There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 148 comments are related to the topic:
Why Richard Hughes is in the wrong
Why Richard Hughes is in the wrong
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 148
|
By:
Sorry zeb our posts crossed.
|
|
By:
Professional being the right word.
|
|
By:
Just because the rules are "the same for everyone", doesn't make them good.
Just because the rules were run past jockeys before they were put into action doesn't (wholly) make them acceptable. Sometimes you have to try something out in practice before you know it's workable. You can't expect jockeys (or any group) to think through all possible ramifications before practice takes place. For what it's worth, I thing Hughes talks a whole lot of sense, and that the BHA, generally, is full of a mix of jumped-up hitlers and marketing people. |
|
By:
Jamie Stier said at the outset "we won't back down to jockeys". But backing down to (a few) members of the public, and the press (on the lookout purely for a good headline) are what they have backed down to.
|
|
By:
The jockeys asked for a distinct boundary so that there wasn't a grey area, they were fed up of getting whip offence bans by officials discretion. The trouble was the two-tier quota that made jockeys have to be aware when they were past the furlong pole. I think that on the flat they will change to a distinct number for the whole race .... that was Hughesy's gripe.
|
|
By:
Mr McCririck is the voice of the racing public (didn't you know that???)
  |
|
By:
If something is fundamentaly wrong,why not?
Pandering to idiots is not the game,surely? |
|
By:
Let's look at the tipping point in this storm.
His ride on More Than Words, an unraced horse who was backed off the boards by his stable/owners/connections/those in the know with inside information. According to Hughes he gave this horse his BEST ride, and this ride exemplifies what he calls "the art of raceriding". So that means, under the new rules, the perfect ride for him, is to hit his mount hard on the rear 6 times in the final furlong. So if this was the perfect ride, why didn't he administer 6, or 5, or 4, or 3, or 2, or even 1 smack to the drifting Available the previous night at Kempton, who had been hit on it's debut at Leicester by Dane O'Neill, and was a paper favourite the morning of the Kempton race. He hit it ZERO times, and can be seen on the head-on looking to his right, when the winner had flown, to see where the placed horses were (join the dots for yourself). The answer is Hughes has been having it his own way for many years, by deciding according to which horses his owners are backing, as to which horses he will give his absoloute full strength in the finish. He then says that he can't do justice for the betting public. For whom, he has admitted in an interview, which he was called on to do, following another SOFT finish on one of his mounts, that he has no interest in riding for the betting public. The facts are all there in black and white, and it's taken the new whip rules to highlight the hypocritical nature of this jockey. Yes it is sad that one of the top jockeys has decided to leave OUR sport, but if Richard Hughes had considered people like me, who had put my cash down on him over the years, in the belief that he would have given a consistent ride to all his mounts, I would have a LOT more sympathy for Richard Hughes. |
|
By:
Yes it would appear that a decision was made that a maximum of five whip strokes is necessary in one furlong. Just to get that extra edge Hughesy would probably save all seven for the final furlong. But then the stewards would have to go back through the whole race recording to check the whip wasn't used prior to the final furlong. Totally out of the question imo, too time consuming to police.
|
|
By:
Quit Pro Quo.
 |
|
By:
no living creature is born for physical abuse,owners and jockys and trainers say they love their horses but do they realy? when the moneys down the horse becomes like a tool same as the whip.the bha are on losing battle to keep the owners happy , when modern society is outgrowing a old farm like activity only enjoyed by the few.lets get real and be onest to ourselfs do we need horseracing?
|
|
By:
eh.. there is a total strokes limit so they do have to review the whole race.
|
|
By:
Without getting into the rights and wrongs of the whip issue, I think Richard will be alright. He was emotional one time at Wolver, saying he'd never ride there again, but he has.
It ain't an easy life being a jockey ( check out the thread about AP's private life). Anyway,shouldn't more time and energy be spent on dealing with a more important problem, i.e. the unlicensed laying of NON-TRIERS, which, according to this forum ( of sharper brains), is where the BIG money on btfr is. I can't see the number of whip strokes being much of a factor in that murky business. In fact, I'd say that some of the jockeys whose names are regularly up here for " pulling" and "not riding out" are often to be seen "giving it their all" like some demented Michael Jackson when it suits certain players on the Exchange. |
|
By:
no we can watch cartoon races giving us a guarantueed 1 % strike rate
|
|
By:
^^^ this is why fiddling with race riding is a slippery slope. 'farm like activity' u couldnt make these people up.
|
|
By:
^idiot
|
|
By:
Good points Roger, if they're finding it hard to ride against instinct why is it more difficult on obviously backed horses than drifters. Says a lot about whats been going on when let free reign, I think the whip restrictions are a step in the right direction towards less crooked racing.
|
|
By:
Richard Hughes is booked to ride Myrtles Warbler later today!
|
|
By:
How whats to stop a rider giving up and saying i thought i had gone over the limit is it possible to know the truth in what their saying ? this will lead to more jiggery pokery they have just made it so much easier its laughable.
|
|
By:
Theres not a 'push and shove' restriction is there?
|
|
By:
Whats going to happen to the horses who don't respond to a push and a shove i have seen plenty ? just shoot them in the head then.
|
|
By:
Whichever way you look at this the BHA has handled it appallingly. To introduce the rules now is baffling but if they felt they had to (introduce them now) then have a trial period, bring jocks in that have broken the rules and say 'You do realise that from such and such a date you would have been banned etc'. This would have made them think and eased the transition. For an organisation that is obsessed with PR the BHA need to go back to school and get people who know what they are on about!
The back pass rule is a decent analogy but it wasn't introduced in the last months of the season and the goalkeepers don't get sent off, banned for 5 matches and fined if they pick the ball up - if they did there would have been hell to pay! |
|
By:
same as what happens to horses who respond negatively to being whipped
|
|
By:
My understanding:
- There was no "trial period" with warnings. Even two weeks would have been enough to put it in perspective for everyone. Jockey's who have whipped a horse more than 5 times will get their rhythm and there is no need to count (some jockey's interviewed said they rarely hit the horse more than five anyways). - The time doesn't fit the crime (my feelings on it). Perhaps 'the ban' could be into categories (i.e. if you are banned in an eight furlong, you are banned from races 10 furlongs or less. - Question: A jockey has hit his horse 5 times in the final furlong. His horse starts to drift dangerously into two other horses. Does he tap (thus whip) his horse to wake it up on the steer or let the interference/contact take place? Ultimately, it will change racing. It will be interesting to see how the timings go on the races. |
|
By:
Shoot Hughes in the head and end the debate, mardy tw*t!
|
|
By:
In NH there have been instances where jockeys have used five cracks of the whip just to get their mount going at the start!!!
|
|
By:
One major **** up by the BHB here.
What was needed was a bedding in period of say 8 weeks, where if you broke the rules you were shown the video talked through what you did wrong, no fine, no penalty....Once the 8 weeks were up, the penalties kick in.....Gives the jocks chance to get used to the rules without costing them "as they learn" |
|
By:
Hughes is spot on (and i hate the guy), to do his job properly he needs all the tools available to him.... Imagine if builders were only allowed to use trowels on every other brick. BHA has made a total fool of themselves.
|
|
By:
to obvious valueman - better to get everyone excited and invite in all the whip banners and cruelty loonies to start shouting from the rafters....
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
thanks grendel. The current whip rules have narrowed the gap between the jockey who doesn't hit his horse and the one who thrashes it as much as he/she can under the previous whip rules. So in that aspect it has helped narrow the gap between trying and non-trying.
The state horseracing is in now though in the UK makes betting before the off even more of a lottery now. |
|
By:
Roger de Bris 09.27 has it spot on imo.
The new regime makes the variable vigour applied by the same jockey to different rides more apparent that ever. An unintended consequence maybe but a desirable one. That's what they don't like. |
|
By:
Which is what Roger has now said while I was typing!
|
|
By:
If you think all racing is bent Roger the only solution is banning laying horses. A horse can be stopped from winning whether theres a whip or not, if there is nothing to be directly gained from this..
|
|
By:
Grendal...There is decent amongst the jocks, 8 weeks only, do you think a 5 day ban would stop a jock breaking the rules if he is getting a brown envolope full of reddies from an owner?
|
|
By:
No, I would be in favour of disqualification if exceeded an upper limit.
|
|
By:
Thats bonkers Grendel and flies in face of you and many others views that the whip is some great way of stopping not triers. What better lay would there be than a winner you can ride to win and make lose by hitting it too many times.
|
|
By:
You can't make or not make rules just to satisfy the in-running markets
|
|
By:
Suggesting the current whip rules are good because the previous ones were wrong is not a reasonable arguement imo.
The current rules suggest that the bha has little or no confidence in the stewards and a pandering to the non racing community. Far better to have a professional panel of race readers who judge all the races than individual stewards.Much more grown up for a panel to decide wether a horse was "thrashed" to win a race than a steward saying to a jockey "i'm aware the 2yo shied away from the shadow of the stands and you only tapped him,but i'm afraid that one over the limit so 5 day ban and no fee/prizemoney. Horse riding is not about arithmatic,we are talking about interpretation,8 taps to keep your horse alert is a ban ,seven mighty wacks is ok - its just too silly for words. |
|
By:
Spot on as usual Zeb
|