Ruby not to ride in England

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
cyclonic111 said:
In regards to what the riders did or did not know, I'm 100pc behind Grizz. That they came out so publicly in support of the new rules, says it all.
Click to expand...

To me it seems like the BHA actually managed to execute their unveiling pretty well. It appears the jockeys (and therefore surely the trainers as well) were told that these rules are going to be in the best interests of the sport, they are basically like this (with no precise details), will you please support them now? You will notice that a lot of the early supportive messages were very vague as regard to the details so i think they must be taken with at least a pinch of salt . . . I'm prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps the reason why they have removed their previous views is that they felt misled by the BHA. That appears to be the feeling that i am picking up . . .

I might be wrong and they all thought they were wonderful. They're now backtracking and trying to remove all evidence of their previous view.

I myself was slightly taken along by the hype and thought they were largely workable but in hindsight can accept that i was wide of the mark. Perhaps some of the big names fell foul of the same mistake.


Edit: As Princess says above.
 
PrincessNewmarket said:
Grizzly, the suggestion I have heard is that the BHA applied pressure on people to toe the party line without letting people see the proposals in detail.
Click to expand...

Thanks PN, but that compounds matters even more in that our champion trainer, jockey (and reigning BBC sports personality of the year) and a host of others were all niaive enough to publicly offer support to something they know nothing about.
I can understand the BHA asking influencial people to offer support but if someone asked me to offer my support to a mid African country I'd never heard of I'd probably want to make sure its' rulers aren't power crazed lunatics with enough weapons to start another world war before tweeting what a great bunch of guys they are and how we should all embrace them....
 
I am led to believe that the suggestion is some details were revealed but some of the more controversial aspects were glossed over . . .

i.e. The BHA, when seeking an endorsement from the racing big shots, kept the aspects they were likely to dislike to themselves.

This may have been naive on the part of those offering their endorsement but you cannot blame them too much considering they were hardly expecting to be 'done over' by their own regulatory authority. Clearly in hindsight it looks like a mistake but at the time it probably seemed a perfectly logical decision.
 
Zen - agreed, but the biggest fundemental issue surrounding the new whip rules for NH jockeys is the maximum 8 per race, the 5 from the last obstacle being almost as relevant.
How much of this info was kept from those the BHA were asking to provide vocal support ?
There's only so much information there....
 
I'm beginning to wonder who in the racing industry the BHA did consult. Seems like they only consulted with the animal rights types
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back