That could do with an overhaul too I suspect.
If you use the whip too much then you lose the race.
If we suppose that whipping a horse does make it go faster and it appeases the punter at home that the jockey is actually 'trying', then we must assume that more whips means more speed and breaking the whip rules means an unfair advantage.
Rewilding would not have beaten So You Think w/o breaking the rules.
That's not right.
Either let the jock hit the horse as much as he wants or not at all.
No stewards would get involved then.
If you put a number on the use of the whip then a penalty strong enough to deter
jocks from not adhering to those rules is needed.
A multi-millionaire getting pocket money fines whilst his horse's stud value is driven up because of cheating is not right.
And the punters on the horse who finished second, which had a jock adhering to the rules, wouldn't get penalised either.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539