There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 289 comments are related to the topic:
The definitive anti-whip argument
The definitive anti-whip argument
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 289
|
By:
Aust Racing Board “Doubts Scientific Worth” Of RSPCA Study
However Australian Racing Board chief executive Andrew Harding cautioned: “The approach taken by the researchers was to use race footage, sectional times & placings to carry out a statistical analysis of the effect of whip use on performance. The study was made possible by the cooperation of the racing industry. This cooperation included providing access to footage & technical assistance from the stewards to the researchers. Once we have been provided with a copy of the study, then the Australian Racing Board & its expert advisers will consider its contents.” However Harding emphasised: “We cooperated with the study because we have a good working relationship with the RSPCA & we are committed to doing everything possible to protect the welfare of racehorses. This said, we have never made a secret of the fact that we doubt the scientific worth of applying logistic regression to draw conclusions about the extent of the effect on performance of the use of a padded whip. There are literally myriad variables in every race that will have an effect on the outcome.” Harding also noted: “The ARB believes the extensive reforms it has made to the use of the whip are appropriate & working as they were intended.” |
|
By:
Feck & Andy will of course have read the research and noted that this study (funded by the RSPCA australia) looked at....wait for it.....5 races and 62 horses in those races. Statistically significant I think you'll agree. And moreover, the conclusion was that whipping did not (overall) increase the velocity of the horse in the final 400m. Well I never, horses not accelerating at the end of a race. They did however conceed that...'we are unsurprised to find that whippings were associated with superior performance and that there was an association between final placing and the number of whip strikes in the final 200 m section'
|
|
By:
Where did you get the full study yer ma?
|
|
By:
Feck, do you have a response to what James Willoughby has just said?
|
|
By:
Didn't hear it George. What did he say?
|
|
By:
James Willoughby spot on -- for a change
|
|
By:
There is scientific proof that there is no welfare issue with the whip. By limiting its use, racing authorities are saying that there is ie 7 strikes is preferable to 8, so along the same lines, animal rights groups could argue in court that 0 is better than 6.
For the sake of the pattern / breed - less genuine horses will win Group races as jockeys are restricted in what they can do to motivate horses who require stronger driving. He also believes there is a potential integrity issue. |
|
By:
On the number of strikes, is he saying there is no welfare issue with infinite strikes because just as animal rights groups can work down to zero they can increment his argument forever. Can't fathom what he means about "less genuine horses". Is he saying ungenuine horses don't react to the whip and it's preferable if they are beaten by a lesser animal that requires the whip? Potential integrity issues? In UK racing? Wow, that's a biggie.
Sounds like the same grasping at straws I've already had a bellyfull of on here. |
|
By:
Amusing that the arguments against the original post seem to avoid what was posted.
Anybody who knows the difference between a constant and a variable should be able to see that the whip is a variable and creates more variable results. To ignore that, then post on the thread that whipping isn't cruel, makes some horses go faster, makes some of them run in a straight line etc, then accuse the OP of not listening to their arguments is hilarious  |
|
By:
A sane post at last.
Poor Richard Hughes BTW. Wouldn't have happened with no whip. |