Remounting banned

Grasshopper: can't you make a cogent argument for your point of view without resorting to demeaning yourself with your disappointing attempt at insult? Do you think you'll convince anyone with that display of non-logic?

Jeez, the rule is not just for jumps nags, ffs, and it also covers UNSEATING - conveniently forgotten by pro-remounters. Who, may I ask, are YOU to judge whether a horse should be remounted and ridden on, or which jockey's unseating may not be in the best interests of the horse or him/herself?

Shadz - I've no doubt your protector's still protected from use! You were one the vociferous antis at the time, so I'd be shocked if you'd changed from that standpoint. However, you're able to exercise free will since you're not engaged to ride. Like remounting a horse which has fallen, you can exercise free will in that, too, if it's your own, as you can with an unseat.

Interestingly, no-one's raised the issue vis-a-vis eventing, where a fall (of horse and/or rider) is an instant disqual. Perhaps eventing, which has seen (to my knowledge) 10 riders killed in the past few years, recognises that discretion is the better part of survival.

I can't help but feel that if any of the people on this forum who actually have horses had a fallen nag remounted and ridden on which then went on to keel over dead from internal injury, they'd be screaming blue murder for just this rule to be brought in. And for everyone who wants a jockey to jump back up when he's been hurled off onto Firm going at 30+ mph, please throw yourself from the top of your car onto grass (I suggest someone else drives) and see if you're quite so keen to get a leg back up. It's a fair representation of what coming off at racing speed is like, although most horses stand a little taller than the top of a saloon, so you won't get the full benefit of the drop. Since you're so keen for jockeys to carry on regardless, treat yourself to the sensation you'd wish upon them as soon as you can.
 
The rule is only a non-issue in that it is long overdue and should have been brought in years ago, as Krizon points out fallers in eventing have been automatically disqualified for years.

I do take some sort of issue with Grassy's assertion that the only people who want the ruling are the "chattering-class wankers" and the "hand wringers" - eh? Usually I find you amusing but now you're being downright insulting and highly abusive, ironically to people who are in a much better position to actually have some sort of an idea about precisely why this rule is long overdue. Far too much pocket talking going on here from so many.

Walsworth, all that is inside my body protector is fresh air! Now, Grassy, if you really want to talk about a bollocks rule that was brought in to appease hand wringers and was a waste of time, have a look at the body protector rule instead.
 
krizon said:
Grasshopper: can't you make a cogent argument for your point of view without resorting to demeaning yourself with your disappointing attempt at insult? Do you think you'll convince anyone with that display of non-logic?

Jeez, the rule is not just for jumps nags, ffs, and it also covers UNSEATING - conveniently forgotten by pro-remounters. Who, may I ask, are YOU to judge whether a horse should be remounted and ridden on, or which jockey's unseating may not be in the best interests of the horse or him/herself?
Click to expand...

Disappointing to whom, Krizon? You? Or are you speaking for everyone?

As for demeaning myself, you may think it's an act, but it's the way I tend to speak (ask anyone who as ever met me), so you may want to refrain from your attempts to guess at who, or what, I am. Indeed, who, may I ask, are YOU, to do such a thing?

The rule, as far as I am concerned, is for Jumps nags, as I have no interest in any other form of racing, and therefore the only thing on my radar are Jumps nags.

Nothwithstanding that, perhaps you might want to consider re-reading my previous posts on this topic (feel free to 'bleep' the bits you don't like).

In said posts, you will find precisely ZERO judgement from me regarding the merits, or otherwise, of re-mounting., What you will find, is my opinion on the apparent importance of this subject to the BHA in comparison with everything else that they should be doing.

If you think the BHA decision is aimed at yourself, and others like you who inhabit the 'racing world', then I fear you are very much mistaken. It is clearly intended to remove one of the "beat'em" sticks from the grasp of the anti-racing brigade.

Shadz, I made no assertion regarding the people wanting the rule, and freely acknowledge that there are many within the 'racing world' who believe it's introduction to be a good thing. I myself, have no issues with such a rule. But as I've already stated, this rule is not intended for you people in the 'racing world' - it's primary purpose to appease the anti-racing welfare brigage.

To be honest, I thought the distinction was made quite clear in my posts, but perhaps those in the 'racing world' are too wrapped-up in their own bubble, too take the time to interpret posts of this nature. I suspect that a default position of "know-nothing townie" was adopted by default, and that this prevented an objective analysis of what I actually said.

I tust you can all relax now that I don't consider any of you to be members of the "Chattering-class wankers" socio-economic group.

I have the lot of you in the "Cross-Eyed In-Bred Yokel" socio-economic group.
 
i've fallen off plenty horses in my life....and i've jumped back on plenty horses in my life... But if i thought I or the horse wasn't fit to continue I wouldn't jump back on...

It happens once in a blue moon in race riding....therefore why have the rule? Its just not needed. Its not currently a problem so no need for a solution. The BHA should be spending money on finding ways to improve prize money instead of pandering to the ladies of the flat.
 
Cross-eyed in-bred yokel is at least preferential to any left wing, pinko, tree-hugging sorts (or similar types)
 
Shadow Leader said:
The rule is only a non-issue in that it is long overdue and should have been brought in years ago.........
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree, Shads. Honest.

I'll concede that it probably helps to have the issue clarified once and for all, but there were a total of only nine instances of remounting in 2008.

Nine.

Out of however many hundreds of races, over however many thousands of obstacles, involving however many tens of thousands of outings.

And of those nine remounts, there is no evidence (apart from possibly one, and even that appears to be conjecture) that remounting caused any harm to the horse in question.

As far as I am concerned, the BHA are legislating for a problem that - practically speaking - doesn't exist, and their communal efforts would be better spent elsewhere.......unless, of course, the change was deemed to be good 'welfare' PR.
 
Perhaps an even bigger irony is the length of debate here for such an inconsequential topic in racing :p
 
OTB said:
i've fallen off plenty horses in my life....and i've jumped back on plenty horses in my life... But if i thought I or the horse wasn't fit to continue I wouldn't jump back on...

It happens once in a blue moon in race riding....therefore why have the rule? Its just not needed. Its not currently a problem so no need for a solution. The BHA should be spending money on finding ways to improve prize money instead of pandering to the ladies of the flat.
Click to expand...
Agree with most of that but if you want more prize money etc the only people willing to put their hand in their pockets are the bookmakers who nobody seems to want anywhere near racing.
 
Grasshopper said:
I respectfully disagree, Shads. Honest.

I'll concede that it probably helps to have the issue clarified once and for all, but there were a total of only nine instances of remounting in 2008.

Nine.

Out of however many hundreds of races, over however many thousands of obstacles, involving however many tens of thousands of outings.

And of those nine remounts, there is no evidence (apart from possibly one, and even that appears to be conjecture) that remounting caused any harm to the horse in question.

As far as I am concerned, the BHA are legislating for a problem that - practically speaking - doesn't exist, and their communal efforts would be better spent elsewhere.......unless, of course, the change was deemed to be good 'welfare' PR.
Click to expand...

It is irrelevant on how many occasions a horse was remounted last season, season before, yada yada. What is relevant is what may possibly happen on one occasion (that's all it needs) when a horse is needlessly remounted and needs shooting as a result. In all fairness, (aside from the fact that I think it should have been brought in a long time ago) the rule should have been brought in after that nervous chase in which Ruby jumped back on Kauto Star, resulting in the horse fracturing a leg and having the rest of the season off. That was a ridiculous state of affairs and he was irresponsible in the extreme to get back on.

Of course, aside from the tiny number of recorded remounts after falls or unseats, there are also the many occasions when jockeys jump back on horses that have fallen to canter them back home to save their dear little legs from having to walk. Since these happenings are not recorded, there is no way of knowing how many horses are injured thus but I know that some have been. If any jock dared try that on one of my horses I'd kick them into next week, and probably have all vets bills sent to them!
 
Last edited:
Right then, i've one question.

If it is such a good rule and was widely known that remounting could cause injury why did it take until 2009 for the BHA to do something?
 
Last edited:
OK............I'm going to put my hands up on this one. There seems to be a wider objective here, rather than just my remounting-to-finish-a-race interpretation.

That being the case, it seems that this rule will 'protect' more than just the nine horses I used in my earlier example, and renders itself applicable to many more situations than I had previously thought.

In summary, I reckon my previous stance was therefore not justified, and I fully retract my earlier comments.......except for the term "chattering-class wankers" which, regardless of Krizon's distaste, I can surely find a use for at another juncture.

I have seen the light
It was very bright
Apologies for talking shite
 
Like TRF, the folks on FF are maqinly for the new Rule.
I wonder if TH having a slightly different take on this is due to Irish attitudes still being more gung-ho? - we have a heavily Irish membership here. I agree the BHA has done this for PR reasons, poss more than for horse welfare reasons directly, but it's best to clarify the Rule and have done with it imo.

Once, all owners in NH, being hunting types for the most part, would prob have wanted their horses re-mounted - now a jockey has no way of knowing, and some owners are probably dead against. As someone remarked, it takes the onus off their shoulders
 
Your words not mine mate! I'm pretty agnostic on the question on welfare grounds, being a bit of an 'old romantic' where NH is concerned - but the PR of the decision makes sense. I doubt that the 'animal rights' loonies have such a say in things over the water. They have a lot of influence over here int he UK
 
Headstrong said:
Like TRF, the folks on FF are maqinly for the new Rule.
I wonder if TH having a slightly different take on this is due to Irish attitudes still being more gung-ho? - we have a heavily Irish membership here. I agree the BHA has done this for PR reasons, poss more than for horse welfare reasons directly, but it's best to clarify the Rule and have done with it imo.

Once, all owners in NH, being hunting types for the most part, would prob have wanted their horses re-mounted - now a jockey has no way of knowing, and some owners are probably dead against. As someone remarked, it takes the onus off their shoulders
Click to expand...

As far as I can see, only one Irish contributor on the thread is against the rule - all others appear pretty much in favour of it's introduction.
 
Grasshopper, I don't presume to speak for anyone else. If you habitually use infantilisms towards members contrarian to your views, then I can always stick you on 'Ignore'. No big deal for either of us.
 
Krizon, once again, my "infantlisms" were not directed towards members - that was merely your incorrect interpretation. I have since re-iterated this fact in two further posts.

You would therefore be as well sticking me on ignore, because that seems to be what you have done with the actual content of my posts anyway.

PS. Nice use of the word "habitually" too. Perhaps you would care to point out the other instances where this has been the case? In fact, don't bother wasting your time - you won't find any.
 
Last edited:
krizon said:
Grasshopper, I don't presume to speak for anyone else. If you habitually use infantilisms towards members contrarian to your views, then I can always stick you on 'Ignore'. No big deal for either of us.
Click to expand...
Why didn't I seem to have that option in front of me when the empty derelict vessel that is 'Grasshopper', entrenched in unchartered waters of the coast of 'grasshopperdom', called me a "fanny" and a "cretin" some while back on another forum!:ninja::p

IMO you can speak for me here Krizon - tell him to stop washing his mouth out with 'toxic paste'.:cool:

Ha ha.
 
Last edited:
martin said:
Why didn't I seem to have that option in front of me when the empty derelict vessel that is 'Grasshopper'............called me a "fanny" and a "cretin" some while back on the another forum!:ninja::p
Click to expand...

On the plus side, you are 'Mr Consistency' - no squiggle for you.
 
Nah matey; i'm modelling myself on you, and i'm actually the opposite of those two words now - just call me a "politically correct schlong" from now on.:rolleyes:
 
krizon said:
Grasshopper, I don't presume to speak for anyone else. If you habitually use infantilisms towards members contrarian to your views, then I can always stick you on 'Ignore'. No big deal for either of us.
Click to expand...
Don't do it Kri!!

Those of us who know Grasshopper at all can testify that his potty mouth is a strangely uplifting organ.
 
Back
Top