- This topic has 54 replies, 30 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
We don’t need Tanya and Tom Lee talking to the bookmakers about the movers and negatives, we can all go to oddschecker and get that information.
What we need to know is which trainer has his horses ready to run a genuine race and honest answers as to its chances.
I loved the Morning Line when Nick Luck went to Dan Skelton’s yard and we saw Three Musketeers in his box the morning before he went and won at local track Warwick.
Also the visit to Donald McCain’s yard several weeks earlier where we saw the whole string out on the gallops and Donald pinpointed at least 3 horses who would be running in the next few days and their chances, I believe at least 2 of those horses won the very next day.All this sitting around discussing one or two top races for most of the programme and coming up with 5 selections in a 7 horse race is enough to get anyone reaching for the off switch.
JacThings turn out best for those who make the best of how things turn out...I hope Down doesn’t get any more TV time from Channel 4. His role, like that of Tom O’Ryan on Racing UK, seems to be that of the token old-timer with the slow delivery trotted out to spin cliches in obituaries and recaps.
It’s all rather stale and predictable. I even think these two detract from the people/horses/events they’re remembering with their wizened old sage acts now.
I hope Down doesn’t get any more TV time from Channel 4. His role, like that of Tom O’Ryan on Racing UK, seems to be that of the token old-timer with the slow delivery trotted out to spin cliches in obituaries and recaps.
It’s all rather stale and predictable. I even think these two detract from the people/horses/events they’re remembering with their wizened old sage acts now.
Typical of the vile and unpleasant comments from too many that populate this forum.
Is your objection because they are "token" or "old-timer"?
I have been informed, amused and at many times moved by Down’s journalism since the launch of the Weekender.
The current crop on C4, in the main, have nothing interesting to say. They are the TV equivalent of "muzak"
I’m sorry if you found that comment vile or unpleasant, but that’s all I feel their roles amount to. I know it’s an unpopular opinion to hold, yet I don’t think people should be immune from criticism just because they are venerable figures in the racing world.
I feel that Down and O’Ryan over-romanticise quite unremarkable events. Racing rolls on and different horses win the feature races, but they are on hand with their hackneyed metaphors to try to make everything much more grandiose than it really is. Feel free to disagree, but I see few insights and very little worthwhile in what they contribute. It’s a phony kind of faux-intellectualism where wordplay and comparisons to medieval history replace grounded, lively analysis. I feel that their prominence in the racing media makes it harder for us to appreciate when we have something truly special, like a moving human interest story or a Frankel or Kauto Star.
I also read the Racing Post Weekender, including Down’s columns and the weekly ‘flashbacks’ to his old articles. It does make me a little queasy to read such sprawling prose about such a range of admirable yet unremarkable animals.
Again, apologies if you found my opinion upsetting. I totally accept if you disagree, but hope you can at least see that it doesn’t come from some sort of spiteful dislike.
I’m sorry if you found that comment vile or unpleasant, but that’s all I feel their roles amount to. I know it’s an unpopular opinion to hold, yet I don’t think people should be immune from criticism just because they are venerable figures in the racing world.
I feel that Down and O’Ryan over-romanticise quite unremarkable events. Racing rolls on and different horses win the feature races, but they are on hand with their hackneyed metaphors to try to make everything much more grandiose than it really is. Feel free to disagree, but I see few insights and very little worthwhile in what they contribute. It’s a phony kind of faux-intellectualism where wordplay and comparisons to medieval history replace grounded, lively analysis. I feel that their prominence in the racing media makes it harder for us to appreciate when we have something truly special, like a moving human interest story or a Frankel or Kauto Star.
I also read the Racing Post Weekender, including Down’s columns and the weekly ‘flashbacks’ to his old articles. It does make me a little queasy to read such sprawling prose about such a range of admirable yet unremarkable animals.
Again, apologies if you found my opinion upsetting. I totally accept if you disagree, but hope you can at least see that it doesn’t come from some sort of spiteful dislike.
I appreciate your reply and accept your comments that nobody should be immune from criticism and you are not intending to be spiteful. I think the nature of modern media results in a proliferation of negative comment, and I am reacting to that. Sam Twiston-Davies, for eample, has attracted many negative comments on here when things have gone wrong, yet an excellent ride as in the Cleeve Hurdle goes unremarked.
That does not mean I agree with your latest comments about Down. You seem to have no recognition of the humour in his contributions and also overstate his prominence in the racing media.
I like Alastair Down but posts referring to "vile" comments are going way too far. Talk about over – sensitive. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.
I thought as there hasent been any anti ch4 stories in the post for a while they might have been warned off… The problems are simple to me…just cut these endless pre race interviews and just show the horses in the paddock and going to post or are they not allowed to in a wheeze to get people to subscribe to racing uk ?
I’m afraid anyway subscribing to RUK to regularly see horses in the paddock and going to post will be in for a major disappointment, it’s a rarity. They prefer humans chatting to each other on there as well.
As for Franklin, sounds like sour grapes. Wasn’t he responsible for bringing the bumbling Tanya to our screens? And keeping GG commentating long past his sell buy date and years after being sacked by Racetech? The reasons why? Wants the whip banned as well
Apart from a few different personnel the output now is little different to me. Of course Francome was very popular and has great personality but you wouldn’t miss his form analysis would you?
Don’t watch live now but do tape and notice the "live" C4 pictures are miles behind RUK and even ATR. Don’t know how big the in running markets are but maybe they should increase the speed of their pictures.
All in running betting on C4 races was done by watching C4 pictures when Franklin was in charge, now no in running punters will be using C4 pictures at all.
It was nice to see Ruchard. I wonder why they trotted him out. And a bit of a hark back to the old days with Alice Plunkett too. Bring back Alastair Down in time for Cheltenham and I’ll be happy. It’s not the same without him.
I agree and see that next week Alice will be fronting the show. Alastair should host their Grand National coverage but fear Matt Chapman will get the gig instead, well at least I have Racing UK in that case
Another one here for the return of AD. If C4 want to use their Grand National coverage as a springboard to recruiting and retaining more viewers, then surely Chapman CANNOT be the answer? It is possible to be combative without being a total ******** (feel free to make up your own insult).
Much of the problem with racing journalism is the shibboleth that participants are exempt from any analysis that verges towards criticism.
Until this mould is broken, it’ll always be a bit beige because all information has to be presented at face value.
Football doesn’t work like that. Ex players are willing to offer fair critiques of current performances. What is it with racing?
I am not really a Down fan either – I think he has always styled himself as a bit of a latter day "rake" – a throwback to the Victorian Gentlemans Club era – with people like Jeffrey Bernard as a slightly more contemporary influence.
That sort of stuff leaves me cold.
Does this make me vile and unpleasant?
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"Re the comments on criticism by Grey Dolphin, the difference between racing and football is that criticism of a player in a football match isn’t linked to any hint of corruption.
Because of the inevitable link between racing and betting, any suggestion of a bad ride, or a poorly prepared or placed horse, can be seen as an accusation.
Practically any beaten favourite nowadays, you can go to the other forum and find suggestions that connections have got the horse beaten deliberately for financial advantage.
When the Spurs goalkeeper fumbled a half hit shot and pushed it into the net late in the game yesterday, nobody thought of suggesting that he did it because he’d backed Leicester to win.
I’m not saying it’s necessarily right, but it is why the media are reluctant to bite the bullet, and it’s also why the participants are so sensitive about criticism.
Alastair should host their Grand National coverage but fear Matt Chapman will get the gig instead
Phil, you do understand that Alastair Down has been seriously ill through alcoholism and cancer in recent times? God willing he’s beaten both, but he’s not going to suddenly pop up to front the biggest racing day of the year.
Mike
I hope Down doesn’t get any more TV time from Channel 4. His role, like that of Tom O’Ryan on Racing UK, seems to be that of the token old-timer with the slow delivery trotted out to spin cliches in obituaries and recaps.
It’s all rather stale and predictable. I even think these two detract from the people/horses/events they’re remembering with their wizened old sage acts now.
Typical of the vile and unpleasant comments from too many that populate this forum.
Bit of an OTT response to a perfectly reasonable criticism isn’t it?
Mike
Re the comments on criticism by Grey Dolphin, the difference between racing and football is that criticism of a player in a football match isn’t linked to any hint of corruption.
Because of the inevitable link between racing and betting, any suggestion of a bad ride, or a poorly prepared or placed horse, can be seen as an accusation.
Practically any beaten favourite nowadays, you can go to the other forum and find suggestions that connections have got the horse beaten deliberately for financial advantage.
When the Spurs goalkeeper fumbled a half hit shot and pushed it into the net late in the game yesterday, nobody thought of suggesting that he did it because he’d backed Leicester to win.
I’m not saying it’s necessarily right, but it is why the media are reluctant to bite the bullet, and it’s also why the participants are so sensitive about criticism.
I believe there can be criticism without any suggestion of deliberate intention to lose the race. Some people on betting forums are like five year old kids who can’t accept that their horse just lost because it wasn’t good enough. There always has to be a scapegoat for these people and there always has to be an ulterior motive when a jockey makes a balls-up.
Jockeys vary in ability and I believe a poor ride should be highlighted in order that the casual viewer can better read what actually transpired in a race.
I would rather have a few feathers ruffled than sit through the endless "great ride" comments, when Bruce Forsyth could have won on the horse in question.
How many times have we heard "If you look here, you will see this horse is really unlucky", when the truth is that the jockey suffered a brain fart at the key stage of the race?
I only watch CH4 racing for the actual race itself and, very occasionally might listen to where a trainer thinks the horse will probably run next. Other than that, I switch off or over when the predictable waffle starts again.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
Some people on betting forums are like five year old kids who can’t accept that their horse just lost because it wasn’t good enough.
What?
Like Horsted Keynes at Royal Ascot?
Sorry Steve, couldn’t resist it
Don’t take offence Some people on betting forums are like five year old kids who can’t accept that their horse just lost because it wasn’t good enough.
What?
Like Horsted Keynes at Royal Ascot?
Touche, but to be fair to me I take it on the chin 99% of the time. No excuses for my poor picks on Daily Lays and Plays, just harsh analysis when it’s warranted eg William Buick sitting at the back of the field on The Fugue in the Eclipse and then realising all too late that the ones in front aren’t stopping. In my opinion not enough was made of such poor race riding by the analysts.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
Don’t take offence - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.