There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
20 Oct 11
19:13
Joined:
Date Joined:
05 Oct 11
Hard to believe that the result of the review will be anything other than a climb down by the BHA. Just a question of how much.
Had they have been a little braver and gone down the hands and heels route it would have been so much harder for the jockeys or should I say RUK and ATR to argue their case. There would have been no fines, number of strokes or furlong markers to cloud the issue. They would have been left with the one argument that they couldn't ride in a race without hitting horses. Outside of racing it would have been very difficult to justify that view.
Had they have been a little braver and gone down the hands and heels route it would have been so much harder for the jockeys or should I say RUK and ATR to argue their case. There would have been no fines, number of strokes or furlong markers to cloud the issue. They would have been left with the one argument that they couldn't ride in a race without hitting horses. Outside of racing it would have been very difficult to justify that view.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 3
|
By:
agrred.
|
|
By:
Thirded.
|
|
By:
To have progressed down this road we have to assume that the BHA had been given the unequivocal support of the jockeys; to introduce the new whip rules without such support could only result in turmoil, and it's surely inconceivable that the BHA would not have seen this. Given this assumption, then the jockeys (PJA) must take equal share of the blame for the unholy mess racing is now in.
As you say differentdrum, the hands and heels option would have left the BHA with only one argument to win. So fourthed! |