There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
24 Oct 11
23:38
Joined:
Date Joined:
05 Jan 10
Misuse rather than overuse of the whip should be the issue at the heart of the conflict between jockeys and the BHA
Lydia Hislop
guardian.co.uk
It is a period of civil war. Rebel jockeys, not yet striking, have won their first victory against the evil British Horseracing Authority. During the battle, jockeys managed to thwart either much-discussed or secret plans to implement the Authority's ultimate weapon, the NEW WHIP RULES, reputed to wield enough power to destroy an entire sport.
Think Ruby Walsh for Han Solo. Perhaps Kevin Darley, the Professional Jockeys Association chief executive, isn't the best Luke Skywalker, but roles on the Dark Side pick themselves. That the BHA's stand on an emotive issue is now a power struggle was evident in the rhetoric of Shane Kelly on Channel 4's The Morning Line. The rider, whose year-long ban for passing information for reward in 2007 may jaundice his view, asked: "Who are the BHA? Why are we bending to so many different rules?"
The personal journey of his colleague Nicky Mackay is also telling. On day one of the new rules, he used one strike fewer than allowed, wary of the limit, and believed his winning horse responded because of his restraint. On day 12, he exceeded it by two strokes, opining: "I felt I wouldn't have won if I hadn't kept riding to the line."
Mackay's evolved defiance came on the day concessions sought by the PJA were implemented. Yet bans keep coming and a militant mood has settled in the weighing room. To an extent, perhaps some have already given up trying to adapt to these 16-day-old rules.
For belief has taken hold that the BHA has been caught in a reckless bluff, namely that public opinion was neither weighty nor informed enough to require changes to the old whip rules. Walsh cited as proof the fact that, under the old rules, less than 1% of rides resulted in whip offences. The jockeys' stance is also informed by the memory-foam whip they all must use. Unlike the wider public, to the discredit of the BHA, riders know it is designed so as not to inflict pain on a horse.
The BHA should aspire to enforcing the link between whip misuse and inferior riding. In practice, its new rules have required riders to be more circumspect with the whip and yet they also proved an undiscerning filter. As the former champion Ryan Moore argues, 20 strikes of the whip, in skilful hands, can constitute a good ride but merely one ill-judged strike a bad ride.
If Walsh's ride is anything to go by, the amended rules and penalties are no keener tools. Trouble awaits this winter because the longer the race and softer the ground, especially over fences, the more likely whip bans are to occur. Can the BHA bend on this point without inflicting the fatal blow to its credibility?
Perhaps both sides can agree it would be an unalloyed positive if the BHA targeted counterproductive, mechanical and needless whip use – those who habitually reach for the whip as first resort or carry on using it beyond the point of constructiveness.
Jockeys speak of counselling young riders on this subject and endorse throwing the book at those who misuse the whip, yet their instinctive solidarity means they – and others – fail publicly to condemn, even when bad habits tip over into breaches.
For example, recent upscale whip offences by Paul McMahon, Charles Eddery and Kieren Fox have not attracted reproach, risking undeserved elision with rides like Walsh's and muddying the finer points of that specific debate.
Yet the BHA is also dodging the issue. Until it spends as much time and money on education and retraining as it has on public opinion and punishment, the force will never be with it
Lydia Hislop
guardian.co.uk
It is a period of civil war. Rebel jockeys, not yet striking, have won their first victory against the evil British Horseracing Authority. During the battle, jockeys managed to thwart either much-discussed or secret plans to implement the Authority's ultimate weapon, the NEW WHIP RULES, reputed to wield enough power to destroy an entire sport.
Think Ruby Walsh for Han Solo. Perhaps Kevin Darley, the Professional Jockeys Association chief executive, isn't the best Luke Skywalker, but roles on the Dark Side pick themselves. That the BHA's stand on an emotive issue is now a power struggle was evident in the rhetoric of Shane Kelly on Channel 4's The Morning Line. The rider, whose year-long ban for passing information for reward in 2007 may jaundice his view, asked: "Who are the BHA? Why are we bending to so many different rules?"
The personal journey of his colleague Nicky Mackay is also telling. On day one of the new rules, he used one strike fewer than allowed, wary of the limit, and believed his winning horse responded because of his restraint. On day 12, he exceeded it by two strokes, opining: "I felt I wouldn't have won if I hadn't kept riding to the line."
Mackay's evolved defiance came on the day concessions sought by the PJA were implemented. Yet bans keep coming and a militant mood has settled in the weighing room. To an extent, perhaps some have already given up trying to adapt to these 16-day-old rules.
For belief has taken hold that the BHA has been caught in a reckless bluff, namely that public opinion was neither weighty nor informed enough to require changes to the old whip rules. Walsh cited as proof the fact that, under the old rules, less than 1% of rides resulted in whip offences. The jockeys' stance is also informed by the memory-foam whip they all must use. Unlike the wider public, to the discredit of the BHA, riders know it is designed so as not to inflict pain on a horse.
The BHA should aspire to enforcing the link between whip misuse and inferior riding. In practice, its new rules have required riders to be more circumspect with the whip and yet they also proved an undiscerning filter. As the former champion Ryan Moore argues, 20 strikes of the whip, in skilful hands, can constitute a good ride but merely one ill-judged strike a bad ride.
If Walsh's ride is anything to go by, the amended rules and penalties are no keener tools. Trouble awaits this winter because the longer the race and softer the ground, especially over fences, the more likely whip bans are to occur. Can the BHA bend on this point without inflicting the fatal blow to its credibility?
Perhaps both sides can agree it would be an unalloyed positive if the BHA targeted counterproductive, mechanical and needless whip use – those who habitually reach for the whip as first resort or carry on using it beyond the point of constructiveness.
Jockeys speak of counselling young riders on this subject and endorse throwing the book at those who misuse the whip, yet their instinctive solidarity means they – and others – fail publicly to condemn, even when bad habits tip over into breaches.
For example, recent upscale whip offences by Paul McMahon, Charles Eddery and Kieren Fox have not attracted reproach, risking undeserved elision with rides like Walsh's and muddying the finer points of that specific debate.
Yet the BHA is also dodging the issue. Until it spends as much time and money on education and retraining as it has on public opinion and punishment, the force will never be with it
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 43
|
By:
View from Hong Kong
 Alan Aitken, SCMP: The stupidity of the Christophe Soumillon fine at the weekend is so universally apparent, it was refreshing to find someone on the other side of the argument, sticking to the script as agreed beforehand. On a new-fangled Champions Day designed to showcase English racing in all its glory, authorities appear to have performed a double act and showcased the flashing red light of its idiocy as well. Not that it would have been easy to hide. Under arcane new whip rules introduced with equally bizarre timing in the week leading to England's richest race, Soumillon was fined his almost HK$624,000 winning percentage after he used the whip on Cirrus Des Aigles six times: one less than he is allowed, but simultaneously one more than he is allowed, because all six were in the final 200m. Surely, the chef who cooked up that rule would have been on the end of a blue streak in three-Michelin-star chef Gordon Ramsay's kitchen. And nobody thought to introduce the siren that should go off as riders pass the 200m mark, just so they know it's time to start counting at the same time as navigating thousand pound-plus animals running at 60km/h. Doubtless the next chapter of this story will feature gentlemen in wigs and gowns. There is no truth to the widespread belief BHA stands for Benny Hill Authority and not British Horseracing Authority, though the late Benny might have learned a thing or two from it about slapstick. Just when you think things can't get any sillier in England, they do and the Benny Hill Authority chairman, sorry, BHA chairman, Paul Roy issued what looks an irresistible challenge for the 2011 Robert Nason Award when the pressure-cooked whip dish wound up all over the walls on the weekend. Nason, you may recall, was the gentleman running racing in Australia's state of Victoria in 2004 when he declared he would shut down the entire Melbourne Cup carnival - i.e. the one that underwrites the entire Victorian racing industry - if that's what it took to get rid of Betfair. Talk about shooting off your head to spite your face. Not long after, Mr Nason showed his words had real heartfelt emotion behind them, riding his hatred of Betfair into a job with its major rival betting operator. Since 2004, the Robert Nason Award has been up for grabs, going to the racing administrator anywhere who comes out with the silliest opinion. And bluster and opinion are the portmanteaux where BHA chairman Roy apparently carries his misunderstanding, rebuffing any suggestion the new rules might have been ill-considered, brain dead or at the very least a masterpiece of poor timing. Roy said the new rules were neither a bad idea nor wrong, but simply needed some tweaking. Like the Black Knight in Monty Python's Holy Grail, Roy cannot see that having his arms and legs cut off is anything worse than a flesh wound. Relevance to Hong Kong is decidedly minor as racing, by comparison to other jurisdictions, is so well conducted that it is necessary to go overseas for something stupid enough into which to sink one's teeth. Britain is a target-rich environment. It is still the case that any small, noisy, angry group at a racecourse in Hong Kong is more likely to wok-fry a horse in oyster sauce than protest over perceptions of its welfare. Of course, things elsewhere have gone long past the point of considering whether so-called animal rights protesters should be appeased over whip use in racing - in the grand traditions of racing authorities and General Custer, they should have considered their last stand first. This policy of appeasement beggars belief. Racing loses part of the war every time it cedes any ground at all in skirmishes about whip use. The misunderstanding is that so-called animal rights people want to see the end of the whip in racing - they don't. They want to see the end of racing, and whip use, or jumps racing in Australia, is simply the back door entry that lets them place the charges to destroy an industry that employs a great number of people and provides governments with large amounts of cash that paper over their mistakes in other areas. As we said, nobody gets the chance to start again, but even this late in the game racing should simply draw a line, stand on it and demand that its foes go through lengthy, expensive legal and legislative avenues to force any change in the landscape. Give nothing - we are seeing what happens when you try to keep them happy. |
|
By:
that's a good one zil
|
|
By:
Article of the year from Aitken imo.
You listening Roy ? |
|
By:
Hear/here here/hear.
|
|
By:
The misunderstanding is that so-called animal rights people want to see the end of the whip in racing - they don't.
They want to see the end of racing, and whip use, or jumps racing in Australia, is simply the back door entry that lets them place the charges to destroy an industry that employs a great number of people and provides governments with large amounts of cash that paper over their mistakes in other areas. Just about hits the nail on the head imo |
|
By:
maybe someone will smack a nail into roys head
|
|
By:
He must read the Forum.
Plenty of what he writes has been said on here, well not the Benny Hill Authority |
|
By:
benny hill had some redeeming features, like women in short nurses outfits, i can't see roy chasing struthers round the office ... or maybe i can
|
|
By:
Good article.  |
|
By:
Chelters will be blood bath. It's no win for the jocks. You can just see a dodgepot who needs a gentle tap to encourage not getting it, particularly over the extreme distances, and the crowd will go ape. Imagine a head to head up that hill in a bog and one jock can and one cannot because they have used their reminders up. Didn't somebody mention in another thread Sam gave Long Run a couple early on to keep the horse concentrated. I cannot see how you can back anything over 2 1/2 miles + now unless you know it is dead genuine. Heads at the BHA should really roll for this fiasco but nobody has the guts to fall on their sword. Wonder when the full facts will be known. I'm interested in who was consulted and when. Like many I've stopped betting on racing now except the best meets. Used to bet every day. Just cannot raise any enthusiasm. Multiply that throughout the country and oops there goes the levy.
|
|
By:
And should have mentioned Lydia's article sums it up perfectly. Ding dong prose. Last paragraph says it all.
|
|
By:
i thought lydia's article was a bit too full of her own ego, as per usual, too much of a look how smart i am rather than just conveying her argument
alan or hats is a clever guy but he hardly ever says anything critical of the HKJC, indeed the SCMP has become like their Public Relations Dept, when in fact there are plenty of things to say, the debacle which has become the start is one of them but he loves to criticise anything european and, especially, anything English - it is a peculiarly Aussie thing - when its relevance to racing in HK is questionable at best |
|
By:
Could you imagine a British or Irish racing journalist writing a no nonsense piece like that about anything controversial in racing not just the current whip furore?, not on your life!.
The racing hacks from that part of the world are renowned for telling it exactly as it is, unlike here even the supposed better ones like Greg Wood and Alan Sweetman only really throw out subtle hints rather than come straight out and say what they're really thinking, which to be honest is 100 times better than most of the rest, what does that tell you about the rest of the invertebrates?. What would Aiken have said about chemical Nick if he was working in these parts?. |
|
By:
Aitken may well be reluctant to attack the HKJC, Happy, but to my mind he has expressed exactly the thoughts of many of us regarding the new rules and the BHA in a way that no jockey,trainer or journalist here as been able (or willing) to do.
By the way, say hello to Sha Tin for me! |
|
By:
Hard to attack the Hong Kong jockey club because they police their sport properly, in horse racing you'll never completely eradicate cheating in all its forms but in Hong Kong the trainers and jockeys know who the boss is and if they step out of line there's usually hell to pay.
The public come first over there, where in Britain and Ireland the public are an afterthought, keep them coming through the turnstiles alright, but don't do eff all to clean up the sport to help the public in their quest for a winner. The likes of Curley, Byrnes, Martin, Ferdy and many others if they plied their trade in Hong Kong would have got jail sentences. |
|
By:
'The likes of Curley, Byrnes, Martin, Ferdy and many others if they plied their trade in Hong Kong would have got jail sentences.'
I agree with you but that's entirely the point about racing in GB and Ireland - it's run by spineless regulatory bodies, the BHA being the ultimate case in point and through their ineffectiveness the above operate 'entirely above ship'. We can't blame these trainers for operating the way they do, they are working within the 'law' it's just the punters misfortune that the law in racing over here is a complete ass. I'm no trainer but if I was running horses for races worth £1600 to the winner on average, a situation that has occurred because the BHA has allowed the bookmakers to bleed the sport dry under the table but accept mere handouts in comparison above it, I'd be doing anything I could to keep going - that's what they do. Essentially if you ask punters and owners (the TWO most important factions in racing in ANY country) 99% of them will say the two biggest problems in racing are: - Prize Money & - Fair, straight & clean races with a correct level of accountability and punishment for those impeaching on racing's integrity. Both of these issues should be, can be and are addressed by the governing body of racing in the top racing nations around the globe - HK being the shining light and prime example of what can be achieved - yet here the sport over here is on life support. The most troubling element regarding this whip debate for me, isn't actually the whip debate at all. It's the fact that with the sport on it's knees, amid the prospect of an apparent and looming worldwide recession the BHA instead of taking steps to deal with the above two issues, the backbone of the sport they govern, have elected for all the wrong reasons to throw the sport into the public spotlight on the issue of the number of taps a piece of foam makes contact with a horses backside. If you could make it all up, you probably still couldn't. |
|
By:
said the same myself last week, the whip is a side issue
someone was quoting yesterday that the bha are the governing body and so must be obeyed, which is fine if said governing body had an idea what they were doing and were held in high regard by the people who work within or follow racing ... but they arn't the whip issues might get resolved, but the future of racing still lies in the hands of a bunch of incompetents |
|
By:
The inbreds have to be removed. Not fit for purpose.
How thst happens when you are a so called Regulatory Body not answerable to anyone is debatable. We need a Robert Catesby.. (but without the fella in a funny hat) |
|
By:
i reckon ronald mcdonald would be a step up
|
|
By:
lydia 'oxfam' hislop simply can't be taken seriously; her views are contentious and antagonistic, one who would never let the truth get in the way of a good story and, judging by this article, not a proficient journalist given the scripturialism and contextualisation skills of such as james willoughby and that 'dennis' fella. cringe when she comes on RUK and swiftly engage mute. what is she for?
|
|
By:
Studious are Curley and his ilk really doing it within the law?.
The authorities are entitled to enquire into these horses huge improvements in form and its up to them whether to except explanations or not, if they are not happy with explanations then they're entitled to dish out suspensions etc, that they nearly always except explanations or their famous cop out connections explanations were noted, suggests they are spineless wimps allowing a bully like Curley to make a laughing stock of them. How many times would Barney have to explain himself in Hong Kong before he was booted out?. |
|
By:
because her view is different to yours or anyone elses makes her contentious & antagonistic?
i think she speaks alot of sense most of the time, i don't always agree with her but she has an opinion rather than fence sitting and is capable of expressing it |
|
By:
elise - yes i agree with that, she does express her opinion and she is clearly bright and articulate and i think her pieces would be terrific if there didn't appear to be a subtext within them which says, look at me, aren't I good
|
|
By:
Lydia - Oxfam ? what's that all about? Idiot.
|
|
By:
and i think greg wood is terrific and never shirks an issue
|
|
By:
sure hv, i can see she may come across that way at times, but i can also say there have been numerous pundits who would shy off asking the right question of an interviewee and we'd all be saying "i wish lydia had been asking the questions"
|
|
By:
That was the point silver, they are doing things within the law because the 'law' in this instance is an ass.
The likes of Curley et all can get away with it because the governing body and the 'laws' they run the game by are a nonsense. This is the crux of all that is wrong with the game and hence the underlying route problem in racing is the BHA's inability to impose strict and stringent rules on the matters that ARE important, not this whip issue which honestly isn't. You can't blame these trainers for doing what they do, they do what they are allowed to do by the lack of leadership at the helm - they are aided to get away with malpractice by the very people who should be stopping them, an unbelievable situation really. I love my racing, always have and always will - it's in my blood. As such I have an interest in the sport being healthy and one that we can continue to enjoy for years and generations to come. I just think it's a crying shame that the people in charge are so ineffectual in their positions that racing finds itself in the mess that it is currently in. A colleague last week mentioned an old Sporting-life edition someone showed him recently from the 70's, the prize money on an average card was the same as today....if that isn't telling the people who run racing that there is something seriously wrong at present I don't know what is. |
|
By:
don't think they will accept any responsibility for that andy
|
|
By:
Studious I agree with you 100% and whips have nothing whatsoever to do the small prizemoney.
|
|
By:
you have to say the journalists are having a ball with all of this and probably the only winners
|
|
By:
Fwiw Lydia is one of the few people on the media gravy train who cares about racing and is passionate about it.
She's involved in racing because racing is her passion, her media and TV work are direct tangents of that passion not the other way round, unlike some. (most?) I don't always agree with her, find her annoying at times but then who doesn't find someone annoying from time to time who's in the public eye - the important thing is she has her heart in the right place where racing is concerned and is willing to challenge people from time to time - unlike those who never have done, or will. You can't go for the jugular in her position as she has a job to protect too, yes you could say that creates a conflict of interest but no one has ordained her the martyr of racing who should speak out on all that is wrong with the game. I just think if you're going to criticise the girl without having met her, go racing when she's there, ask her for a 5min chat when her shift is done about racing and you'll see what she's about. |
|
By:
Studious_1, hislop cares about one thing, herself, she is the most attention seeking person on tv,imo, you only have to see her in the paddock at goodwood or count the numnber of times she refers to herself, her opinion etc her interviews are so annoying as she so often tries to answer the question before she's asked it or puts a question in a leading way, hence why there is a tension when interviewing Cecil. Her interview with prescott was so disappointing as she didnt push him on anything and just allowed him to run the show and lets not even mention that salisbury interview with hughes a few years ago.
In short she cares aboiut racing because imo thats where she gets her attention. So answer these questions, studious1, why if she is so opinionated does she always agree with mellish ? and when did she work for the racing post as seems to be implied on her ruk description ? |
|
By:
(25) To order that future entries or declarations be not accepted for any horse
the performances of which in their opinion have been unduly inconsistent. (26) To penalise any person who, in their opinion, has been responsible for or has been a party to the unduly inconsistent running of any horse .......................................................................................... Studious the above rules are from the Hong Kong jockey club, wouldn't it be just fantastic if the BHA had a similar rule. Sorry Mr.Curley we can't except your entry, why is that Mr.Entry Man?, your horse has in our opinion been unduly inconsistent. |
|
By:
Silver - agreed, those rules are why there are syndicates in HK who turn over a billion a year and are able to make tens of millions on small percentages. Because they can trust the game is straight. In essence racing in HK is like European football for the big punters and syndicates based over here - because of the integrity of the Premier League and La Liga betting turnover is sensational. Racing can be as healthy over here if the right changes are made but they are big legislative changes, both on the internal rules of the sport and the betting side of things which require sharp and bold minds and there evidently seems little of that substance at the BHA at present.
We can only dream of a similar situation here, unfortunately given who we have running the show and how it's currently run that won't happen any time soon. Rider - I can sense you're not her biggest fan! Listen I'm not going to get into a character assassination on the lass....I've already aired my views plainly. To answer your question, she's opinionated on racing, not on form. Form isn't her speciality, it is however Steve M's. I think he's the best pundit RUK have by a country mile, if she thinks the same then when he gives his opinion on form - she probably feels (rightly so) who is she to disagree given their relative knowledge on the subject matter. As for the second point I have no idea - you will have to ask her that. You're entitled to your opinion on her, as we all are but as I said earlier and it's the last thing I'll say in her defence - I don't think it's fair to judge a person until you've had a chance to meet them and converse with them yourself - I know her and I stand by what I said earlier, she cares about racing and is a genuine person, if I'm wrong then I'm a bad judge of character but that's my belief. |
|
By:
i don't mean to let the facts get in the way of a good story but two things worth mentioning
1. one of the main architects of the new whip rule is an Australian former head stipendiary steward of the HKJC, Jamie Stier, and an extremely competent guy who is also a good horseman and a man of integrity 2. the above rules about consistency have never been invoked, to the best of my knowledge, in the last 21 seasons of HK racing |
|
By:
Sir Mark Prescott & Kieren Fallon: Ban horses who's jockey breaks whip rules:
By Jon Lees racingpost.com KIEREN FALLON on Sunday added further spice to the raging whip debate by arguing that horses ridden by jockeys who break the BHA's new rules should be disqualified. Fallon, who claimed such a move would prevent the need for riders to be handed punishments that now range from five-day suspensions to the withholding of prize-money, was adding his support to a view expressed by Sir Mark Prescott, among others. The trainer, who backed the new maximum permitted limit of seven smacks in a Flat race, said: "I love simple rules, yet now we have a situation whereby breaking the rule can win you a race but cannot lose you a race. That's illogical." In agreement, Fallon said: "The only solution is to do what Sir Mark Prescott suggested and disqualify the horse. Then there would be no rules broken. "It isn't fair that if one person doesn't mind breaking the rules to win the race that the owner, trainer and jockey of the second, whose rider stuck to the rules, has to suffer. There would be no need for suspensions as the jockey would lose everything anyway." Mark Johnston, who sits on the BHA board that last week considered the Professional Jockeys' Association submission that resulted in amendments to the whip rules, believes the issue is now more contentious in jump racing than on the Flat. He said: "The last week has been a triumph for everyone involved because it made so much sense to do something about the rules as they stood. They got done as quickly and as efficiently as could ever have been expected. "I don't think it was anticipated by anybody that it would cause those problems. The biggest issue by far was the furlong pole, which nobody realised the jockeys wouldn't be able to see. Joe Fanning got banned for only the third time in 20 years because he did not see the furlong pole. "There is still an issue over jumps but on the Flat I think it will settle down." |
|
By:
elise - yes that is very true of the interviews i've seen her conduct when i've been in the uk
i would just like to say in defence of a number of the racing journalists, of which i was formerly one, there are loads of them who are passionate about racing and many of these are in-house, ie production guys or subs, oddly the one or two gravy train boys i remember happened to have the bigger jobs, ie the racing correspondents for the bigger-selling papers, but these were in a tiny minority |
|
By:
What a surprise,studious1, "you know her", lol, no bias there then.
I'm sorry to correct you but she agrees with him on all non form related matters too, in my experience. I think i know the answer to the RP one, but most viewers will fall for that, so i suppose thats the game these days. I look forward to her penning a piece about IR betting and the raw deal the ordinary punter gets from racing, lol |
|
By:
btw i rather like this fred as there have been some differences of opinion and so far it has been conducted in a very grown up fashion, Queensberry Rules no less, keep up the good work chaps and chapessess, if only infomaniac was here to add his inimitable touch of humour or zorro to turn up drunk and implode
|