- This topic has 148 replies, 36 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Colin
It is contemptible, just because you may not yourself use a certain word, to accuse a person who does use it of intellectual bullying.
It is contemptible to express your “disappointment” that I have supposedly taken the establishment line when I have not, in fact, done that. Perhaps it was the assiduous length of my replies that caused you not to read them properly.
It is contemptible to imply that the only reason I criticised the conduct of Jim Bolger is because he supposedly demonstrated a disregard of the British media.
Lydia Hislop
In response to Ginger on the first page, and a potential misconception in general, i’m not sure Binocular never had a potential engagement apart from Cheltenham. Did Henderson not say he might just skip the Champion Hurdle altogether, and go to Aintree, approximately a week before he run in the CH ?
There is (correctly and understandably) a desire for more open communication from trainers & owners, particularly around high profile horses & targets.
If we encourage owners/trainers to issue timely information regarding running plans, well being of horses and such like then we also have to accept that some of the info will be based on opinion & "best knowledge" at the time. Accordingly, it is subject to change.
The one thing that is NOT subject to change is the official "scratching" of a horse…once that is done there is no going back.
I believe that it was valid to question (in both cases) why the horse had not been scratched but that this questioning could/should have been done pre rather than post race.
"Why have you not scratched the horse officially if he doesnt run Nicky/Jim?" would have been a valid & appropriate question in the run up to both races.
In short though, surely the lesson is this – if it ain’t scratched it could still run.
I think that owners/trainers can provide more info but if each time they do, they subsequently feel unable to change their mind then the inevitable & undesirable outcome may be that more & more decide to say nothing at all.
It would be remiss of me to address points in this thread without referring to the accusation at its base. Lydia Hislop has not employed double standards on this matter as she has explained why she took the positions she did in each case. Some may agree, some may disagree with those positions but I do think that she has more than satisfactorily articulated why she did so -namely that she sees a marked difference in the reasons the trainers gave for rating their horse "doubtful".
One could argue that believing one had a "sick horse" is more reason to scratch it than having an alternative target race for a healthy horse but that debate is not one that adds to the discussion about Lydia’s supposed lack of integrity.
She has taken up two positions, explained how & why she chose to do so and has been consistent in her argument.
Finally, on the subject of language, words and eloquence I do believe that we should not mock anyone for the way that they choose to express themselves…BUT I do wish some of Lydia’s RUK colleagues would moderate their tone when discussing horses. Jonathan Neesom in particular is disrespectful, rude & arrogant in the way that he mocks and sneers at some horses that he is supposed to be offering insight on. Somebody pays for that horse to be in training Mr Neesom & they deserve a bit more than a sarcastic comment. It doesnt’t have to be positive but polite and based more on fact than perceived comedy value would be appreciated!
I respect both Jonathan Neesum and Steve Mellish for their knowledge of Horse racing,i particularly like Steve who is not afraid to tell it as it is,that probably comes from working with the fearless Lydia! I was dissapointed that Jonathan was still calling the ground Good at Cheltenham as Pigeon Island ploughed home though,but Hey! who hasn"t made an A**e of themselves on here,never mind live TV!
- Total Posts 17716
who hasn"t made an A**e of themselves on here,never mind live TV!
Speak for yourself!
Isn’t the big difference between Jim Bolger and Nicky Henderson that Jim Bolger is very hostile to any media attention that is shone on his "mistakes" whereas Nicky Henderson is very open and media freindly.
Mr Bolger knew exactly what he was at, whereas Nicky was "in the dark" until Binocular came back from John Halley(JP McManus Vet) at Castlemartin Stud and then made statement’s to the public regarding the inclusion of Binocular as soon as he possibly could.
Jim Bolger seems to have contempt for the British media and betting public, Nicky Henderson is only guilty of the latter
Fair to say though colin that that isnt generally the case with NH, but is nearly always the case with JB.
Thats a very good post David Parry
Why the hoo haa ?
Splendid response from Miss Hislop as one would expect
This is robust debate: no quarter asked, none given
Ginger Tips: a salaried hack needs no defence, though admittedly ‘hack’ does Hislop a disservice
Cormack: ‘sticky’ it or archive it
Why the hoo haa ?
Splendid response from Miss Hislop as one would expect
This is robust debate: no quarter asked, none given
Ginger Tips: a salaried hack needs no defence, though admittedly ‘hack’ does Hislop a disservice
Cormack: ‘sticky’ it or archive it
This may be a "robust debate" Drone, but it is a debate about someone who’s integrity in her work has been challenged. I believe everyone deserves to be defended by others if their integrity is unfairly questioned.
And why sticky it? To my mind this has been one of the worst threads I’ve seen on here. Something I hope we can forget about.
Value Is EverythingI hope this thread is not counter-productive.
We could do with more journalists like Lydia who are not afraid to ask difficult questions. But if journalists are going to be accused of double standards if they do speak out; are they more or less likely to speak out in the first place?
I’d say less.
Value Is EverythingTo my mind this has been one of the worst threads I’ve seen on here. Something I hope we can forget about.
Geez,you should have been a Traffic Warden! Nobody would get a ticket!
To my mind this has been one of the worst threads I’ve seen on here. Something I hope we can forget about.
Geez,you should have been a Traffic Warden! Nobody would get a ticket!
Oh you’d get a ticket all right TAPK, I’d make sure of that!
Value Is EverythingFinally, on the subject of language, words and eloquence I do believe that we should not mock anyone for the way that they choose to express themselves…BUT I do wish some of Lydia’s RUK colleagues would moderate their tone when discussing horses. Jonathan Neesom in particular is disrespectful, rude & arrogant in the way that he mocks and sneers at some horses that he is supposed to be offering insight on. Somebody pays for that horse to be in training Mr Neesom & they deserve a bit more than a sarcastic comment. It doesnt’t have to be positive but polite and based more on fact than perceived comedy value would be appreciated!
Agree with you emphatically David,the sneering way that Neeson dismisses some horses makes me wince. In the same way that McCriricks dismissive comment of "the rags "does. If it wasn`t for owners shelling out their very hard earned money,to buy these horses to race,they wouldn`t be in a job,and what else those two idiots would find to do ,I can`t imagine. None of us buy horses to finish down the field,but we often make mistakes ,pay out good money ,only to find the animal is not living up to its breeding or form. Without us buying them though,through love of the game,there wouldn`t be an industry.
Dear Lydia Hislop
Now that I have spent several more hours of another day off replying to you…
Although that remark drips with condescension (which is revealing), once again I humbly thank you for your reply.
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.
Where have I ever justified Jim Bolger’s actions? I am as critical of them now as I was back then. His actions as I stated in my last reply were a complete PR balls-up, which detracted from the race, its betting, his achievement in winning it and from the sport in general. You seem very much hung on up circumstance with Henderson (targets, wellness, personalities) but swat away any possible circumstance with Bolger as “bogus”. How you can do this is beyond me given you haven’t in the first place even asked me to elaborate on what those plausible (imo) circumstances may be.
The fact is Bolger said New Approach would not run in the Derby, but the horse did, in fact, run in the Derby.
Substitute the words Bolger, New Approach and Derby for Henderson, Binocular and Champion Hurdle and you have the nucleus of my argument. Definitive statements that subsequently meant nothing. I’m glad you used the word “fact” and not secondary issue circumstance towards the start of your sentence. Progress?
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.
THAT IS THE POINT!!
It has now come to light that after Henderson DEFINATIVELY stated that Binocular would not run, he was subsequently contacted by Wetherbys, asked if he wanted to officially scratch the horse.He declined
. HE LEFT THE RACING PUBLIC IN THE DARK FOR OVER TWO WEEKS ABOUT THE PUBLICALLY WIDELY ASSUMED NON PARTICAPATION OF ONE OF THE ANTEPOST FAVOURITES FOR THE MOST IMPORANT HURDLE RACE OF THE YEAR, yet unbelievably you offer a limp “he could have”. For Bolger who did the exact same thing, you issued severe rebuke for “his obstinate disregard for the communicative responsibilities of a modern racehorse trainer”. And you wonder why you’re being accused of double standards??
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.
What “Ideal world” is that? Evidently not the “ideal world” inhabited by or afforded to Jim Bolger. I agree with you on the other points raised here.
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.
I hope you will. You haven’t to the best of my knowledge up to now, nor from what I gather on here, are you likely to. I couldn’t hear the questions being asked on the press conference video, nor do I know who asked them, but if Greg Wood was asking straight questions then commendations to him, he is a Lion amongst Mice in my opinion.
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.
It is neither “specious” nor “emotive nonsense”. You’ve done a Jim McGrath here and changed a definitive statement of non participation into a sentence containing “likely non-runner”. You’ve clouded debate on a specific bet with generalizations and added in you own particular brand of betting dogma.
"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"
Matching odds with probability (if you take the trainer at his word) I could see a logical argument for a value lay at 999. Once again I ask you to ascribe lay odds to the above statement from one of the UK highest profile trainers and what your reason would be for doing so?
I agree with you on the little sympathy attitude, but that’s an integrity issue not a value one. You seem to have issued your insults based on the latter and again I presume without any knowledge by whom or why the bets were laid on Betfair in the first place.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.
I use “exactly the same manner” as a figure of speech. We both know, no two betting markets are exactly alike. The four horses at the head of the market for the Champion Hurdle automatically had their odds cut at the announcement of Henderson’s definitive statement on Feb 17th. New Approach reentered the Derby betting market at a general 6/1, not a million miles away from Binoculars general 8/1 when he was confirmed on March 12th. You eluded at the time “Those who placed bets on the basis that New Approach would not run will be savagely reproachful. The credibility of the sport is damaged, for some perhaps irreparably." This time around despite the price similarities – silence.
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.
I accept my frustration at other racing media entities are misplaced in this thread, accept my apologies for that, I was wrong to put them here and direct them at you.
It’s your prerogative to interpret me as rude, insinuating, unpleasant, ferverant and hysterical. I’d maintain its passionate, robust and at worst abrasive, critical analysis of your professional work which remains very much in the public domain. I’m not particularly surprised at the terms you use for me however, it resembles racings answer to most critical input.
There was never any intention on my behalf to make an issue of your general journalistic integrity. As I’ve already pointed out your overall record stands up to scrutiny. However on this occasion it’s my strong opinion you have disappointingly displayed considerable double standards, the reasons for which I’ve outlined already. You’re drawing of elaborate vernacular tangents that are at best circumstantial, leave my opinion unchanged.
Finally I’ll call up my old friend Wikipedia. I like her, she speaks to me in plain English.
Integrity
as a concept has to do with perceived
consistency of actions
, values, methods, measures, principles, expectations and outcome.
In my opinion your actions have been wholly inconsistent on this issue. Guilty as charged.
Yours without condescension
Paul Fitzgerald
Dear Paul Fitzgerald
What a perfectly horrible response.
To deal with your latest personal comments:
“Now that I have spent several more hours of another day off replying to you…
Although that remark drips with condescension (which is revealing), once again I humbly thank you for your reply.”No condescension was intended although, as you might say, it is revealing that you have interpreted it that way. Perhaps it is grimly amusing that you have strenuously discovered a sentence, amid the near 4,000 or so words that I have written in response to you, that causes you affront – albeit unwittingly on my part. What those words actually betrayed is some frustration and guilt at having used a large amount of my spare time replying when I should have been spending that time with my family. My fault and my problem, but there’s the truth of it. It seems I am pathologically unable to give anything but a comprehensive reply. Those words probably also betrayed some frustration and unhappiness that I should be giving such close consideration to your point of view in the full knowledge that I was only likely to receive further insults in response.
“You’re drawing of elaborate vernacular tangents that are at best circumstantial, leave my opinion unchanged.”
I take this to be a mocking snipe at my use of language and manner of response. I cannot help the way I think and write; like everybody else in the world, that’s part of what makes me who I am. If I think the word fits, I use it. To alter the way I naturally speak and write because I am afraid that someone might judge me negatively for it would be dishonest. I think it would also involve a patronising assumption on my part about whoever is reading or listening.
“There was never any intention on my behalf to make an issue of your general journalistic integrity.”
That is entirely inconsistent with the title of this thread. You might say it is the retrospective changing of a definitive statement.
To move on to the debate itself, as far as my part in it is concerned, I believe it has reached the limit of constructiveness that I thought it might have, if indeed it ever had any. I have already explained at length why I think the two stances I have taken, on Binocular and New Approach, are consistent because of their differing detail. You believe me to have been inconsistent and that any differing detail is irrelevant. Neither of us is going to change our minds.
However, I cannot express my point of view any more comprehensively than I have already. For that reason and because it seems you have appointed yourself prosecutor, judge and jury on this matter, I have nothing further to say. The judgement of such a kangaroo court holds no interest for me.
Lydia Hislop
I think that post, and in particular the second last paragraph, sums up where we’ve reached on this thread and I would encourage everyone to move on.
It is very difficult for me, and the fellow moderators on the site, to balance our obligations to forum members (namely, provide a largely uncensored platform for their views) with our obligations to the media and racing industry figures (namely to protect them from inaccurate factual representations and unwarranted persecution).
Several forum members privately expressed concern about this thread and whether it had gone ‘too far’.
Setting my own views on the actual issues themselves aside (they’re on the thread somewhere) I came to the view that Paul was entitled to question Lydia on this subject. Both were high profile cases and Lydia’s views on the Bolger incident in particular were widely reported.
People will make up their own minds on how the debate was conducted by the principal parties but there were additional contributions made by other forum members (supporting either side) which were disappointing to say the least.
Sometimes we’re considered to moderate too strictly and to be too eager to ban members, while others view the moderation on here as not strict enough. Of late I’ve been drawn to the latter line of thought and will be intervening (either publicly on the forum or via PM) more readily when either the forum rules are broken or when the
spirit of the way we aspire to do things here on TRF
is blatantly challenged or disregarded.
I would also add that people should bear in mind when posting that they are
self-publishing
their comments into the public domain, with all the personal obligations and responsibilities that entails.
I’ll conclude by saying I have nothing but admiration, as I suspect many (including Cavelino Rampante) have, for the way Lydia has come onto the forum and staunchly defended her position on this issue, in what was largely a no-win situation.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.