Well done Donn McClean and Colin Russell in today's Post

I'm not in total agreement with the new whip rules myelf, but do you think for a second any racing journalist would go out on a limb in full support of the BHA brigust?, it would be the equivalent of committing hari kari on the gravy train.
Believe me they know what side their bread is buttered.
They're all trying to outdo each other in defence of the jockeys, perfect opportunity for some of those hacks that haven't quite made it to the first class carriage on the gravy train to make that lucrative step.

By the way b1, surprised to see you post that about Russell's piece, after all he is essentially accepting and defending the new rules.

RSPCA Statement:

RSPCA equine consultant David Muir said: “These rule changes are of deep concern to the RSPCA. Horse welfare should come first, not commercial pressures.

“When the RSPCA instigated this review process we were promised a change of culture in the way that jockeys use the whip.

“If we see that this is not the case, and in particular if we see the whip being used the maximum number of times after the last jump or in the final furlong, then we will seek at least a return to the rules set following the review.

“The public is extremely concerned about this issue. Jockeys should realise the depth of this feeling and ensure they follow the rules and keep their use of the whip to a minimum.”

quite so
when the RSPCA says 'jump'the BHA says 'how high'

Oh and another question....

c) If and when the RSPCA comes knocking again in about 12 months time or whenever, will the BHA and Mr Russell be willing to meekly stand aside again and allow the RSPCA? to re-write the rules regarding the whip - telling us that it's what the public wants?

Wolf a former colleague of mine is a senior figure in the RSPCA,fronted many tv adverts for them over the past few decades.

A decent bloke who is a genuine animal lover.I took him to task a couple of years ago about the sinister political intonations emanating from the RSPCA.

No longer a simple charitable organisation and about time someone in Government stood up and put them back in their place.

My former colleague stayed silent when taken to task which imo told me all I needed to know.Getting too big for their boots and need to be reigned in and told to concentrate on helping suffering animals or their charity status will be withdrawn.

Sorry George I've been out. Note I never said I agreed with their views or findings. I've made mine pretty clear. I just thought they were heartfelt and pointed. No woolly edges. They just read as if neither were trying to suck up to some group or other or just writing with an agenda.
After all there has been some complete sh@yt written and spoken in the last few week.

Did you hear that Redvers geezer? Good grief.

I have always been bewildered as to how Colin Russell has managed to make  a long living from racing 'journalism' - and, worse still, so-called tipstering.

Telephone Conversation between RSPCA and Animal Rights before the rules were announced.

RSPCA: That was a good meeting. Do you think they fell for it?
An Rights: Don't know. That Roy bloke and Steir geezer didn't look that knowledgable. They could have.

RSPCA: Yes but, they wouldn't really fall for it. Would they?
An Rights: We will have to wait and see.

When the rules are launched.

RSPCA: They've f00king fell it. Have you heard? They f00king fell for it.
An Rights. Get in. REEEESULT.

b1, I missed the Redvers interview, though I did see some posts on here about it which seemed to suggest he had retracted his 'threat' to jockeys.

Russell's piece is good until the last 3 paragraphs - then it's:

"We should count ourselves fortunate that a rider can still use their whip, even an air cushioned one...Had the BHA not amended its rules the lobby groups would have taken over...They may well have insisted that use of the whip was banned altogether"

Is Russell saying that it's the RSPCA who decides the whip rules and the BHA are being threatened with total ban?

Colin, how about the BHA standing up for 'racing' and educating the public as to why a whip is needed? That a whip is needed for safety and therefore a total ban may never be enforced legally.

Well George I would have to say if the RSPCA had drawn up the rules these are almost exactly what they would do. They are not stupid. They wouldn't go for a complete ban to start with. This looks like a long term target. They will be looking for a time when AP, Ruby and BG aren't riding any more. They are the current figureheads. On the Fat we have Hughes, Moore, Fallon et al.
By reducing the number increasingly eventually they will stop the use altogether.

In a normal world I would have no problem with that but in the betting world that would not be acceptable. With current prize money of the non-Group races so poor the only way it can be made to pay is gambling. From what I've seen in the last couple of weeks there is no way of knowing whether a horse is trying or not. Personally I don't bet in races lower than Grade 4 anyway because of this risk but there are a lot that do and the levy depends upon it.
As an example in the Hcap Hurdle at Chepstow today a jockey put his whip down after the last and went from 3rd to 4th. I have no idea whether he should have been 3rd or 4th and that is not acceptable.

Yes they are fine dealing with Harriet and James, but dealing with Ashram and Avram might be one step too far..

It looks that way, b1. An agenda which will eventually only allow the whip to be used for safety reasons, imo.

Transgression of the rules is unlikely to be totally eradicated and if they weren't satisfied with with the less than 1% under the old rules, they will never be happy until the whip is outlawed.

STOP making donations to them.

Liberator the only reason they pursue these higher profile issues is because it gives them the publicity they need to survive and to get donations without paying for advertising. Oxfam relies on natural disasters while the RSPCA rely on human disasters like the BHA. Under any other circumstance I would question the whole reason behind this and who is getting paid what.
Sadly I believe Paul Roy and Jamie Steir are just incompetent. To suggest there is some other agenda is to give them more credit than they deserve.

This process will go knowhere until these two are gone. Simple as that.

I actually got my hands on yesterdays post this morning, I read both articles, Russell is a complete dinosaur everything about the article was old school, he's institutionalized so I ignore anything they have to say.
McClean does at times come across as a gravy trainer but his article yesterday was in fact quite sensible, his argument about disqualification makes perfect sense to me, why shouldn't you be disqualified for breaking the rules??.