GET RID OF THE STUPID 10 HIT RULE NOW!!!!

[tonkatime 323]

16 minutes ago, Brodie said:

What part of that there was no pressure from Animal Rights don't you understand?

Interesting comment, I never said there was any pressure applied at this stage but it will come and when it does it will be relentless.    

[Fartoomuch 1,376]

53 minutes ago, Danny Boy said:

 

Is this a quote from  " Thoughts of a Narcissist " ?

Harness Racing should be a Democracy not a Dictatorship.

The current Harness Racing modus operandi seems to be I will make the decision, get a few lackeys to run around the country having meetings to promote and justify  it, and rubbish  or ignore any opposition in the process.

It should be where a rule change is as big as this one is,

Go to  all parties involved , consult them  , take on board all opinions ,submissions and then and  only then, make a decision based upon all the facts on the table involving all parties concerned. Then go back to your grassroots and find the best way of implenting the changes if required so everyone understands how it effects them and find the best way they can to implement them.

Then implement the change, monitor the change, review the change and improve the change.

The last line here needs urgent attention.

Following consultation with and the support of the NZ Harness Racing Trainers & Drivers’

Association and the Racing Integrity Unit (RI

U), the Board of HRNZ has approved a change to the

Use of the Whip Guidelines.

From 1 December 2016, the whip shall not be used more than 10 times in the last 400m of a

race. Any breach of this will constitute excessive use of the whip pursuant to Rule 8

6

9

(2)(a) and

be subject to a charge by the RIU

[JackSprat 947]

33 minutes ago, Brodie said:

Jack, you are away with the fairies.

the public in general haven't even given a second thought about the whip on harness horses in NZ.

They have other things on their mind.

HRNZ brought it in off their own back and the way it was done has left a sour taste in the mouths of many.

Sadly for the industry some of these decisions are having detrimental effects on the industry but some don't care because they are still getting paid by an industry that is self destructing.

Maybe, but they are "2017 fairies", and they are real!

Here's hoping we follow the Australian lead, and get rid of the whips entirely at the end of the season.

[Guest]

Happy, I thought the banning of Greyhound Racing in New South Wales was overturned????

Hes it was!!!

Why, because they decided that they were wrong and were big enough to admit that they had made a mistake.

The ones on here that are defending the 10 hits with the whip rule are trying to convince each other that they were right when most know that it was fast tracked through without due diligence, and the consequences.

As I have said, I don't condone the use of the whip to excess at all.

What I have consistently said is that the rule is stupid and should not have a number attached to it as there are too many inconsistencies.

The ones that are looking to have the whips banned clearly shouldn't be working in the industry and may find that they won't be if that rule is ever railroaded in.

Please also advise us if you think that the drivers who don't show any urgency and do best for the punter, should be fined as well????

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, tonkatime said:

Interesting comment, I never said there was any pressure applied at this stage but it will come and when it does it will be relentless.    

So you agree there was no pressure from Animal  Rights and yet the rule was brought in??

[chelseacol 2,488]

8 minutes ago, Brodie said:

So you agree there was no pressure from Animal  Rights and yet the rule was brought in??

look up a few words in the dictionary Brodster

-management

- proactive

-planning

-preventative

- flogging a dead horse.....

 

 

[Guest]

Col.

other words.

rail roaded

unnecessary

detriment

revenue 

[chelseacol 2,488]

7 minutes ago, Brodie said:

Col.

other words.

rail roaded

unnecessary

detriment

revenue 

Fair enough - we agree to disagree.

I will say I accept your words have some validity - But I am staggered that anyone can think "unnecessary" in this context is right ...

 

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, chelseacol said:

Fair enough - we agree to disagree.

I will say I accept your words have some validity - But I am staggered that anyone can think "unnecessary" in this context is right ...

 

Col, the rule change was unnecessary as there was no pressure from anyone to bring in a rule that put a no. Of whip hits in the last 400 m!

If HRNZ wanted to do something about the issue of the whip then it should have been discussed at length and listened to the views of the people it concerned.

All HRNZ had to do was advise the drivers that they were going to keep an eye on drivers whip efforts and warn them if they thought excessive.

What HRNZ has done has brought it to the attention of the Animal Rights people who now know that HRNZ are a soft touch.

Bit unusual that the supporters like Newmarket haven't answered my questions I put to them.

[JackSprat 947]

There's always two sides to any argument. In this case we have:

1. Those that have the foresight to acknowledge the public perception surrounding animal welfare, and support proactively managing that situation in an organised fashion
2. Those that have their heads buried firmly in a beachful of 1970's sand, and believe that fighting against a global trend, instead of adapting to it is a smart move.

Owners, trainers, drivers, punters will matter no one iota if the industry is legislated out of existence over animal welfare issues. And yes, that day will come if the second group don't wise up!

[Happy Sunrise 554]

2 hours ago, Brodie said:

I thought the banning of Greyhound Racing in New South Wales was overturned????

Hes it was!!!

 

That is good but harness racing is trying to avoid a debacle like that. It is called being proactive which is a very very rare thing.

2 hours ago, Brodie said:

As I have said, I don't condone the use of the whip to excess at all.

Do you believe the intent of the rule is valid? Seems you do. So what is your solution to the application of the rule?

 

2 hours ago, Brodie said:

Please also advise us if you think that the drivers who don't show any urgency and do best for the punter, should be fined as well????

Certainly, but drivers need to up their game and drive accordingly. I think the fines they receive are out of proportion with what they do in other areas but drivers must adapt.

Hell, nearly everyone on the entire planet has had to evolve in the last 20 years in same shape or form in their job (and driving is a job whether they are amateur or DD because of the betting involved)

[Guest]

1 hour ago, JackSprat said:

There's always two sides to any argument. In this case we have:

1. Those that have the foresight to acknowledge the public perception surrounding animal welfare, and support proactively managing that situation in an organised fashion
2. Those that have their heads buried firmly in a beachful of 1970's sand, and believe that fighting against a global trend, instead of adapting to it is a smart move.

Owners, trainers, drivers, punters will matter no one iota if the industry is legislated out of existence over animal welfare issues. And yes, that day will come if the second group don't wise up!

Ok,Jack, can you please provide us all with the evidence that you have that shows that the Animal Rights Foundation or other animal welfare groups have been kicking up about the way Harness horses in NZ are being treated with the whip???????????

This global trend that you mention, is it that the Ozzies brought in the whip being banned in Sept 2017?

That decision by someone that has never been a driver and named Want should be renamed.

The decision over there was made by a ........head who didn't consult any of the leading drivers at all and now always quote Chris Alford as being in favour of banning the whip.

If that is the case then Alford is a hypocrite as he is known for using the whip and still is.

The NZ decision was clearly a knee jerkreaction to the Ozzies one.

It will affect the punting over there as punters will get sick and tired of their horse that they placed money on not being driven out.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Happy Sunrise said:

That is good but harness racing is trying to avoid a debacle like that. It is called being proactive which is a very very rare thing.

Do you believe the intent of the rule is valid? Seems you do. So what is your solution to the application of the rule?

 

Certainly, but drivers need to up their game and drive accordingly. I think the fines they receive are out of proportion with what they do in other areas but drivers must adapt.

Hell, nearly everyone on the entire planet has had to evolve in the last 20 years in same shape or form in their job (and driving is a job whether they are amateur or DD because of the betting involved)

The intent of the new rule was a knee jerk reaction to OZzies ridiculous bannning from september.

The solution was to talk to our drivers to see how they saw what alterations could be made rather than be dictated to by people who are administrators and no practical experience with horses.

Do you really think that the drivers that have been fined wanted to be fined or suspended?

What they thought they were doing they obviously thought was ok and as I have said many times it is ridiculous to expect our drivers to control their horse and be counting each time they use the whip.

The biggest stuff up,was putting a no. on the rule as a horse that gets whacked hard for 10 times, would end up with more pain than a horse that had 11 hits of a lesser degree.

The end result is more drivers getting fined, plenty of drivers not trying too,hard and getting away with it and finally the punters who invest heavily not having a go!

 

[chelseacol 2,488]

Gee Brodster - thank goodness you are restricted at the TAB so this doesn't really effect you much.

Otherwise you might get a bee in your bonnet about it

[Kotare_Hunter 748]

1 hour ago, chelseacol said:

Gee Brodster - thank goodness you are restricted at the TAB so this doesn't really effect you much.

Otherwise you might get a bee in your bonnet about it

And propel his Pacifier to the floor ?

[Fartoomuch 1,376]

2 hours ago, chelseacol said:

Gee Brodster - thank goodness you are restricted at the TAB so this doesn't really effect you much.

Otherwise you might get a bee in your bonnet about it

Priceless as usual Col. I told you earlier he just doesn't get the bigger picture and Brodie please dont reply.

 

 

[hsvman 294]

7 hours ago, Newmarket said:

Following consultation with and the support of the NZ Harness Racing Trainers & Drivers’

Association and the Racing Integrity Unit (RI

U), the Board of HRNZ has approved a change to the

Use of the Whip Guidelines.

From 1 December 2016, the whip shall not be used more than 10 times in the last 400m of a

race. Any breach of this will constitute excessive use of the whip pursuant to Rule 8

6

9

(2)(a) and

be subject to a charge by the RIU

I was at a meeting when this rule this whip rule issue was was first present and we were told hrnz would be looking into a possible change to the rule and that they would put forward to the trainers and drivers and iru what the ideas of a change would be and it would go back and forward until and even compromise was agree on between all parties , then the very next week without discussion the 10 whip rule came in . I don't have a too much of problem with the rule as its generally a black and white rule with 10 freehand hits from the 400m to the line the limit, however where there can be confused people is when people are getting charges when a reign is also in the whip hand as it can be classed as continuous which then be comes excessive. It needs to be 100% clear on what the exact ruling is when the reign is also in whip hand 

[Fartoomuch 1,376]

4 minutes ago, hsvman said:

I was at a meeting when this rule this whip rule issue was was first present and we were told hrnz would be looking into a possible change to the rule and that they would put forward to the trainers and drivers and iru what the ideas of a change would be and it would go back and forward until and even compromise was agree on between all parties , then the very next week without discussion the 10 whip rule came in . I don't have a too much of problem with the rule as its generally a black and white rule with 10 freehand hits from the 400m to the line the limit, however where there can be confused people is when people are getting charges when a reign is also in the whip hand as it can be classed as continuous which then be comes excessive. It needs to be 100% clear on what the exact ruling is when the reign is also in whip hand 

Your last sentence is something that JCA precedents will sort out although i appreciate and understand your concern as to exact rulings.

[final luca 189]

okay guys I understand  what your all saying. .but  I've got to ask this..

you have a harness race with say 15 horses in it.. so generally that would mean 15 drivers?

now as can happen in a race with a big number of horses, you can have close finishes..

10 hits per horse from the 400 meter mark.. okay..  i.ve seen this at stock  cars were they have several people counting laps

etc.. so do they have the same at harness meetings.. ? 

several vintage   or tender snot nose younger fellas counting  each hit  from the 400 mark to the finish line?

I have to ask, because i'm pissing myself  wondering how they can check every driver/horse in the fields without having something like that in place...

please I need to sleep tonight .. Newmarket you claim to be a  bright lad when it comes to these sort of things..

please explain to this dumb fuck southern boy. just how the fuck they do it..

I do have an idea but I really want you to explain.. because after listening to all the massdebating  about rules  and what everyone thinks..

this has not been explain by you or your mates at HRNZ.. so can you please.please do ,me a favour and find out .. just to put my mind at ease

 

bit like someone in a big store employed to watch video coverage all day for shop lifters.. a real fun job..   not.

 

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Newmarket said:

Priceless as usual Col. I told you earlier he just doesn't get the bigger picture and Brodie please dont reply.

 

 

Had to bite Newmarket, but you haven't answered my earlier questions!! 

[JackSprat 947]

I'm afraid the "head in the sand brigade" are, pardon the pun, "flogging a dead horse".

The big picture is that whips are on the way out - whether it be this year, next year, or whenever - they are on the way out. All this debate about the current whip rules, is purely semantics. The whip rules will soon be deleted from the rule book altogether.

Here's a simple question for those that are so desperately want to retain whips in racing.

What is the difference between a field where every driver carries a whip, and a field where no drive carries a whip? Isn't everybody on equal footing either way?

As it is now, we have one winner in every race, and in the post-whip era, there will still be one winner in each race. Great horses will still be great horses. Slow horses will still be slow horses.

10 years from now the whip era will be looked back on as the "bad old days", and Brodie will still be whining about how the lack of a whip cost him a collect ..... and being restricted!

[Toblerone 242]

3 hours ago, Newmarket said:

Your last sentence is something that JCA precedents will sort out although i appreciate and understand your concern as to exact rulings.

Having read watch hsvman has said, can you now concede that all was not as cut and dried as HRNZ made out re consultation? 

[final luca 189]

58 minutes ago, JackSprat said:

I'm afraid the "head in the sand brigade" are, pardon the pun, "flogging a dead horse".

The big picture is that whips are on the way out - whether it be this year, next year, or whenever - they are on the way out. All this debate about the current whip rules, is purely semantics. The whip rules will soon be deleted from the rule book altogether.

Here's a simple question for those that are so desperately want to retain whips in racing.

What is the difference between a field where every driver carries a whip, and a field where no drive carries a whip? Isn't everybody on equal footing either way?

As it is now, we have one winner in every race, and in the post-whip era, there will still be one winner in each race. Great horses will still be great horses. Slow horses will still be slow horses.

10 years from now the whip era will be looked back on as the "bad old days", and Brodie will still be whining about how the lack of a whip cost him a collect ..... and being restricted!

have seen that when the public are told  a driver/rider will not carry a whip. 

some horses don't need extra encouragement to give a little extra at a finish. some on the other hand, do need a few wacks to keep their mind on the job..

I guess with 19 wacks or no whips . that will be fine with me.. but I really can not see a driver /rider carrying the horse across the line

as that's all one could expect them to do . other than throwing  the reigns at the horse as you do see from time to time...

and I guess in a few years that to will be stopped;;funny thing about rules and laws...

they are so easy to put in place. and just as easy to change...we are all much more wiser for having this debate..

I myself put down as a learning curve..  weather or not this law/rule remains in place  for along period of time or gets moderified

remains to be seen. cheers.

 

 

[Fartoomuch 1,376]

10 hours ago, Toblerone said:

Having read watch hsvman has said, can you now concede that all was not as cut and dried as HRNZ made out re consultation? 

Unless i went and got HRNZ's side of the story in full i could not concede anything. As quite a few have already noted it would be impossible to get total agreement on anything where change is concerned.

Either way the whip rule has been introduced and its now up to drivers to obey the rules or face the consequences- that has been my core argument since my first post on this matter. I venture to suggest that more drivers will be charged under the whip rule and incur the wrath of the JCA in coming months. More fool them i say. Lets see whether BB,TC and RC are quick learners

 

[Guest]

Newmarket, clearly the rule has got nothing at all to do with animal welfare at all!

To you it is who can we nail and you clearly get delight from it!

If anyone is in the dark ages, it is you!