My Eight Strikes -The Whip Debate

Background

The British Horseracing Authority (BHA) introduced new rules on whip use in both Flat and National Hunt horseracing back on the tenth of October.  7 strikes for the duration of a flat race and 8 for a jumps; stipulating a maximum of only 5 inside the final furlong or after the final obstacle for respective codes. This nearly halved the whip use allowance. The BHA also introduced stiff penalties with jockeys breaking the rules losing their riding fee and a substantial percentage of their prize-money.   

1 The Initial Perception Problem

Perception amongst the public was singled out as the main reason for the changes. Herein lies the crux of the problem for me. I don’t believe there was a problem with the perception of the sport. One could argue things have never been better in terms of decent attendances and a golden era for thoroughbreds, poor prize-money and funding aside.  It seems as if the BHA were worried about those who may never like horseracing, no matter how much educating, pleasing or pandering. You won’t change them. Some of these people would have the sport banned not to mind the whip if they had their way. I’ve heard the rugby and soccer analogy used, certain fans of one just cannot find enjoyment in the other. Sean Boyce makes my case a little more eloquently

 http://boyciesblog.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/nailing-the-something-had-to-be-done-myth/

Some speculate that the Grand National was the catalyst of the Horseracing authority feeling they had to react. Again I cannot understand why. Jason Maguire’s aggressive use of the air foam cushioned whip had people outraged apparently. 8 million people watched the National on the BBC, out of which 8 people complained of the whip use on the winner. More complained about Clare Balding’s poor humour post-race with 2010 winning jockey Liam Treadwell, commenting on his teeth, saying how he could now afford a new set!  The 2011 GN was a strange day, unseasonably warm, with some horses finishing very tired. A combination of connections showering their horses with buckets of water to cool them down and a stricken horse covered by the cameras for all to see left a bad taste. The whip was merely something for some to vent frustration at the race not being its usual brilliant spectacle.    

The Great Revolving Door

The past two weeks have been a hectic time for the Irish boys in the AFL but the groundwork for this transformation has been made in the pipeline for some time now. To be quite frank, the interest in the Irish "experiment" peaked in those hazy days when I was giving Ricky Nixon disguises so that we wouldn't get attacked as we walked down Tralee Main Street. To explain the transformation I think it’s important to go back to the start of this cycle.


In 1987 Jim Stynes was brought to Australia by the Melbourne Demons and their far seeing coach Ron Baresi. He appreciated that Gaelic Footballers were natural bedfellows of Aussie Rules and that certain players could prosper in the game. After his success - Stynes went on to win the Brownlow (Player of the Year Award) - there was a rush to recruit Irish players. Alas Anthony Tohill, Brian Stynes, Colin Corkery and others came and failed. Thinking the talent had dried up, AFL clubs deserted the Emerald Isle. That was until a certain Tadgh Kennelly burst onto the scene.


I don't know how it happened but the Sydney Swans took the brave decision to go against the grain and recruit an Irish player. This turned out to be one of the best decisions in the club history, as Kennellys strong run and carry propelled the Swans to the 2005 Premiership. His performances encouraged all the other clubs to dust down their passports and travel to Ireland in the hope of finding the next Kennelly much like clubs in the early nineties tried to find the next Stynes. Herein lies the crux of the problem - there is no next Stynes or Kennelly, these guys are superstars of the game and to think that every GAA player is as good as these two is unrealistic. 

Wanted: An Immovable Object

There was a lot of talk last season that the current incarnation of Manchester United had reached the end of its rope. Two of the core players, Edwin Van Der Sar and Paul Scholes, had finally decided to call it a day. No suitable understudies had been found. The other linchpin, Ryan Giggs, has now been playing for the senior team for more than half his life. With Manchester City acquiring the sublime Sergio Aguero and somehow managing to retain the services of Carlos Tevez, and Chelsea hiring the impressive Andreas Villas-Boas as manager, it seemed that United would need to make a few major purchases in order to be competitive this season, let alone close the gap with a Barcelona who don't seem to follow the laws that govern other teams.

Of course, Alex Ferguson doesn't have to listen to anyone. Being the most successful manager in history kind of gives one a certain freedom of action that other men may lack. Nonetheless, the common assumption (which I, for my sins, shared) was that Herr Neuer would be soon winging his way out of Schalke towards Lancashire, and that Inter Milan, Tottenham Hotspur and Arsenal would all find their star midfielders getting itchy feet following Mancunian overtures. Instead Ferguson, after much media speculation, replaced Van Der Sar with a man twenty years younger, and acquired Phil Jones from Blackburn and Ashley Young from Villa. De Gea's odd howler aside, the trio have been a resounding success. Young is turning into United's best deliverer of the ball since David Beckham, De Gea has produced a string of fine saves, and Brown is shaping up to be a top class defender.

18 Observations of the US Open

Recently I was fortunate enough to have worked at the US Open. As a first time visitor to this or any tennis event, I've made some observations. Regular tennis events attenders may find some of these to be blindingly obvious so apologies in advance. Some are tennis related some are well, not, but enjoy and please add your own in the comments section below.

No. 1 TV does not to justice to this sport. This point is fairly generic as I'm yet to come across a sport that looks as good on TV as it did in the flesh but I was blown away by just how hard the players hit the ball. When I first seen pro-boxing live, I was mesmerized by the power behind the punches and just how much punishment the boxers take. At the tennis it’s the court coverage and speed of the ball that most impressed me. When I was playing Leinster schools tennis at Gormanston College (under the watchful eye of Kingbet founder Peter Kingston - dishonourable mentions here also to fellow bloggers Gary Sinnott and Kevin Walsh for having a role in my tennis failures) one of the things they drummed into us was having your shot selected long before the ball arrived at your feet. I now understand the importance of this as watching Djokovic and Nadal smash forehands at each other, there is no way they could have time to pick their shots on the run. While the serve has historically come under the attention of the speed gun, I would love to see a gun track the speed of some of the ground strokes. Strikingly while the players are nearly all adapt at slugging the ball across the net, like all good fighter they're also able to box. By this I mean their touch around the net and ability to use the drop shot is frightening. To see Roger Federer take all the speed of the ball and make it drop stone dead just beyond the net is a thing of beauty.

2. The athleticism of tennis players is much undervalued. Again the observation can only be appreciated when you see them play live. The court coverage of all players is amazing. While their ability to sprint from the base line to the net is probably widely acknowledged, their stamina is often not. These players do repeated efforts unique across sports. They're on court for at least a couple of hours at a time yet never, noticeably anyway, seem to drop the speed they hit the ball at or in getting the ball back. To back that up with the same intensity the very next day is mightily impressive. Of all the players the most athletic is probably my favourite........ 

 

3. Gael Monfils is a legend. After losing a first round match in five sets and being on court for a little under five hours the last thing a player wants to do is play another tennis match, right? Well in the case of Gael Monfils after his epic five setter lose to Juan Carlos Ferrero he turned up two hours later to play a doubles match with compatriot Marc Gicquel. Okay so it's fair to say that he didn't play to the best of his abilities but he still entertained the crowd. Check out his antics here.(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a92HAM7-6c8&feature=related) The guy is a born entertainer, even breaking into a dance after winning a shot on a couple of occasions. I blogged on this before -www.kingbetireland.blogspot.com/2011/06/drink-drugs-and-sausage-rolls.html - but it's the Gael Monfils and not the Andy Murrays of this world that make sport the experience it is. The admiration his fellow pros have for him is evident. On match point Gicquel stood aside and let Monfils play against two players, who played their part well by making him run all over the court. Monsieur Monfils, J'adore tu. (For more on this read here http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/sportingscene/2011/09/gale-monfils-and-losing-in-style.html)

Us and Them: The Irish Rivalry with England.

Ourselves and England have, to put it mildly, a lot of history together. There's a certain segment among each society that looks upon the other as, depending on one's point of view, an oppressive overlord who thought nothing wrong with starving a quarter of their colony's population to death, or a group of ingrates who try and blow up innocent civilians. Let's be realistic, if the laws of geology allowed, Ireland would long ago have moved elsewhere. The weather's all wrong, and we've spent the past millennium arguing with the neighbours.

And yet, like the bickering couple that can't divorce because of the mortgage, Ireland and Britain (We only use England to try and form a common cause with the Welsh and Scots, after all) are deeply intertwined, 1916 and all that notwithstanding. The vast majority on both sides have no animosity towards the other. In reality, Britain has been nothing but a friend to us in recent years. David Cameron, a Conservative, had no hesitation in both accepting the results of the Savile Inquiry and apologising unquestionly for Britain's actions on Bloody Sunday, and Britain had no compunctions about contributing to our bailout in 2010. On our side, the Queen has recently completed a highly successful visit here and, the likes of Republican Sinn Fein, Eirigi, The 32 County Sovereignty Committee and any other miniscule group of rejectionists aside, the vast majority of Irish people bear no grudge against the English. On their side, there is even less of an animus. After all, the English have had lots of enemies over the years, and in the great scheme of things, a small island next door doesn't count for much.

Of course, on the field, everything changes, at least from the Irish point of view. Beating the English is the most heroic thing an Irish sports team can achieve. When Ireland beat England at cricket in India this year, the sudden upsurge in interest in cricket was nothing to do with the sport's merits. Nor was it to do with the fact that in winning, Ireland broke several longstanding records in World Cup cricket. Nor was it the scale of the achievement. After all, in 2007 we went even further, managing to reach the Super 8's after beating Pakistan. Quite simply, it was the fact that we beat the English at a quintessentially English game. When the match started, only a very small percentage of the population would even have been aware it was going on. Once we had won, though, it became the proverbial talk of the country. No doubt in years to come, like the half million or so Munstermen who were in Thomond Park when Munster beat New Zealand, a far greater number will claim to have watched the cricket than mere TV viewing figures would suggest.

The World Cup is Here

So Rugby World Cup 2011 has finally kicked off down in the ‘Land of the Long White Cloud’- New Zealand. It’s been four years since South Africa became World Champions in Paris and the rugby world has changed a lot since then. Most notably in the way in which the game is being played, gone are the endless ping pong kicking contests and defensive rugby. The top teams, Australia and New Zealand in particular, are embracing a more expansive game plan. For this reason I believe that this renewal of the tournament promises to be exciting and engaging. This is not to say that the game has no problems, issues over scrumaging and the contest at the breakdown continue to be a bugbear for fans and players. The IRB needs to rectify these issues if the game is going to continue to expand and develop in the future.

Anyone who watched this morning’s game will be aware that New Zealand looked scintillating at times yet it has to be said they stuttered through the second half as Tonga showed that they are no pushovers. The most startling aspect of the New Zealand performance this morning was how few bodies they were committing at ruck time, they were therefore able to fan out and keep a strong defensive line. A team with more tactical nous than the Tongans possibly would have been able to take advantage of this ruck policy. If the Tongans had a fly half who could kick the ball in behind the New Zealand defence then perhaps they could have gotten a few more scores. New Zealand looked comfortable with ball in hand yet were unable to make their class count. In years gone by New Zealand teams would have racked up a big score and dished out a 60+ drubbing. It’s too soon to criticise this team but did the pressure get to them a bit? Several of their players had stunning matches however. Sonny Bill Williams looked great, though I’m still of the impression that he is a one trick pony and that one trick, his single handed offload out of the tackle, may not work against big defences where he is sure to be double teamed. Expect Nonu and Smith to start in the centres when the big boys come out to play. Richard Kahui was excellent as was Israel Dagg and they will put pressure on Cory Jane and Mils Muliaina for starting spots. All in all it was a performance which merited pass marks and New Zealand will get better.

Sport Losing the War on Drugs

There are two attitudes to law enforcement. One of these, legal positivism, has the idea that the merits of a law are irrelevant, and those who break it should be punished. The other could be described as a form of utilitarianism, whereby a law is only a good one so long as the costs outweigh the benefits.

An example of this is the drug trade. It is four decades since America first declared war on drugs. At this point in time, there are around two million Americans incarcerated for drug offences. Yet there has never been an appreciable decline in the production, sale, or consumption of drugs since. For the positivist, this is irrelevant. The law exists, it should be enforced. For the utilitarian, the question arises of what to do when enforcing a law may be harmful to the greater good.

I say this by way of an extended preamble to an interesting question: Is it time to consider lifting the ban on performance-enhancing drugs? For all the work that has been done into the merits of narcotics laws, there has been surprisingly little advocacy for this point, which is odd, because it is a debate that sports really should have.

First, the obvious. The current anti-doping efforts clearly aren't up to task. In the case of baseball and cycling, in particular, neither sport enforces what little restrictions there are. A quick glance at Wikipedia's page on doping in cycling reveals that considerably more than half of the reported cases date from the past fifteen years. While this reflects in part the improved detection capabilities in place, as well as greater awareness, the fact that there hasn't been a major decline demonstrates just how ineffective the anti-doping legislation is.