Tom Kerr in today's RP

Do you think it was people who fox-hunt / bull-fight who got fox-hunting / bull-fighting banned?

No Feck. It was a million pound BRIBE by the RSPCA to the Labour party that got fox hunting banned. If it is banned. Don't, for one minute, think this was just public opinion, the Labour Party of Tony Blair sold its soul to anyone with money. Changed the face of our country forever. If you think that is the right way to go, well you're welcome.

Feck, the thought a little furry being ripped apart probably upset our great public. No horse is likely to be injured or die from being encouraged, within the rules, with the pro cushion.

*of a little furry thing

It was a million pound BRIBE by the RSPCA to the Labour party that got fox hunting banned

walofs. Who bunged the Spanish government. Who bunged the Australian govt to ban jumps racing? They did it because they thought it would be popular with the average voter and win them more votes than it would lose them.

Should the banks be upset about outsiders imposing restrictions.

Sometimes you just have to wonder what worlds these journalists live in.

In an almost pythonesque narrative Kerr seems to draw a parallel of the public perception of the woman who put a cat in a wheelie bin and a jockey giving a horse too many reminders - Really ?,well maybe on planet Kerr,but not the general public ive ever met.

Then he seems to suggest that those jockeys who suggest that there is no real evidence of public opposition to the whip were wrong because "the BHA had 2 mailbag of complaints on the issue".Really Mr Kerr,were they those tiny little shoe box mail bags? because as far as i can see the two racing channels have been inundated with opposition to the new whip guidelines,and that even your own paper had so many letters against the new whip guidelines that they state today they no longer able to acknowledge receipt of said letters.

Kerr presses up his view with examples of surveys on the whip - but is it not true that one of those surveys against the whip went from majority to minority when the type of whip was explained and why it was used?

Kerr seems to feel the whip is such an issue that the once a year racegoer are going to be detered, and this would result in a fall in income - but isn't the true facts that attendances are going up not down - seems all these racegoers are not the same racegoer in young Mr Kerrs mind.

Eventually he goes on to say "the public wanted it banned" - er no Mr Kerr the public gave it little or no thought to it until the BHA made the changes,"the racegoer wanted it banned" - er wrong again, going racing is more poular not less,the racegoer is far more interested in admission prices,price of racecourse food and the bouncey castle obscuring the view than how many reminders a horse is given.Finally he gets something right "some in racing wanted it banned" yes that right Mr Kerr a very small minority.

So what do we have, a BHA  who on this issue seem to have a differing view to the majority of those who work in the racing industry and a the sports daily trade paper whose feature writers seem to have a minority view on this issue compared to there own readership.


.


.

Tom Kerr will be writing that rubbish so that he climb the greasy RP pole and emerge into Millingtons inner sanctum.What I cannot understand is why the owners of the fast fading publication are letting the paper decline so rapidly.If events continue at this pace then there will be no racing readership left.All it would then take is for a national daily to offer an alternative edition (for example SportsMirror) still keeping the news content,but no gossip etc with expanded tipping and betting features and there would be no reason for the Racing Post to exist.Before the usual sycophants from Canary Wharf come on shouting "The Sportsman!" that is not the type of paper I have described.A news/sport/betting daily combined is what I would envisage.

Think his 1/2 chinese brother "Wan"  did the poll.

2 recreational punters of my acquaintance have told me they're not betting on the gees under the current whip rules. I found myself wondering whether Sanders had any strikes left and if not, would he stop, on that Wheeler beast last night - can't be right if I'm watching that and not riding out the finish with a backwards turned chair. Let's be brutally honest, the BHA is disenfranchising its core audience, the general public who like a bet to satisfy a barley existent pressure group.

I'd guess the mass public care about whipping for the v. small handful of genuinely national events like the GN/Cheltenham/Royal Ascot. Why not introduce specific rules for those, say w/ whips that light up red after a certain number of swipes and have to be dropped by the jocks?

Kerr refers to the Towcester poll of 500 racegoers - Tom, if you asked the same 500 people if they thought sending a little lamb to an abattoir was right - most would probably say it was wrong because they would perceive it as the "right answer" to give. Yet they'll still be happy to tuck into a lamb roast every other Sunday.

Did Towcester ask the same 500 people if they were offended by the whip, what the hell were they doing there?


Did Towcester try and educate people as to why a whip is necessary (imo)?

No? Thought not.

The mass public are hypocrites who, if it was their tenner on a beast that was leading by a rapidly diminishing 3 lengths round the Elbow, would be urging the jock to beat the shít out of it. Those not interested in the sport previously, and who never will be, should not be dictating the way it moves forward.

going racing is more poular not less

Is that not down to concerts? Hard to see how going is more popular when betting on it is supposedly in free fall.

its more popular at courses both with and without concerts.

I'm tempted to buy myself a little lamb, go and stand outside the BHA HQ, and then onto Towcester on a raceday , and ask 500 passers by / racegoers if they think it's right that this little lamb should be sent to an abattoir?


I wonder how many will say "NO"?!

Who is Tom Kerr i say?

Is that not down to concerts? Hard to see how going is more popular when betting on it is supposedly in free fall.


Maybe thats to do with overkill, Too many meetings that are churning up uncompetitive dross, ive virtually scaled back to Festivals and Saturdays and will watch NH racing until things either change or i can spot a pattern which i can profit from.

The next week will be spent studying the Breeders Cup though, all the info at the fingertips and i'll know that i'll be backing horses who are trying, are talented and more reliable, prepared by the best at the game and will be ridden with purpose

brigust, you make a lot of sense.  Bit pointless railing aginst the non-existent public we hear so much about on a horse racing forum, though.  Details below - kick on.

Write:
RSPCA Enquiries Service
Wilberforce Way
Southwater
Horsham
West Sussex
RH13 9RS

E-Mail:
https://www.rspca.org.uk/myrspca

Phone:
0300 123 4999 / 0300 1234 555

Fax:
0303 123 0100

Hunting Act is Tony Blair's big regret
Tony Blair\'s autobiography

9 September, 2010
Hunting supporters have seized on former Prime Minister Tony Blair’s admission that banning hunting was “one of the domestic legislative measures I most regret”.

They say the comment, in his autobiography A Journey, published last week, is confirmation that the hunting ban should be repealed.

He also states in his book that he was educated about hunting by a "mistress of a hunt near Oxford".

Please don't rail against the RSPCA which is the most pro-racing of all the animal welfare groups.

How much credence can be given to Towcester racegoers when it is free to get in. Some people would stand to watch paint dry if it was free so how does that survey hold water. They need to ask those that at least give a balanced opinion.

I would be quite happy to go back to the old rules but I don't share the popular opinion on here that extra cracks with the whip make any difference to the result of 90% of races, and half of the ones that are affected is because some horses go slower when hit! I do think that a max of 8 cracks in a long chase or hurdle is daft, but 7 in a flat race is plenty. The issue is the penalties which for one extra crack are too high.

Ramruma,

It is the only one that matters though.  They seem to be having a very significant input into this debate.  The last time I looked we were part of the public too - make your voice heard.

Doing nothing or mouthing off on here gets absolutely nothing done.  Agreed?

sageform, I think it depends on the distance of the race on the Flat. Take a look at Spencer's ride Riviera Stars in the 2 mile h'cap at Nottingham. A fine ride to keep the horse in contention, imo, but unfortunately he had none of his 7 'encouragements' left for the final furlong.
Of course, not all horses require 7, but I'd say Spencer required at least 10 in that race to keep his 'lazy' mount competitive.

I'm definitely not railing against the RSPCA, Ramruna. They have their own problems but significantly they do rely on donations from the general public so 'our' public crisis can have a benefit to them.

Feck!

PAL DONATED £1 MILLION TO THE LABOUR PARTY , HOW MUCH DID THE RSPCA DONATE TO PAL? ... Don't forget that the RSPCA gave a massive cash donation to the Labour Party ...

All heresay going by what google brings up brigust. Can't see why the rspca would risk alienating so much of the public by doing so. Sounds like the sort of sh1te you would read on bnp sites.

George, I had a sizeable bet on Riviera Stars. He was beat under the rules. Next time out his form will read as it was able to run under those rules. Why, long run, should it matter to us as punters if it might have won if it had been beat up?

The new pro cushion rules are fine if a horse is a traveller like Harchibald (to use the example given by Barry Geraghty), but if the horse is one who needs 'encouragement' like Brave Inca, for example,  the rules are wrong.

Use of the whip under the old rules would have seen RS give the winner more of a race, imo. The rules are taking the competitiveness out of the sport.

It WILL matter long run to punters because the horses who are known to the ones who travel like 'travelly things' will be a lot shorter in the betting, and horses like RS will be a lot longer because they WON'T be able to win under the new rules.

Not saying RS would have been beaten up, 10 encouragements probably would have been sufficient throughout the 2 mile race to give the horse every chance of winning.

It WILL matter long run to punters because the horses who are known to the ones who travel like 'travelly things' will be a lot shorter in the betting, and horses like RS will be a lot longer because they WON'T be able to win under the new rules.

You say it will matter but don't say why. Are punters allergic to travelers starting short or horses that can't be given the necessary beating long? I know I'm allergic to having horses beat in a photo by horses that have been gambled on and given a lot more "encouragement" than mine has. It's still happening even though it's supposedly against the rules.

I did say why - less competitive markets because it will be known certain horses can't win under the new rules.

Never mind, feck, in future we can watch horses like Harchibald cruise home at 1-3 in the Champion Hurdle. Enjoy your £30,000 - £10,000.

Mind, not sure how many feckers will be their to watch it. I won't be, for one.

*there

As you have raised the question about polls. If the simple question of whether you were for or against horses being hit with a whip was put to every adult in the country what do you think the reply would be?

I would suspect it would be something like 80-90% against - that is indicative of how out of touch the horse racing bubble is.

A gross exaggeration George but you can have as much 1/3 Harchibald in a whipless (far less 8 hit) champion hurdle as you want. Regardless of whip or no whip, it's about opinions and in that respect nothing would change.

drum, how many will be against sending my little lamb to the slaughterhouse?

Oh, and btw, did Towcester ask those 500 racegoers if they thought it was right a horse should be asked to risk its life jumping an obstacle?

No? I bet they feckin' didn't. Why stop at the whip? Jump racing will be next.

And after they have gotten rid of jump racing, they can go back and ask the same 500 if they think it's cruel that horses should be sent to the slaughterhouse - because that's where most of them will be heading, thanks to public perception.