Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
In F1 the car that crosses the winning line is not always the winner. The ride height of the car must be within the rules and the weight of the car has to be correct. If these are wrong then the winner is disqualified. The reason being that the car had a minute advantage that may or may not have effected the race and that however small the "advantage" was the fact is rules were broken.
In golf the winner is not always the person who shoots the lowest round. The player is responsible for noting his score at each hole and if the card is marked and signed off and it is incorrect, even if he has been filmed on television all day, then rules state he is to be disqualified. He broke the rules, he gets booted out.
World and Olympic events. The winner of any event is not always the winner. Running outside the lane can result in disqualification. Baton changing hands outside the allotted area will result in a disqualification. Taking performance enhancing drugs, that may show up days later, will result in a disqualification. These perceived advantages may or may not have resulted in a better finish but rules are rules.
So if a winning horse, or any horse for that matter is given an illegal and stronger ride than the rest of the field then the result must be null and void, the horse being disqualified. Whether or not the horse is given an advantage is debatable, however the fact remains that a horse will stay running faster, for longer, the more it is asked by the jockey and the whip. This means that the horses behind it are running at a disadvantage. Now when weights are put out we all know the score. The horse is weighted to its current mark and weighted accordingly. If the horse weighed in a pound under it would be disqualified, because it was given an unfair advantage. The same applies with the whip.
If you note that other sports do not shy away from the rules and they make it fair and just for everyone, so as everyone will be judged on ability and raw talent within the confines of the rules. You cannot say the same is fair in horse racing if you use the same analogy.
But this is where the whole thing breaks down. The racing industry relies on punter cash. Imaging the carnage the betting industry would suffer if after every race there had to be a 30 min wait for the weighed in. The industry would crash. Betting offices rely on people betting as many races as possible, something that would be severely compromised if the race had to be scrutinised to such an extent. Then there would be the backlash from angry punters, yes those same punters who favour the ban would be up in arms if their horse was DQ.
So where does this leave us. Well the whip rule cannot stay in its current form, thats a fact. The horse won't be DQ "although it should be".
Regardless the BHA have committed the biggest own goal any ruling body from any sport has done in the past 25 years. They have tarnished the UK brand of horse racing for the next decade and this will be brought up in pub quiz's, question of sport, you name it as one of the biggest shambles to have ever been implemented on a sport.
In golf the winner is not always the person who shoots the lowest round. The player is responsible for noting his score at each hole and if the card is marked and signed off and it is incorrect, even if he has been filmed on television all day, then rules state he is to be disqualified. He broke the rules, he gets booted out.
World and Olympic events. The winner of any event is not always the winner. Running outside the lane can result in disqualification. Baton changing hands outside the allotted area will result in a disqualification. Taking performance enhancing drugs, that may show up days later, will result in a disqualification. These perceived advantages may or may not have resulted in a better finish but rules are rules.
So if a winning horse, or any horse for that matter is given an illegal and stronger ride than the rest of the field then the result must be null and void, the horse being disqualified. Whether or not the horse is given an advantage is debatable, however the fact remains that a horse will stay running faster, for longer, the more it is asked by the jockey and the whip. This means that the horses behind it are running at a disadvantage. Now when weights are put out we all know the score. The horse is weighted to its current mark and weighted accordingly. If the horse weighed in a pound under it would be disqualified, because it was given an unfair advantage. The same applies with the whip.
If you note that other sports do not shy away from the rules and they make it fair and just for everyone, so as everyone will be judged on ability and raw talent within the confines of the rules. You cannot say the same is fair in horse racing if you use the same analogy.
But this is where the whole thing breaks down. The racing industry relies on punter cash. Imaging the carnage the betting industry would suffer if after every race there had to be a 30 min wait for the weighed in. The industry would crash. Betting offices rely on people betting as many races as possible, something that would be severely compromised if the race had to be scrutinised to such an extent. Then there would be the backlash from angry punters, yes those same punters who favour the ban would be up in arms if their horse was DQ.
So where does this leave us. Well the whip rule cannot stay in its current form, thats a fact. The horse won't be DQ "although it should be".
Regardless the BHA have committed the biggest own goal any ruling body from any sport has done in the past 25 years. They have tarnished the UK brand of horse racing for the next decade and this will be brought up in pub quiz's, question of sport, you name it as one of the biggest shambles to have ever been implemented on a sport.
Show More
logical summary - even before the new whip rules
just because the horse racing betting industry would collapse if the horse was disq.(under the new whip rules), should not mean the horse isn't disq. Therein is the BHA's dilemma
just because the horse racing betting industry would collapse if the horse was disq.(under the new whip rules), should not mean the horse isn't disq. Therein is the BHA's dilemma
have posted this several times,it is pure common sense.Breaching rules should result in disq not a victory.It is the correct place to draw the line.Flout the law and all connections and backers do their dough.Absolutely no grey area so introduce whip free racing if that is what is really wanted.Carry them for correction only and a stroke administered even for correction results in disq. Simple innit.
no it's not that simple, there are reasons why it wouldn't work
breaking the rules in order to beat an opponent who doesn't infringe has to be punished.The jockey gets done so should the connections,if it hurts they don't have to put the jockey up again.BTW it really is that simple,the game has spiralled downwards for years so maybe recreating a new racing structure could be the way forward.It may not be but law breakers shouldn't profit by breaking the rules.At least everybody knows where they stand when lining up or on stalls entry.
no,the BHA needed to think a lot more.If another Giants Causeway appeared next season, then after winning multiple Group races the jockey had incurred loss of wages but kept the ride continually and kept assisting it home by a neck or so each time it won do you really think Coolmore wouldn't reward the part he played in the black type and stallion book? Even if it had to give him 1.5% of nomination fees or 2 nominations for 5 years to him the jockey and connections would profit from breaking the rules to win.Only disq all round stops that scenario.
Do you think the current rules work in favour of racing,the punter and connections of all runners?
the current rules being the ones introduced this week? no
but the answer is not to dq a winner for whip infringement
but the answer is not to dq a winner for whip infringement
thanks for replying,any chance of why? I'm not into ridicule,I do like to hear and read a reasoned argument even if different from mine.I just think that winning by cheating is a huge grey area if disq. isn't automatic.
PH,straight away your argument is flawed,stating that a whip used for correction only should be punished by disqualification.What happens if a jockey fails to correct a horse because of such a rule and causes a pile up resulting in injury or worse to horses and riders?
i wasn't ridiculing you, i assumed the main reason was obvious but ok you seem sensible so i will give a few;
corruption - the best horse could win a race having been given what appears to be a great ride when in fact it was deliberately hit too many times to ensure its disqualification, meantime insiders clean up - prob just invented the easiest way to get a horse to lose in full view of the stewards
public image - racegoers cheer home their jolly, go to collect their winnings to be told you didn't win, great pr for racing
concessions - do you think uk racing would still have first past the post concessions? not a chance
payouts - no bookie would pay out, not until a race had been reviewed, based on timings we've seen in week one that could be up to an hour after a race, that would be a great selling point for bettors, you'd be stood on course after racing waiting to see whether you' got paid, or whether the second was going to get it
how many do you throw out? - the first 5 home get hit too many times, horse 6 wins, we're now counting hits not watching racing
these latest whip rules are not for the sport, but for its image which is why they don't work, going to dqs for infringements would make it worse not better
the rules need to be tweeked, even then it's only a matter of time before we go no whip imo, that ends it once and for all
corruption - the best horse could win a race having been given what appears to be a great ride when in fact it was deliberately hit too many times to ensure its disqualification, meantime insiders clean up - prob just invented the easiest way to get a horse to lose in full view of the stewards
public image - racegoers cheer home their jolly, go to collect their winnings to be told you didn't win, great pr for racing
concessions - do you think uk racing would still have first past the post concessions? not a chance
payouts - no bookie would pay out, not until a race had been reviewed, based on timings we've seen in week one that could be up to an hour after a race, that would be a great selling point for bettors, you'd be stood on course after racing waiting to see whether you' got paid, or whether the second was going to get it
how many do you throw out? - the first 5 home get hit too many times, horse 6 wins, we're now counting hits not watching racing
these latest whip rules are not for the sport, but for its image which is why they don't work, going to dqs for infringements would make it worse not better
the rules need to be tweeked, even then it's only a matter of time before we go no whip imo, that ends it once and for all
rs, i kind of agree re the issue of safety, but i think that there is as much the arguement to say the whip can cause the issue in the first place; the jockey might stand as much chance with both hands on the reins and to stop riding?
don't carry them then,I'm only being very basic and making rules black and white. If a horse needs correcting and a jockey feels victory is more important than the safety of his peers then he won't ride for long.Again simplistic but the jockeys would deal privately with such a danger in their midst.It is no less flawed than the current cheat to prosper charter installed by the BHA.
i think that given the choice of the current ban / fine level or carry a whip they will take that route
i'm not sure what that means for racing, or certain types of horses, or heavy ground 3m chases etc lol
i'm not sure what that means for racing, or certain types of horses, or heavy ground 3m chases etc lol
The point though Elise is you cannot have a rule which places a jockey in a no win situation.There would be more grey than a fleet of RN Frigates.
cheers elise,I happen to agree with 3 of your points.I'm playing Devils Adv tonight but why not as the BHA seems populated by short term thinkers and appeasers.I've followed racing for 34 years and can't see the grass roots day to day racing maintaining that interest.I've been involved in plots etc and know that backing a non jigger is horrible especially after being turned over by a trainer or jockey. The BHA serve themselves and not the sport and the racing press are accessories with no shame or pride.Racing got greedy and got caught out because of short term views.
hard as it is,i think once the bha open the door to this "public percetion" stuff we can have any small group putting up things that need to be changed
we could lose jump racing as they did in australia, we could see caps on weight carried or distances run, or headgear banned, saddles redesigned, season length reduced, a max number of races per horse per year, the fecking list is endless
this just needs some common sense, the bha are losing sight of the most important item that should be top of the list and that is to protect the racing industry
i wouldn't even think about a strike to sort the whip out, people in racing should be thinking about how to sort out the bha so that they have a governing body acting in all of their best interests
we could lose jump racing as they did in australia, we could see caps on weight carried or distances run, or headgear banned, saddles redesigned, season length reduced, a max number of races per horse per year, the fecking list is endless
this just needs some common sense, the bha are losing sight of the most important item that should be top of the list and that is to protect the racing industry
i wouldn't even think about a strike to sort the whip out, people in racing should be thinking about how to sort out the bha so that they have a governing body acting in all of their best interests
agreed,the BHA score own goals regularly,pay 6 figure salaries to ne'er do wells using the organisation as a stepping stone to something better and selling itself as a body to the High St bookies like a very cheap and unclean prostitute. Maybe they can get Chapman to front a show from a Sandown band night with honorary guests from the Bookies PR liars and call it it Pimp our Turf or such like.They'd be guaranteed 40,000 new viewers on Channel 5 if screening it during Big Brother.Stalwarts and die hards of the turf aren't required by the BHA.Protect what you have and look after it isn't a BHA mandate.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539