- This topic has 5 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
This is not at all a crticism, far from it. I wholeheartedly applaud the BHA for not only reading forums but being willing to engage with the members & actively post.
One thing that would help me enormously though is this; can we have some clarification about who is posting "officially" & who is posting "personally".
Presumably "BHA" is an official view….is Silvoir always speaking officially or personally or a combination of both?
I know that some will say it does not matter but to me there is a world of difference between an employee of a sporting body expressing an opinion as opposed to acting as official spokeman for that body…particularly on matters of potential controversy.
David – I treat any post I place on here as me speaking officially in my role as BHA spokesman. Were I ever to put a purely personal opinion up about something I would ensure that was abundantly clear.
Apologies, should clairify further:
When I registered for TRF I did so with every intention of posting under my own name, and figured Silvoir would be just a username to log in and I’d then select a posting name. When I realised this wasn’t the case that’s when I added my name as a signature.
The BHA name on here was set-up by our website editor, Robin, and only he uses that.
Paul could you give any update on progress of detente between the official handicappers, especially in National Hunt of the UK and Ireland and the likelihood of a common rating system being introduced anytime soon?
Carvershill – sorry not got back to you but snowed under being on my own in the Press Office with Owen and Kelly gone. I’m at York today so should be able to speak to Phil Smith.
On a seperate matter, and as I’m on dodgy wireless so the search function on here isn’t working which is preventing me from recalling the Karl Burke thread, below is the outline Appeal Board result. If someone could append it to the original thread for consistency (Paul Os?) I’d be grateful.
Yesterday the Appeal Board, chaired by Sir William Gage, heard Karl Burke’s Appeal against the decision of the Disciplinary Panel of 2 July 2009. The appeal was against penalty only.
The appeal was dismissed. The Appeal board ordered that Mr Burke forfeit his £800 deposit and that he pay £4000 towards costs.
Full written reasons to follow.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.