Lydia Hislop’s Double Standards Re Binocular & New Approach

[Gingertipster]

I think the primary problem with the thread is that people have got caught up in the issue of the perceived rights and wrongs of Bolger/Henderson et al rather than Cav’s original point which was around Lydia Hislop’s interpretaion of those two events.

It’s almost tempting to extract Cav’s original post, Lydia’s reply and then Cav’s second post and place them in a (locked) thread of their own. High quality stuff indeed.

"The rights and wrongs of the Bolger / Henderson et al", can not be separated from the debate Corm.

Cav says in effect "I think Lydia was right in her questioning of Bolger". And is very forthright in saying he believes Henderson should also have questions put to him because (in his opinion) they are virtually identical cases.

Lydia believes the two cases are different, in that Binocular had only one target and was not in A1 condition. So had little or no case to answer.

Cav seems to only want certain aspects of the cases to be adminisable in this court.

If Lydia believes the two cases to be different and that Henderson has no case to answer; then why should she ask those questions?

You think it is "high quality stuff" Corm. That is not what I’d call an unjustified attack on a journalist’s integrity.

Value Is Everything

[cormack15]

I’m talking about the use of language and the articulate manner in which both points of view have been expressed GT.

Have a read of them again and then contrast with your own posts on the matter.

[Gingertipster]

I’m talking about the use of language and the articulate manner in which both points of view have been expressed GT.

Have a read of them again and then contrast with your own posts on the matter.

Yep,

If it is the use of language you want Corm, then I hold my hands up.

Did not know we had to be shakespere to have a valid opinion though.

I’d rather write like what I does, than unjustly attack someone’s integrity so elloquantly.

You think Cav’s points are well made? Yet he’s been telling everyone that disagrees with him we don’t understand his first post. If that is the case then it was not that well put in the first place.

Value Is Everything

[tbracing]

[Lydia Hislop]

Dear Paul Fitzgerald

To take your counter points in turn:

“At length in your reply you list circumstance to defend Henderson, yet you ignore circumstance with the Bolger case. It is entirely plausible and imo highly probable that the decision to run New Approach in the 2008 Derby was made by the Ruler of Dubai and that Bolger had absolutely no veto on the decision taken.”

Your interpretation of the decision to run New Approach is utter speculation and therefore cannot be used as justification for Bolger’s actions, however plausible you believe it to be. We’re dealing with the facts, as we know them, in this thread. Your theory is thrown out under that criterion, I’m afraid. The fact is Bolger said New Approach would not run in the Derby, but the horse did, in fact, run in the Derby. The fact is the horse was said to be well and sound at all times, but that he had an alternative target. The fact is he ran in the one race it was specifically said he would not run in. No mention was made of Sheikh Mohammed and his influence (perceived or actual) at any time. This is an entirely bogus argument on your part.

"Henderson could have picked up the phone after speaking to McManus, called the Racing Post and immediately informed the racing public that he had just spoken to the horses owner and a decision to leave Binocular in the race had been taken but his participation reamined doubtful or 50/50 at most. Henderson never did this! He left everyone in the dark until March 4th, over 2 weeks after a decision to not withdraw the horse from the Champion Hurdle had been made. In the post Champion Hurdle press conference Henderson stated "if we persevered we werent going to do any harm". Why didn’t you tell us you were persevering Nicky? You told us the horse was being put away for the season yet in your press conference you state "I kept them informed of exaclty what we were doing". You did no such thing!"

This is a good point. As a result of what emerged in the post-race press conference, I think it is fair to assert that Henderson could have informed the Press Association of the reportedly McManus-led decision not to scratch Binocular when Weatherbys made their query. It is my stance that Henderson would have been more at fault had he not made public the fact that tests were being carried out on Binocular than what he did, in fact, say. However, it would have been better had he continued in that vein of communication.

Yet once again I maintain that the fact the horse was not, to Henderson’s declared knowledge, healthy is overwhelmingly relevant. In Henderson’s mind, it would seem that he believed he had a sick horse. [From your latest quotes, derived from the post-race press conference: "The bone scan had revealed nothing physically wrong and the treatments for the horse were continuing.”] Bolger was making pronouncements on a well horse. This is not circumstantial, as you airily call it; this is a critically differing detail in the facts as we know them. The wellbeing of the two horses and the impact of that apparent fact on the mindset of their trainers is a crucial item of difference. One might also argue that there is a variation in degree. New Approach was pronounced to be not running in the one race of most vastly preponderant importance of early June. Binocular was cited a non-runner for his target race among the 37 other horses that Henderson actually ran at a Festival – [there would have been even more in training for it at that point] – for which there were many other equally high-profile targets and names.

However, it does come back to the duty-of-care aspect of trainer/owner/jockey relations with the public that I was trying to outline in my original Times article. In an ideal world, Henderson would have notified the PA as suggested. Practically, for future reference, it might be worth Weatherbys flagging up as a matter of course when a doubtful horse has been left in at a forfeit stage, especially as they now have the process whereby they contact the relevant trainer asking whether that horse should be scratched. This would provide an objective check and balance. I will ask the BHA about their thoughts on whether this could be implemented.

"Why are the brave lions(ess’s) who were so quick to maul Jim Bolger over inaccuracies and changes to previously made definative statements, so reluctant to do it now with Henderson in light of the glaring inaccuracies I’ve listed above?"

I am not reluctant to pursue any inconsistencies by Henderson. As I said in my original reply to you, further detail about what happened between Henderson declaring Binocular a likely non-runner and the news that the horse was again a possible runner was very much worthy of interrogation. I could not pursue this line of questioning in the post-race press conference because I was broadcasting. Henderson should have been – and was, thanks to Greg Wood – asked to elucidate.

Your point about my behaviour is quite different. What you have argued is that my negative comments on RUK about those punters who have been caught out or have done the catching at inordinate prices about a horse that has been doubtful due to veterinary problems contradicts my earlier criticising of a trainer for lacking the due duty of care to the public, including the betting public [and to Epsom and British horseracing, I argued in the original article], about a perfectly well horse who has been vehemently said to have an alternative target. I maintain that these two stances contain related points but are not contradictory. I have expanded on that – what I deem to be your syllogism – further down in this reply.

"In amongst the thieving and nicking references I’m glad you’ve mentioned the words "odds" and "chance". What lay odds would you offer on the following statement issued by the one of the leading trainers in the land…
"We have unfortunately decided to put him away for the season to ensure he can begin next term as normal and 100 per cent for a full campaign, which we obviously hope will lead us back to Champion Hurdle"
Taking the trainer at his word, believing that what he says is what he will do, I’d have said a 999 lay was value myself. Or do we have to factor in that Henderson is 50% a liar and only offer a double digit lay? Or is he 75% untrustworthy, what odds then? Is this how the betting public are supposed to approach their antepost betting, by deciding how much a put away merchant the trainer is? I presume you have no idea who laid the long odds bets or what their reasoning was for doing so, thus I think your haste in descriptions of "thieving" and " nicking" are entirely uncalled for. Granted you havent condescended to the "repellant" adjective employed by the puritanical Alan Lee in his Times article yesterday."

This is specious and emotive nonsense. What is someone who puts up 1000 – in fact, let’s not use the headline number of 1000 and use, say, 540 – about a horse declared to be a likely non-runner hoping for? He’s hoping someone might be ill-informed or recklessly speculative enough to match him. What is someone who accepts 1000 or 540 [and prices downwards, until they approach a more proportionate figure] trying to do? Either he’s taking a flyer, in the knowledge that such things have paid off in the past, or potentially he thinks he knows something, or perhaps knows someone who knows someone who says or thinks he knows something. (The latter type of action, if or where it exists, would have integrity implications.) I repeat: I have no sympathy for any of these people. I would hope that a great number of them would themselves expect no sympathy because they know the risks involved in betting, especially when putting up or accepting odds wildly disproportionate to a horse’s chance. That’s trying to nick money in my book. You differ. End of.

"I had some sympathy with those who had backed other horses for the Derby on the basis of Bolger’s seemingly unequivocal word that New Approach would not run because the horse had an alternative target. These punters had the goalposts moved on their bets for no tangible reason. However, admittedly, all bets are a risk.
Oh you had more than sympathy, Lydia. In the Bolger case, you commendably stated punters would be "savegely reproachful", the possibility of "perhaps irreparable " damage to the sport, the "whole house of cards falling down". Antepost punters who backed runners after Binocular was declared out, who took shorter prices compared to when he was declared back in, or who were deprived of backing a winner unless they thought the trainer was a total liar have had the goalposts moved in exactly the same manner as Derby 2008 punters."

First, on a more minor point, the goalposts have not been moved in “exactly the same manner”. On all known form, Binocular was worthy of being the 9/1 shot he was returned as. I suspect a great many people would have had the same bets on other horses whether or not Binocular was due to run. New Approach’s form claims were of an altogether higher order. His absence made the race an entirely different ball game.

Second, you have again elided the same two points to fashion yourself a plausible but syllogistic conclusion, in exactly the same way as you did in your first post. As I explained in my first reply, the main thrust of my Times article was to point out the duty of care that I believed trainers/etc have to the public, including the punting public, in passing on relevant information. I was arguing that if they did not adhere to these considerations, the information gap between those inside and outside the sport would cause a fundamental breach of trust that would impact on the sport’s perceived integrity and, very likely, on the betting turnover that funds it. My focus was on the behaviour of licence-holders within racing. That is a very different argument from defending the individual punters who take disproportionate prices about perceived non-runners and whose conduct is either subject to high risk (for which they can blame nobody except themselves) or else raises potential integrity issues. It was for those highly speculative (at best) punters for whom I expressed zero sympathy on Racing UK last Tuesday. It is under the umbrella of the former, more holistic argument that I addressed Bolger’s conduct and accept as a good point the comment you made that Henderson should have informed the PA of McManus’s reported decision to keep Binocular in the Champion Hurdle rather than scratch him.

"Regarding your journalistic integrity…
At a time when I’m asking myself amongst others…
Why should I be paying good subscription money to a channel whose presenter of the year, seconds after the race, almost trips over himself to defend the Alan Jones stunt at Wincanton recently?
Why should I be watching racing where the pre and post race comments of Phil Kinsella (Mac Aeda) directly contradict each other, but are never questioned, after the horse has in my opinion been deliberatley kept out of the places?
Why should I buy the trade newspaper when one of its main writers uses its pages to regale us all with tales of his profit from an insider gamble on a duckegg horse?…
In short, why should I be wasting my time on this "sport"?
…your post race Champion Hurdle comments were the straw that broke the camels back. True you are being singled out this time, but only beacuse of the comendable position you took the last time that this happened. Racing journalism in the UK and Ireland is almost exclusively deviod of any meaninful critical analysis of its human protaganists and is in my opinion largely populated by a collection of zero concious insiders, head in the cloud puritans, bullshitters, hangers-on, bookmaker front men, and self publicists. On the whole only youself and Greg Wood consistantly emerge as having the talent, ability and professional conscience to relate stories of racings horses, people, politics and funding in a crediable way to me, a racing outsider but fully paid up racing customer.
For people who cant read between the lines, this is a thread of disapointment. The big picture with all of this tells me that certain sections of the racing fraternity are beyond any sort of meaningful media scrutiny. I find that incredibly disappointing. How does the sport attract new customers or even keep existing ones when its upper echelons do what they like without question the vast majority of the time? What sort of future has a sport in this day and age whose media coverage largely resembles that of North Korea? Whose critics are described as "repellent"."

There are some valid points here. However, there is also hysterical comparison and selective referencing. I am not going to comment on the words and actions of others, nor should I have to deal with the anger these have partly generated in you and yet has been directed solely at me, in a thread the title of which directly questions only my integrity.

Your entire argument is based on your interpretation of events being the correct one. I disagree with you on a number of key points. My concluding contention remains that whatever way you dress up your argument – even if I accepted you to be correct, which I do not – it does not amount to a failure of integrity on my part, which is exactly what you have levelled at me. You have provided not one jot of evidence for a failure of integrity, only for a difference of opinion. That is not good enough, especially on a public forum.

Now that I have spent several more hours of another day off replying to you, I must conclude by observing more explicitly that I think you have been rude, your tone insinuating and your choice of some words objectionable. I notice that, despite my specifically objecting to it in my original reply, you have repeated the “brave lions(ess’s)” [sic] jibe in your most recent post. How pointedly unpleasant of you. You seem to be lost in the fervour of debate without regard for equity and self-responsibility. Quite why this discussion could not have been conducted in a polite manner, while remaining entirely forthright, is beyond me.

Regards

Lydia Hislop

[ricky lake]

Follow that ……………

looks like a large mountain has appeared out of a small hill , could someone dig Cav out of this please , as I think we have crossed the line here , and we need to go back and think about the consequences of our words before we seriously offend someone

cheers

Ricky

[Ken(West Derby)]

Time for a lock-out, Corm. Both parties need to close this chapter with reputations restored, not that I ever felt anyone’s was less than excellent anyway. Perhaps a PM to Lydia might be appreciated, wishing her well and with our appreciation for her insights and tireless effort.

[Himself]

Lydia gets the nod … on valid points, and for use of the words, elided and syllogism.

Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning

[johnjdonoghue]

"I had some sympathy with those who had backed other horses for the Derby on the basis of Bolger’s seemingly unequivocal word that New Approach would not run because the horse had an alternative target. These punters had the goalposts moved on their bets for no tangible reason. However, admittedly, all bets are a risk."

The alternative target was the Irish Derby I believe, New Approach had been defeated by Henrythenavigator at the Curragh two weeks before the Epsom Derby. Bolger changed his mind about the target after the race at the Curragh one week before the Epsom Derby. I believe he was furious with the state of the ground at the Curragh, then waited one week after the Irish Guineas on New Approach’s well being and then declared him for the Epsom Derby and decided not to go to the Irish Derby at the end of June.

Can you tell me Lydia what is not tangible about that set of circumstances? What is it that Bolger did wrong?

JohnJ.

[seabird]

"Now that I have spent several more hours of another day off replying to you……….."

Surely your choice, Lydia.

Not sure what it adds to the argument, you could have not answered (not likely, I know) or have been less ‘wordy’ and only used about thirty minutes of your day off.

Colin

[Lydia Hislop]

Johnjdonoghue

“I believe he was furious with the state of the ground at the Curragh…”
You “believe” that, fine. It was not given by Jim Bolger as a reason for New Approach running in the Derby. He and I discussed this entire issue in the post-Derby press conference and, privately, afterwards. At no point did he mention this. As a journalist, I am obliged to stick to the facts as I understand them.

I have already argued where I believe Bolger’s behaviour deviated from the duty of care owed to the racing public, twice in this thread and once in the Times article. Please refer to them.

Regards

Lydia Hislop

[johnjdonoghue]

Time for a lock-out, Corm. Both parties need to close this chapter with reputations restored, not that I ever felt anyone’s was less than excellent anyway. Perhaps a PM to Lydia might be appreciated, wishing her well and with our appreciation for her insights and tireless effort.

Why? The thread may have been started by Cav, but he does not own it, nor this Lydia! Why send a PM to Lydia to appreciate her tireless efforts? She is a forumite like anybody else that posts here, although in saying that she is an excellent racing presenter.

JohnJ.

[Lydia Hislop]

Colin

When a thread is titled as this one is, it would take some disregard of one’s profession to ignore it.

My manner of response is an expression of my personality. As is yours.

Lydia Hislop

[aaronizneez]

It seems to me that both trainers have made misleading statements in that they have stated their respective charges would not run in a specific race.

One was a reportedly fit and well horse , the other reportedly was injured and out for the season. Without hindsight which one would you have thought more likely to have changed their plan ?

I don’t know the ins and outs of the Bolger fracas but what concerns me with the Binocular case is that it seems they hadn’t given up hope of running even though they made the out for the season quote. I don’t think Henderson was trying to pull a fast one, however for the second time in a year he has opened himself up to criticism.

As for questioning the integrity of LH, unfortunate I think. Integrity no, inconsistent would probably fit better with me. IMO both trainers have made misleading statements which have had the possible effect of punters losing money. As most have already commented I also have no sympathy for those who try to make a quick buck out of others one way or the other but in its simplest form there seems to be no difference in the actions of the trainers in question, yet one was given a press bashing and the other wasn’t. Fitness, targets, personalities etc are a secondary issue. Both trainers said for different reasons they definitely would not run. Both did and both won costing punters on both occasions. To report so differently on these two occurrences does seem somewhat inconsistent to me.

Whilst not an entirely "enjoyable" read some very well written points.

[seabird]

Agreed, but should you then mention how much of your time had been taken up?

"elided and syllogism"

The use of the words above and the length of your posts smacks of "intellectual bullying" and I’m rather surprised of at you feeling the need to use such tactics.

As you know, I respect very much what you write and admired greatly your stance when seemingly marginalised by the powers that be at the BBC.

You are one of the few racing media people with a backbone and I think we are then even more disappointed when you take what appears to be the establishment line.

Jim Bolger seems to have contempt for the British media and betting public, Nicky Henderson is only guilty of the latter.

Colin

[Ken(West Derby)]

John J asks…Why? The thread may have been started by Cav, but he does not own it, nor this Lydia! Why send a PM to Lydia to appreciate her tireless efforts?

For the same reason that Corm made the same suggestion to archive their respective posts last night and to save the thread degenerating into that which it is not, yet.
The PM? ….perhaps it’s because, regardless of Lydia’s forum status I still think it’s important to recognise that as a professional journalist her integrity was being questioned and I’m sure she has more pleasant things to do then have to justify her actions here. For that, surely she deserves our respect.
If only the thread had ended with a question mark. As it stood, it came over as a statement of fact and deserved a full and weighty denial.
K

[johnjdonoghue]

Thats fair enough Ken, thank you for your reply.

JohnJ

[Author]

Posts