- This topic has 176 replies, 65 voices, and was last updated 11 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Balding was downright impudent when in conversation with the Sheik after his Guineas triumph. He rightly dismissed the manly Miss as did Hannon Snr. shortly afterwards, good on them ! I really wish there were more dog shows to keep the Channel 4 importee occupied and off the racing scene.
Gripe number two, perhaps I’ve not noticed it before but saw today on the Channel 4 graphics for the 1000 Guineas the distance marked as 1 Mile, beside this the distance was also marked as 1609 metres. There’s nothing more English than our five classics and their imperial distances so let’s keep it that way.They started scrolling through the 1000 Guineas roll of honour, however for the late 19th Century they were scrolling through the winners of the colts classic. Basic error in keeping with the stomach churningly lightweight piece by Emma Ramsden. Its a programme of extremes – on the one hand incisive, expert and engaging input from Cunningham, on the other poorly researched content aimed at children.
… input from Cunningham, on the other poorly researched content aimed at children.
I thought that Cunningham’s analysis
was
aimed at children.
Insomniac ones.
My main issue is that they are failing to show all but a few horses before a classic.I recorded it and and was pleased to be able to fast forward past all the interviews. I`m enjoying the Team Tips feature though
Balding was downright impudent when in conversation with the Sheik after his Guineas triumph. He rightly dismissed the manly Miss as did Hannon Snr. shortly afterwards, good on them ! I really wish there were more dog shows to keep the Channel 4 importee occupied and off the racing scene.
Gripe number two, perhaps I’ve not noticed it before but saw today on the Channel 4 graphics for the 1000 Guineas the distance marked as 1 Mile, beside this the distance was also marked as 1609 metres. There’s nothing more English than our five classics and their imperial distances so let’s keep it that way.You are so keen to air your vile personal comments that you completely omit any description of what you found objectionable and why.
I felt her questions to the Sheikh should have been confined to issues around Saturday’s race and his reaction to the final question was totally predictable and the abrupt ending avoidable.I was delighted that Clare Balding asked the Sheikh that question. I thought HE was the one who was discourteous and rude by walking away from what was a perfectly reasonable question. She could hardly have done the interview without some reference to the drugs affair and he could hardly have expected to face an interview without having to face a question or two on the topic.
Graham Cunningham, on the other hand, is growing on me. The combination of him and McGrath is infinitely preferable to his awkward pairing with Mick Fitzgerald.
They do need to find a way to show the horses properly though, especially before a classic.
"I was delighted that Clare Balding asked the Sheikh that question. I thought HE was the one who was discourteous and rude by walking away from what was a perfectly reasonable question. She could hardly have done the interview without some reference to the drugs affair and he could hardly have expected to face an interview without having to face a question or two on the topic."
Spot-on David.
I feel it would have been totally wrong if she had not.
Regards
Felt the question was fair, and he could have answered it as per Mark Johnston, no doubt had she not asked the question some of the people criticising her for asking it would have complained that she was didn’t dare upset those who are sponsoring the program etc.
The 3.50 big race slot is a problem as it doesn’t give enough time to analyse and discuss the race before they go off air, beyond the winner.
Initially liked Graham Cunningham but sounds to me that sometimes he is trying to bring the same level of comments into areas where he may be a bit weak and brings with it a slight change in the tone of his voice, as if he knows he is slightly outside his comfort zone.
Actually the way he turned his back hasn’t done him any favours. He could have said "We are conducting our own investigations" or something. It made him look guilty.
Racing UK showed all the horses in the paddock beforehand,gave us several interviews,showed the sp’s and at least two run throughs of the 2000 Guineas with analysis.Thats why I subscribe.
I have watched C4 racing on occassion when at relatives houses.It was’nt very good before.It is dreadful now.Agreed the coverage was awful. We didn’t even know who the placed horses were in the 2,000 Guineas and we didn’t see the replays of either Guineas. Had I been at home I would certainly have watched it on RUK.
As for "The Interview" – in my opinion it changed course far FAR too quickly. One question about the horse and then straight into the probing. If Balders had genuinely wanted an answer she would have known to have asked the questions in a much less direct way and after more talk about the horse. The way she conducted the interview was crass and, as an earlier poster said, was only going to go one way.
I thought Sheikh Mo did the same thing Sir Alex would do if he was asked about the Ryan Giggs scandal right after winning a big game.
Balders is either terrible at her job or wanted the response she got. Either way it is not good. I won’t watch C4 again while she is on board. She makes me cringe.
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
Why are we watching yet more reruns of the Guineas when the horses are in the paddock for the next live race ?
Numpties. Clueless at times and far too in love with their own opinions
I was delighted that Clare Balding asked the Sheikh that question. I thought HE was the one who was discourteous and rude by walking away from what was a perfectly reasonable question.
I fail to see what there is to be delighted about and I disagree about who was rude in the circumstances.
I think we can all agree that the best they would ever get out of asking the question was a "No comment" reply. Why bother asking it then? Are you delighted because the Sheikh lost his composure? I can’t see any other reason. This question hardly struck a blow for freedom of speech worldwide.
Let’s face it, the program is supposed to be about Horse Racing first and foremost and it was not a Panorama documentary focusing solely on the doping scandal. I expected the 2000 Guineas to be the main bones of the show, instead we were served up Clare Balding trying to dig the dirt on Godolphin from anyone with a connection to them. It would not surprised me if the wifie who cleans the lavvies was dragged in front of the cameras for her tuppence worth.
Granting an interview is not compulsory, it is a courtesy and at the time of the interview the Sheihk was appearing as a guest, and as such, was entitled to more respect than he received. Clare couldn’t get the faux question regarding Dawn Approach’s win out of the way quick enough before blurting out the only one that had truly been on her mind all day. Even if you think it was correct to ask the question, it was done with all the skill and tact of a drunk who has already covered his trousers in urine trying to weasel another pint out of the barmaid.
They had already been turned down on a request for an interview earlier on and told viewers that he
might
grant one later, i.e. if his horse won the big one. With that in mind and allied to a failure to chisel any mud off Mark Johnston, it seemed stupid to pursue the matter further when they were eventually granted the interview. Fair do’s Sheihk Mohammed probably should have laughed it off with a "no comment" but after Channel 4’s blundering tactics throughout the afternoon, and an investigation still ongoing, I think I would probably also have turned away in disgust at the crassness of Mrs/Ms Balding. It is also possible that he granted the interview on the understanding that it was to be only about the horse who had just won a Classic for the owner. It seemed cheap and unprofessional not to grant the horse more than a token comment after his impressive win following an unbeaten two year old career, settling instead for a quick punch below the belt.
Still, people love to see rich Johnnie Foreigners getting one up the old dung funnel from our brave reporters. I suspect Jeremy Paxman will rest easy regarding Clare fronting Newsnight though
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
Why are we watching yet more reruns of the Guineas when the horses are in the paddock for the next live race ?
Agreed the coverage was awful. We didn’t even know who the placed horses were in the 2,000 Guineas and we didn’t see the replays of either Guineas. Had I been at home I would certainly have watched it on RUK.
I am a bit confused did they or did they not show any replays of the Guineas?
I agree that the new…it is almost six months old..Channel 4 set-up remains a work in progress though I think Graham Cunningham’s incisive comments are a bonus. What would help was if we saw Clare Balding more often. She is supposedly the head honcho but her broadcasting talent, which is rightly being rewarded at the academy TV awards tonight, is spread too widely and with the BT channel even more so. Racing coverage needs to see its programme anchors regularly. The old C4 set-up was perfect from that point of view. When Clare is on duty there is an added gravitas to the show…and yes I believe she was right to ask that question after the Guineas. Had she avoided it, she and the programme would have been rightly criticised.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.