Racehorse TALK

Actually that is like watching a nature film and seeing an animal killed by a predator, its for food so its slighly different, its not quite entertainment.

What's Bob "Windsock"  Bentley's position on this today, I wonder.........

Autho........given the choice of being given a mild whipping for the entertainment of others, and dying to finish up in your fish'n'chips....its a no-brainer 

CAN THE RSPCA PUBLISH ITS SUBMISIONS TO THE uARB, PLEASE?

Neither the racing industry nor the community may ever know the full story on the new whip rules.

In particular, while the RSPCA has taken advantage of carnival week to run a media campaign intended to prohibit the use of a whip in racing, the RSPCA is yet to publish a considered analysis of the issues: whatever ‘evidence’ it may have provided to the uARB has been kept confidential -- there may not be much of substance there.

What emerged again this week was more unsubstantiated loose comment:

We also need to quash any suggestion that the whip doesn't hurt the horse. If it didn't, they wouldn't be used. The padded whip certainly hurts less than the whip being used last season, but it still hurts. There is no evidence to suggest that it doesn't.

What emerged also during the debate was comment unbecoming a responsible national organization – ponder this tripe:

“today the ARB has voted to increase animal cruelty. ......... it's about the industry refusing to put the welfare of horses first .........not even to show the community that they recognise they need to change and at least reduce their reliance on whips---- horses are just a vehicle to make money .............their ‘flog it to win it' attitude is archaic and says nothing about the industry's understanding of horse behaviour.”

Is anyone ashamed of saying those things?

Lest this nonsense run on and on, could the RSPCA give the racing industry guidance on the design of a riding-aid device that it would find acceptable – and would it negotiate with jockeys to finalize an acceptably workable design?

[And, lest we forget, all the initial comment from the industry said the new ‘whip’ did not hurt – on what basis does the come-lately commentator say different, please?]

Last week on the RSPCA web site there was a call to arms, those going to the races were asked to carry a ‘no whip’ placard: the ‘call’ had a sexist overtone (apparently aimed at gentlewomen) and was doomed to failure – has anyone seen an on course patron with a ‘no whip’ placard?  -- today, no longer able to find the ‘call’ entry on the RSPCA website, I ask has the ‘call’ been discreetly deemed a flop?

One thing the RSPCA did say this week was  “it must be remembered that the new whip rules were initiated by the industry itself...”    By implication the RSPCA has been a come-lately passenger on a bandwagon driven by the uARB itself.

As for the uARB, it also should come clean on the origins of its decision to change the rules on whips in racing. It is possible that the uARB  a body ‘in control’ of no-one-knows-what, was just looking to make a display of contrived authority.  One thing for sure, the backing and filling of the uARB ever since the policy was deemed unworkable on day one has further eroded its claims to credibility. [Having been set up, and then put down humiliatingly, the stewards in NSW would, for one, be very cross little puppies.]


........here comes the cavalry: a well deserved rejoinder from the jockeys

As reported today, Victorian Jockeys’ Association chief executive Des O'Keeffe said:

It's extremely disappointing that the RSPCA would use a false premise to further their cause .........it's wrong and demeaning to jockeys.......it's cheap grandstanding by an organisation that should know better............it does their organisation no favours whatsoever.
We are meeting with (the RSPCA) on Monday and the No. 1 item on the agenda is their credibility.

That seems to be well and fairly said.

This debate is not over.

WHAT HAPPENED AT THE MEETING LAST MONDAY,  PLEASE?

If it was notable enough to say that a meeting was being convened between the RSPCA and the Jockeys' Association

                                                                                                                   ........... it is reasonable for punters to be let in on the outcome.

Everyone lying doggo does not fix a fundamental problem with the changed whip rules  -- the punters want to know when a jockey is prepared to wear a fine.

If the stewards 'rules' about disclosure of changed riding tactics mean anything, the punters want to know when a jockey is prepared to have a lash, so to speak.

AN ENTRENCHED LACK OF RESPECT FOR JOCKEYS

The Herald Sun carries two stories this morning consistent with jockeys being overworked in a sacrifice to mammon and subjected to whimsical authority in doing their job.

One story is about RVL being committed to low-grade running races at Moonee Valley on Friday nights -- presumably catering for the younger set looking for somewhere to get started before the bands kick in at the pubs. Reports from the carnival suggest it is about time RVL imposed, and enforced, a rule that requires patrons to leave the course if their randomly tested blood alcohol content exceeds 0.1%.

The second story simply says the new whip rules are not working, as everyone predictably knew thay would not.

Whip rules fail. Figures obtained by the Herald Sun on the latest interpretation of the whip rule, which came into play on AFL Grand Final day, reveal it is unravelling. And all the indications are it's getting worse. More jockeys have been fined in the first two weeks of November than in the first five weeks of the interpretation.

Neither of these situations reflect well on RVL -- it is exposed as running a mercenary agenda, it is exposed as a body with no concept of product quality and no principled  intention of managing product quality in the best interests of the punters and jockeys.

POPULAR DECISIONS FIRST -- SUPPORTING RESEARCH LATER

Just as I suspected some months ago, it seeems that the introduction of new whips and new rules on their use was a decision of the uARB which was driven by the visual presentation of 'apparent cruelty' to horses in race telecasts.

My contact with the RSPCA suggested it had not been the initiator on the changes but was co-opted to support the decision made by the uARB and that has apparently been confirmed by the RSPCA since.

The latest reaction to clear evidence of the rules 'not working' and 'working perversely' is for the RSPCA to commission some professional academic assessments (see page 2 of the this mornings SMH formguide). Where does the RSPCA get the money to pay for that 'research'.

As reported the plan hatched by the RSPCA and the UARB is so compromised by their prior decisions as to render the likely conclusions questionable even before they are written.

If there is to be any independent research done to guide Australia it should surely be done overseas and focus on those jurisdictions which still use 'old style whips' and permit use of them 'without restriction'.

The key question for any research intended to be portrayed as 'independent' is surely whether a persuasive case can be made for another jurisdiction to follow the 'lead' which the uARB believes it has given to the world.

This whole fiasco is the very sort of thing which happens when a body with faux national aspirations, but no real power actually delegated by the states, looks for ways to aggrandize itself with campaigns it imagines will be applauded as popularly politically correct -- it has predictably come unstuck big time.

...........and now they want us to believe that 'research' commissioned to assess the decision they made will be credibly independent: the RSPCA should save its money and tell the uARB to call tenders for such research to be done overseas,  truly independently. The key question is: can the uARB convince other countries to change their rules?

While waiting for this Godot to arrive, the use of the new whip should be allowed without restriction of any kind.

Correct DD

THE STEWARDS HAVE BEEN IN THEIR COUNTING HOUSE AGAIN


.................there must be something more useful for stewards to do than the following whip-toll from their reports this week suggests.

C Munce............ suspended for two race dates................more than five occasions prior to the 100m

P Ferris was fined the sum of $200 ...........two consecutive occasions prior

P Ferris was fined the sum of $200................seven occasions

C Symons rider of Constant was fined the sum of $200 ............ three times more than is permissible.

B Shinn rider of Umatain was fined $200 .... four times more than permissible.

D Nikolic rider of Pretty (NZ) was reprimanded ........... two consecutive strides prior to the 100m.

C Newitt rider of Berringama was fined the sum of $300 .......... four times more than is permissible.

S King rider of Playwright was fined $200 .............. five times more than permissible.

D Nikolic rider of Lucky Thunder was severely reprimanded ......... five consecutive strides times prior to the 100m.

Geez....the "Poor Form Guide" of the RSPCA will be chockers. 

THE RSPCA WILL BE USING FEWER STROKES ITSELF

While nothing was said about the jockeys meeting with the RSPCA last Monday, the subsequent decision of the RSPCA to commission some 'research' on whip use, after the horse has bolted, suggests two things -- one that gerbils can be very irritating and second that they may be ruing being led into a foolish alliance with the uARB that is ever more embarassing.

Silence may be golden but it is about time the boy from Damascus,  Bob the Boss,  emerged from hiding to speak up and relieve the stewards of their counting housse duties.

While some will disagree, the stewards are not as silly as sometimes portrayed -- their appaently devout attention to their counting-pennance suggests they working-to-rule to make sure Bob and his boys do not get off lightly when the rules are amended again.

The stewards know how to deal with people who show a lack of respect for their proper responsibilities.

Different strokes for different folks, I say. 

This issue has seemingly died a bit lately.

Was it just an issue when implemented because it was new, or are jockeys playing by the rules?