BETFAIR AND THE BLOODHORSE ILLITERATE BRITISH HORSERACING GOVERNMENT AGREE £40m FUNDING DEAL

http://www.turfcall.co.uk

Bill Barber for the Racing Post

"BHA's historic Betfair deal worth £40m. Move sees racing pull out of judicial review ....

BETFAIR and THE BLOODHORSE ILLITERATE BRITISH HORSERACING GOVERNMENT AGREE £40m FUNDING DEAL .

By racingpost.com staff 12:32 pm 4 JUL 2012

"We firmly believe both in the value of British racing as a product and the need to work closely with the betting industry for our mutual benefit.

"The £40m deal is supported by the Horsemen's Group and Racecourse Association, and the headline figure is a minimum guarantee.

"If Betfair's profits on British racing increase beyond an agreed compound growth rate, then so will the money the sport receives from the company.

"The deal is likely to  be seen as the pathfinder to the sort of commercial arrangements that the government has been seeking to encourage between racing and the betting industry."

http://www.racingpost.com/news/horse-racing/betfair-and-bha-agree-40m-funding-deal/1066013/latest/#newsArchiveTabs=last7DaysNews

J Margaret Clarke Turfcall Comment

THE BRITISH 'BLOODHORSE ILLITERATE POLITICAL AND HORSERACING

GOVERNMENT .MUST WAKE UP TO THE FACT THAT

 WITHOUT THE BLOODHORSE LITERATE ACHIEVERS THERE WILL

 BE NO BRITISH HORSERACING AT ALL.

Where do  the "BLOODHORSE LITERATE" achievers fit in to the present structure of British Horseracing ?

There is not even a true Bloodhorse Literate Career Structure in place. Why?

There is no wage structure according to skills achieved . This is a scandal

Licensed trainers are left to train their staff as well as the owners' horses, this is impossible .

Trainers teams need to be better even than football teams.

Looks like the BLOODHORSE LITERATE ACHIEVERS are surplas to requirements in such a deal as this.  As has been found to be the case over the last 6 decades. Nothing new there then .....

 HOW WILL  A  £40m FUNDING DEAL  BE SPENT? AND WHO WILL BE IN CHARGE OF THE PURSE STRINGS, THE BLOODHORSE ILLITERATE?

The first thing on the agenda that these two governments,  bookmakers, racecourses  and punters need to take on board is to acknowledge the correct perspective within the 'Lot' of the 'Bloodhorse Literate' .

This opens up a whole spectrum of issues that have been pushed aside, swept briskly under government plush carpet,  key safety horsemanship issues that have been ignored over decades by Bloodhorse Illiterate Governments.

Now seen to be manifesting itself  out on British racetracks with horses losing their lives in races, left lying dead or dying out on the racetracks. This is horrendous Bloodhorse Illiteracy in action.

Will this £40m go into a general funding kitty never to be heard of again?

Will this £40m go into everything bar 'Zone Bloodhorse Literacy? Bloodhorse Illiteracy that steps straight out of the pages written by  Charles Dickens, and Anna Sewell?

BRITISH HORSERACING AUTHORITY CALLED TO ACCOUNT OVER BLOODHORSE ILLITERACY WITHIN THEIR GOVERNMENT

 RACING POST REPORTS AS FOLLOWS

RP Thursday May 24th 2012

GRAHAM GREEN "FITZSIMONS GIVES UP PURSUIT OF

LEGAL COSTS .....

"PAUL FITZSIMONS, who last December emerged from the biggest corruption investigation in the history of British racing without a stain on his character, has been forced to admit defeat in his bid to recover a proportion of the legal costs of close to £90,000 he incurred in clearing his name.

The BHA slammed the door to any further discussion of the issue when informing the jockey-turned-trainer he will not receive a penny after the disciplinary panel decided he was not unfairly treated. There is no appeal against the ruling.

"Fitzsimons, who was acquitted of being part of a conspiracy, of supplying inside information and of deliberately riding to lose on IT'S A MANS WORLD at Lingfield at Lingfield in February 2009, exhausted his life savings to fight the case and is angry at being refused ant recompense from the governing body that brought the charges against him.

"KIRSTY MILCZAREK, who was involved in the same inquiry and had her two- year ban overturned last month, is also understood to be planning to seek compensation for her legal expenses, but is likely to channel her claim through the BHA's appeal board, which can sanction payments up to £20,000, a route denied Fitzsimons, as he was found not guilty on all counts.

"His plight not only highlights an apparent contradiction in how racing's disciplinary process operates, but also looks certain to produce renewed calls for the creation of a central fund to help meet defence costs in the most serious cases heard by the BHA, a move advocated by the Professional Jockeys Association.

" Fitzsimons, who retired from the saddle to concentrate on training at Saxton Gate Stables in Lambourn following the death of his partner Julia Tooth in December 2010, has been advised by his legal team that pursuing a case through the civil courts would offer little prospect of success and that he could be ordered to pay the BHA's costs if unsuccessful.

"I've no money left so there is nothing I can do but accept it, although I'm very unhappy," said Fitzsimons, "I would have been hung, drawn and quartered had I not fought the charges and my legal team were brilliant, so in that respect the money was well spent, but I believe I am entitled to at least some of it back as I hadn't done anything wrong."

"Fitzsimons, who had to remortgage his home, has been forced to stop work on the new boxes being built in his yard as he was anticipating a cheque from the BHA to finish the project.

"He added: I'm delighted Kirsty won her appeal and good luck to her if she gets compensation, but I don't even get a sniff at the door and that can't be right. I would bite the BHA's hand off if they offered me £20,000, but from the email I got from them I won't be getting anything."

"In a statement, the BHA said: "The disciplinary panel received an application for costs from Paul Fitzsimons . In his own application Mr Fitzsimons does not contend that there is any provision in the rules which empowers the panel to make any award of costs against the BHA.

"However, it is also true that Mr Fitzsimons was not treated unfairly in being proceeded against by the BHA, and if the panel did have the power to award costs to people treated unfairly, it would not exercise it in this case."

"The statement added: Fitzsimons relies essentially on the fact that he always gave a clear and consistent account of his ride of' IT'S A MANS WORLD and that the evidence against him did not change from the outset of the investigation. But it falls way short of establishing unfair treatment. The panel felt he had a serious case to answer on the basis of the material put before it by the BHA. Although the panel came to a different conclusion about Fitzsimons' ride than the BHA advocate, the BHA's contentions were neither improper nor based on flimsy grounds."

J MARGARET CLARKE TURFCALL COMMENT - CALLING INTO QUESTION

THIS BHA QUOTE

"THE BHA's CONTENTIONS WERE NEITHER IMPROPER NOR BASED ON

FLIMSY GROUNDS ... "

THIS IS actually a case of improper BHA justice/judgement based upon flimsy grounds, due to the fact that the BHA disciplinary panel are all Bloodhorse Illiterate so this immediately places all the issues in contention out of context.

The BHA are punishing people for achieving True Professional Bloodhorse Literacy in their own right, both In the Saddle and Out of the Saddle, both in Theory and in Practice. For this reason the BHA's working practices are redundant, estranged, not fit for purpose.How much damage money do the BHA owe Paul Fitzsimons? And all the others who have been prosecuted unjustly same?

TURFCALL - JOIN UP - KEEPING WATCH OVER OVER

THE BRITISH HORSERACING AUTHORITY

http://turfcall2.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/british-horseracing-authority-called-to.html 

BHA  FAILED WORKING PRACTICES

 THROUGH BLATANT BLOODHORSE ILLITERACY

BRITISH HORSERACING GOVERNMENT  - - OUT OF CONTEXT

 OUT OF BOUNDS

By Graham Green 7:52AM 20 OCT 2011 Jockeys could be banned in new corruption case

"JOCKEYS Paul Doe, Greg Fairley, Kirsty Milczarek, Jimmy Quinn and rider-turned-trainer Paul Fitzsimons all face the prospect of being banned from racing following the latest corruption inquiry, which commences at the BHA headquarters in London on Thursday.

"All five are charged with conspiring to commit a corrupt or fraudulent practice, passing information for reward and deliberately not riding a horse to obtain the best possible placing for personal reward, or in the knowledge it had been laid to lose, an offence for which the penalty is a disqualification of five to 25 years.

"All insist they are innocent of any wrongdoing concerning the ten races at Lingfield, Wolverhampton, Kempton, Bath and Catterick in 2009 in which horses were laid to lose through exchange accounts with Betdaq and Betfair held by six associates of registered racehorse owners Maurice Sines and James Crickmore, all of whom face corruption charges.

"The inquiry could not have come at a worse time for the BHA as it grapples to resolve the controversy surrounding the introduction of the new whip rules and penalties.

"Details of another two corruption cases were due to be made public this week, but the announcement has been delayed with the BHA unwilling to volunteer information guaranteed to bring more negative headlines for the sport.

"Ten days have been set aside for the hearing, although, due to the complicated nature of the case, the accused can expect to wait beyond that before learning their fates as the disciplinary panel is likely to require time to consider its verdicts.

"Fairley faces three charges of intentionally failing to ensure that his horse ran on its merits, Doe two and Quinn, Milczarek and Fitzsimons one each, and all are alleged to have communicated directly or indirectly to one or more betting exchange accountholders, for material reward, gift, favour or benefit in kind, information relating to the prospects of the horses named.

"All the jockeys have continued to ride, with differing levels of success, since the charges were announced five months ago when the BHA was compelled to act after rumours of impending prosecutions sparked fevered press speculation and cast a shadow over the whole weighing room.

"Sines and Crickmore no longer have horses in training, but both are expected to be legally represented at the hearing from which the media is barred from attending.

 ENDS

BRITISH GOVERNMENT INCLUDING THE BRITISH HORSERACING GOVERNMENT STARKLY OUT OF TOUCH

J MARGARET CLARKE TURFCALL COMMENT
  http://turfcalllinks.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/british-government-and-british.html

 

THE BRITISH PEOPLE and all those living within the UK are not getting a politically sound or  fair deal within their every day environment – the Rip -off- Britain - environment -

Both David Cameron and Nick Clegg are nothing more than young pawns in a rotten system expected to pick up the pieces and adapt themselves to carry on along the wrong road the same as those before them and in doing so push us all to include the horses even further into a cruel decline. How is the present political system and the present horseracing system allowed to continue on blighting peoples daily lives to include the horses so badly?

All foundation structures still in use within the British political system and the British horseracing system belong to a different era – to the cruel past. We do not want a cruel present but that is what we are lumbered with - but why should we or the horses be lumbered in this dishonest and cruel way, by two government's so completely out of touch?

None more starkly observed than on the very first Champions Day at Ascot on October 15^th2011 when Christophe Sumillon received a punishment from the British regulators so unbelievably severe - the cruel past manifesting itself in the cruel present a diabolical error. No way is this good enough, and no way can it ever be acceptable to anyone to include the horses.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/horse-racing/15323708

HORSERACING A UNIQUE AND REMARKABLE SPORT

THE STARK REALITY OF A BRITISH BLOODHORSE ILLITERATE HORSERACING AUTHORITY

http://www.turfcall.co.uk

J. MARGARET CLARKE TURFCALL COMMENT

RICHARD HUGHES yesterday was represented by barrister Trevor Howarth at a BHA disciplinary hearing in London relating to issues imposed by the Royal Western Indian Turf Club for failing to ride to instructions during a race at Mahalaxmi racecourse in Mumbai in February. These instructions .... is anyone allowed to know whether they where bloodhorse literate instructions? Or where they bloodhorse illiterate instructions?

Hughes in loosing his appeal in India had hoped the BHA'S disciplinary panel (we are not given their names) would not reciprocate a hearing suspension.

Hughes said "I'm disappointed, it is an important time of the season. We have eight horses entered in the Guineas and we want to know which is our Guineas horse. I want to wait until

the disciplinary panel release the reasons for its decision before deciding whether another course of action to challenge the ban needs to be taken, but yesterday the BHA could only confirm the verdict."

Hughes said "Until we have seen the reasons provided by the disciplinary panel following their decision to uphold the suspension imposed by the Royal Western India Turf Club it is not possible for the BHA to comment any  further. The BHA is one of about 50 authorities who are signatories to the International Racing Agreement and as such the BHA is committed to reciprocating penalties imposed on licensees by recognised racing authorities providing that the disciplinary process is procedurally fair."

Professional Jockeys Association chief executive Paul Struthers accused the BHA of taking an "adversarial approach" by having a barrister present the RWITC's findings and said: "we have to wait for the reasons from the panel but I have to say I struggle to comprehend how India can expect reciprocation when they don't sign up to the international agreement in full. Part of that agreement is that people are entitled to legal representation, but in India they are not.

"This isn't a decision Richard can take to the appeal board so his only other recourse is to the courts, which would be hugely expensive and time consuming. It's something we need to look at and other jockeys need to be aware of."

The British legal justice system is firmly wedged in the cruel past, serving no one honestly in the cruel present, with an estimated 75 per cent of the people unable to afford to use even, or afford the time the present court procedures take to be manipulated by the lawyers  to actually get around to do anything at all either. Lawyers who feather their own nests financially throughout to suit no one else but themselves. The longer they take the more they earn. Should lawyers be earning such excessive monies at all? Is this earning or a scam? Or is this just another in the long list of Rip-Off- Britain issues?

The British bloodhorse illiterate horseracing authority has no business to be regulating horseracing in this country or anywhere else in the first place because they have no knowledge of bloodhorse literacy and appear totally unaware that bloodhorse literacy exists even.

http://www.turfcall.co.uk/montypage.htm 

TAKING A CLOSER LOOK AT LAST YEARS GRAND NATIONAL SATURDAY APRIL 9th 2011

http://www.turfcall.co.uk

SATURDAY APRIL 30th 2011.

http://turfcallmorningline.blogspot.com/2011/04/c4-morning-line-755am-to-855am-every.html

J MARGARET CLARKE TURFCALL COMMENT  

BRITISH HORSERACING AUTHORITY (BHA) PERSONNEL PUT ON TO REVIEW THE USE OF THE WHIP AS FOLLOWS:-

CHRIS BRAND, BHA BLOODHORSE ILLITERATE ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE FOR BHA.

JAMIE STIER, BHA BLOODHORSE ILLITERATE DIRECTOR OF RACEDAY OPERATIONS

TIM MORRIS BHA BLOODHORSE ILLITERATE PROFESSOR OF EQUINE SCIENCE AND WELFARE.

PAUL STRUTHERS BHA BLOODHORSE ILLITERATE HEAD OF COMMUNICATIONS.

PROFESSOR TIM MORRIS, BLOODHORSE ILLITERATE MADE A RECENT APPEARANCE ON THE MORNING LINE. SEATED NEXT TO TOP PROFESSIONAL BLOODHORSE LITERATE HORSEMAN JOHN (FRANCS) FRANCOME. WHO LOOKED THROUGHOUT ILL AT EASE THROUGHOUT, FAR TO POLITE TO SAY ANYTHING AT ALL HIMSELF.

TURFCALL CALLS THE BHA INTO QUESTION AS TO THE SUITABILITY OF THE FOLLOWING BLOODHORSE ILLITERATE PEOPLE EMPLOYED BY THE BHA BRAND, STIER, MORRIS AND STRUTHERS WHOM THEY ARE PLACING IN CHARGE OF A WHIP REVIEW WHICH BHA STATE WILL TAKE THEM 5 MONTHS TO COMPLETE..

WHAT WOULD BRAND, STIER, MORRIS AND STRUTHERS KNOW ABOUT HANDLING AND RIDING OUT THOROUGHBRED RACEHORSES PLACED WITH LICENSED TRAINERS BY OWNERS?

CAN BRAND, STIER, MORRIS AND STRUTHERS RIDE TO THE STANDARD REQUIURED OF A PROFESSIONALLY LICENCED JOCKEY?

DO BRAND, STIER, MORRIS AND STRUTHERS KNOW HOW TO HOLD A WHIP FOR STARTERS?

CAN BRAND, STIER, MORRIS AND STRUTHERS CONFIRM THE PURPOSE OF A WHIP?

ARE BRAND, STIER, MORRIS AND STRUTHERS ABLE TO SET OUT ON PAPER A LIST OF EXAMPLES AS TO WHEN AND HOW A WHIP CAN FAIRLY AND REASONABLY COME INTO PLAY?

PAUL EACOTT REPORTS FOR THE RACING POST TODAY

SATURDAY APRIL 30th 2011

FINDINGS INTO WHIP REVIEW TO BE MADE KNOWN BY OCTOBER REPORTS.“
J MARGARET CLARKE COMMENT FOR TURFCALL IN RED
“Any changes to the way the whip is used in British horseracing will come into place in October after an extensive review has taken place, the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) announced yesterday. So what is to happen in the 5 months in between? Plus how is it that the British regulators have not bothered to do anything about this whip issue long ago? Decades ago? It could be said that the British regulators have sat back and allowed horses to be abused by the whip …turning a blind eye …for a very long time .... they have been negligent in their regulation duties.

“The BHA board approved a timetable for the whip review on Thursday that will result in the findings being published, and agreed actions implemented, by October.

A separate review into the Grand National will be conducted over a similar timescale. There is a big difference in the financial angle between the winner of the Grand National and the horse that is placed second, is there not …?


OK for a jockey to risk using his whip to ensure he can collect the biggest prize, risking the likelihood of a few days suspension for a whip related punishment …
“ Chris Brand, acting chief executive for the BHA said ‘We have already announced that we are taking a lead on the reviews into acceptable whip use and the Grand National. As the sport’s regulator, it is our natural role to do so. So how is it that what you term here to be ‘your natural role’ you have not bothered about this whip issue before now?

For years, decades Mr Brand British regulators have shown negligence beyond all belief over this one serious issue alone. You have allowed young riders to be led astray, to develop bad habits.

“Both reviews will be concluded by October. They are crucial for the sport, and it is vital that our approach is considered and measured, and that we spend the time it requires in getting it right. How can you possibly in your wildest dreams believe that you can put this right whilst you have sat back and let it go on getting worse and worse daily? How can you believe that you can kid yourselves that you will be able to put this issue right when you are all bloodhorse illiterate?

“Determining how the whip is best regulated within racing for the overall good of the sport is without doubt the most far-reaching issue. You Mr Brand to determine this? Impossible.
You will need to employ true Bloodhorse Literate achievers to put this one right, and keep it right in the future, you owe this to all the young ones who may choose a career in horseracing. EG you need true horsemen as Yogi Breisner, as Monty Roberts Henry Cecil Sir Michael Stoute, John Gosden,Rachel Hood, top professionals who most definately do know about the needs and welfare of thoroughbred horses placed in training.
The kindness and skills of true horseman. The knowing when a horse is settled confident and happy.


“The reviews will be led by BHA director of raceday operations Jamie Stier, working with the BHA director of equine science and welfare Professor Tim Morris and head of communications Paul Struthers. These people you state here Mr Brand are all totally incompetent in any and all matters related to the use of the whip.
“Steir said: ‘We should not lose sight of the fact Britain has led the way among major racing nations in its rules on acceptable whip use and on the introduction of the cushioned whip. Your sight Mr Steir?

“The use of the whip is a welfare issue but because of our rules and penalties is not a welfare problem. The perception of some is that it is cruel, but the reality is that it is due to our rules and only allowing the cushioned whip that was specifically designed not to cause pain, it is fundamentally not cruel. Total rubbish

“We need to acknowledge the thoughts of the wider community on the use of the whip, but be measured in our thinking. Total Rubbish. The wider community will be just as useless on the subject as you are Mr Brand, you are all Bloodhorse Illiterate.

“We will seek the views and input from various sectors within the industry, take into account focused opinion research and the views of those who watch and bet on racing.
Total Rubbish. The wider community will be just as useless on the subject as you are Mr Brand, you are talking here about a mass of Bloodhorse Illiterate people.

“Towcester’s request to host races under hands and heels rules-very different to a whip ban – will be considered as part of this review.” There is already a Series of Hands and Heels Races all these races go ahead no problem.


FRANKEL partner TOM QUEALLY trainer Henry Cecil won the 2000 Guineas this afternoon no problem. TOM QUEALLY always rides FRANKEL with his hands and heels. Henry Cecil would not allow any of the horses placed in his care by owners to suffer whip abuse of any sort.

END

THE BLOODHORSE ILLITERATE BRITISH HORSERACING AUTHORITY (BHA) ARE STILL REFUSING TO PROVIDE A BLOODHORSE LITERATE WHIP REVIEW

http://www.turfcall.co.uk 

WHERE IS THE BHA'S BLOODHORSE LITERATE GUIDE TO THE USE OF THE WHIP?

EXTRACTS FROM THE BLOODHORSE ILLITERATE GUIDE TO

WHIP PENALTIES AND PROCEEDURES

FROM THE BRITISH HORSERACING AUTHORITY'S  POOR AND DANGEROUS STANDARD OF REGULATION  

The bloodhorse illiterate BHA initial whip review and subsequent amendments made can be found at http://www.britishhorseracing.com/whip-review/
SUMMARY OF NEW BLOODHORSE ILLITERATE  RULES AND PENALTIES

1. The revised rules take effect from tomorrow, Tuesday 6th March. Rather than rules based solely on a fixed number of hits, stewards will focus more on how the whip is used and be able to apply their discretion when considering a rider’s use of the whip.

2. The trigger for stewards to review a rider’s use of the whip remains the existing figures of eight times or more for Flat races and nine times or more for Jump races. However, rather than such use representing an automatic breach, the stewards will look at the ride and decide whether or not to hold an enquiry.

3. When deciding whether to hold an enquiry the stewards will consider the rider’s use the whip during the course of the entire race, with particular attention to its use in the closing stages and relevant factors such as:

a) The manner in which the whip was used, including the degree of force;

b) The purpose for which the whip was used;

c) The distance over which the whip was used and whether the number of times it was used was reasonable and necessary;
d) Whether the horse was continuing to respond.

4. Provided that the overall manner in which the whip had been used was measured, stewards may choose to disregard occasions when the whip was used, for example:

a) To keep a horse in contention or to maintain a challenging position prior to what would be considered the closing stages of a race;
b) To maintain a horse’s focus and concentration;

c) To correct a horse that is noticeably hanging;

d) Where there is only light contact with the horse;

e) Following a mistake at an obstacle;

f) To correct a horse that is running down an obstacle;

5. Under the revised penalties (already implemented), a rider found to have used his whip once over the permitted level will be suspended for two days, two times over will incur a four day suspension and three times over a seven day suspension, with each extra usage adding two days to the penalty.

6. Previous offences are not to be taken into account when deciding on the level of penalty. Offences which incur a suspension of two to six days are to be treated separately from those offences that incur a suspension of seven days or more.

7. Under a revised referral process repeat offenders will be referred to the Disciplinary Panel and incur a lengthy suspension (see penalty guidelines). Riders will be referred after their fifth offence of a two to six day ban within the previous six months, or after their fourth offence of seven days or more within the previous six months.

8. It is generally accepted that the incentive to breach the rules is greater in more valuable races. Consequently stewards will have the ability to impose a fine on a rider between £200 and £10,000. This will apply in Jump races worth £20,000 or more and Flat races worth £27,500 or more. Stewards will consider the gravity of the offence and the rider’s earnings in that particular race when identifying the appropriate level of fine. END

Thursday, 21 April 2011

DAVID ASHFORTH FOR THE RACING POST

“TIME FOR A NEW BAN RACING SHOULD OUTLAW THE USE OF THE WHIP IN A FINISH AND REAP THE BENEFITS ."

David issues a call for radical modification of the rules to allow the whip to be used only for safety and correction.

http://turfcallmorningline.blogspot.com/2011/04/david-ashforth-reports-for-racing-post.html   

HORSEMANSHIP AND THE USE OF A WHIP.

REVIEW THE GRAND NATIONAL 2011
The race that will go down in history as the race that started to transform British horseracing in recognition of all the true bloodhorse literate achievers.

J MARGARET CLARKE TURFCALL COMMENT

THE 2011 GRAND NATIONAL WILL GO DOWN IN HISTORY AS THE RACE THAT PROVED THE BRITISH HORSERACING AUTHORITY WERE DANGEROUSLY  BLOODHORSE ILLITERATE

‘SPECIAL FOCUS THE WHIP’

http://turfcallmorningline.blogspot.com/2011/04/review-grand-national-aintree-9-april.html

BRITISH HORSERACING AUTHORITY REGULATION (BHA) ANNOUNCE FORTHCOMING AMENDMENTS TO WHIP RULES BUT ARE THESE AMENDMENTS BLOODHORSE LITERATE? OR ABUSIVELY BLOODHORSE ILLITERATE?

http://www.turfcall.co.uk

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21st  2012 16:25

BRITISH HORSERACING AUTHORITY BHA ANNOUNCE FORTHCOMING AMENDMENTS TO WHIP RULES

At their Board meeting today the Directors of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) approved a proposal for a fundamental change to the rules governing use of the whip, together with revisions to the existing penalty structure.

The Board agreed to progress a proposal in which the fixed number of times use of the whip is permitted is replaced by an emphasis on reviewing the manner in which the whip is used, as well as taking account of frequency. The new rule will be ready for implementation in early March.

Paul Bittar, Chief Executive of the BHA said:

“Over four months have passed since the introduction of the first set of rules following the Whip Review. Despite a number of changes to both the rule and the accompanying penalty structure it is clear that while many objectives of the Review are being met, and in particular those pertaining to horse welfare, a rule which polices the use of the whip based solely on a fixed number of strikes is fundamentally flawed.

“While well intentioned, and in accordance with initial requests from the jockeys for clarity and consistency via a fixed number, in practice the new rules have repeatedly thrown up examples of no consideration being given to the manner in which the whip is used as well as riders being awarded disproportionate penalties for the offence committed.

“The challenge is to have in place a rule and penalty structure which meets the objectives for fairness and proportionality outlined in the Whip Review while retaining the positives which have been a product of the changes to date. These include the virtual removal of all serious breaches and an overall reduction in the number of offences.

“We are confident there is not a welfare problem associated with the use of the cushioned whip in British Racing.

“The objective of this proposal is to keep jockeys riding to a similar standard as they are now with regard to their significantly reduced use of the whip, but with added discretion and common sense applied by stewards when considering whether a rider is in breach of the rules.”

"As a consequence of the Board decision, rather than it being an automatic breach when a rider uses the whip eight times on the Flat and nine times over jumps, the figures become the trigger point for the stewards to review the ride in question. Stewards will then consider how the rider has used the whip in the course of exceeding the number before deciding whether a breach has occurred and a penalty is warranted.

"The Board also sanctioned the introduction of a revised penalty structure, the aim of which is to increase the proportionality of the penalties, in particular for minor offences. Within the context of the current rule, the Board approved the proposal for treating cases of frequency of both one and two over as Lower Level breaches, whereby one over will still warrant a two day ban and two over will incur four day ban, rather than five days as at present.

"In addition, repeat offences at both the Lower and Upper Level will not result in the penalty multiplying. Instead, each offence will be treated on its merits. However, a fifth ‘Lower Level’ offence or a fourth Upper Level offence within six months will result in a referral to the Disciplinary Panel. This ensures that there is a threshold at which repeat offenders are held accountable.

"The changes to the penalty structure will take effect from Thursday 23^rd February and will be retrospectively applied to suspensions still to be served.

Paul Bittar continued:

"Prior to the implementation of the new whip rules, stewards policed cases of mis-use of the whip based on similar principles to that outlined in the proposal. The difference with this proposal is the markedly lower and clarified threshold levels for when a ride will be reviewed.

“It is recognised that the most demanding challenge in relation to framing the rules on this subject is finding the balance between a proportionate penalty and one that also acts as an effective deterrent. In particular, the Board recognises that this question may come under scrutiny in major races and reserve the right to make further revisions in the future.”

Notes to Editors:

1. The initial Whip Review document, plus details of the subsequent amendments to the rules, can be found at http://www.britishhorseracing.com/whip-review/

For more information contact:

Robin Mounsey
British Horseracing Authority
t:02071520048
m:07584171551
e: rmounsey@britishhorseracing.com

J MARGARET CLARKE TURFCALL

SOUND BLOODHORSE LITERACY  

1) Are the BHA amendments to the whip review set out to be:-

Bloodhorse literate?
Or abusively bloodhorse illiterate?

2) Are the BHA amendments to the whip rules set out to be:-

Bloodhorse literate in theory?
Bloodhorse literate in practice?

3) Are the BHA amendments to the whip rules set out to be:-

Abusively bloodhorse illiterate in theory?
Abusively bloodhorse illiterate in practice?

ABUSIVE BLOODHORSE ILLITERACY

A) Is anyone allowed to know if these amendments to the whip rules are to be sound and bloodhorse literate?

B) Is anyone allowed to know if these amendments to the whip rules are to be abusive and bloodhorse Illiterate?

ABUSIVE BLOODHORSE ILLITERATE DISCRETION
A) Is anyone allowed to know if the discretionary clause within these amendments to the whip rules is to be sound bloodhorse literate discretion?

ii. Is anyone allowed to know if the discretionary clause within these amendments to the whip rules is to be abusive bloodhorse illiterate discretion?

iii. Is anyone allowed to know if the discretionary clause within these amendments is to work out in theory? 

iv. Is anyone allowed to know if the discretionary clause within these amendments is to work out in practice?

B) Is anyone allowed to know if the discretionary clause within these amendments to the whip rules is to be abusively bloodhorse illiterate discretion?

C) Is anyone allowed to know if the discretionary clause within these amendments to the whip rules is to be a missmash of both the abusive bloodhorse illiterate direction, and or sound bloodhorse literate direction?