- This topic has 148 replies, 36 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
- Total Posts 17716
Bottom line (in my view) – Jim Bolger changed his mind because of the going, Nicky Henderson because he was told to – 2 very different reasons, neither of which changes that both were said to be non-runners by their trainers, yet both ran.
Cav has asked why they were reported very differently. Fair enough question imo, and, despite the robust and eloquent defence, the basic facts remain unchanged.
As a supposedly informed discussion group, why should we not query the reporting of what is, after all, just another informed opinion? Journalists don’t have a monopoly on the truth and, despite the sycophantic utterings of the ‘name’ worshippers, were it not for threads like these where the perceived hierarchy is taken to task, this forum would not have half the the interest (or indeed, the clout) it currently does.Diificult to argue with your basic sentiments regarding robust debate
reet hard
. However when you dismiss half of the contributions (presumably the half that you do not agree with) as "
the sycophantic utterings of the ‘name’ worshippers
", it does rather lead one to think "why bother?".
Dear Lydia Hislop
If no condescension was intended, your remark certainly didn’t convey that perception. It’s your imbalanced reporting that causes me affront, not your replies on here. What you do with your spare time is your own business and has zero relevance to this thread. I make a point each Christmas of thanking TRF members and its owner for their effort of contribution during the year, I certainly don’t think it’s necessary on every thread. In my 4 years of contributing to the forum you’re the first person that has counted the number of words they’ve used or remarked on what else they could be doing rather than replying to fellow TRF members.
There is “no mocking snipe” at your use of language. I have remarked at how you have used language to circumvent the issue, that’s all.
Once again you have completely ignored my comments on your general journalistic integrity. I won’t repeat myself again. I have enough regard for the majority of TRF members to know they read a thread in its entirety before drawing conclusions, however in deference to your concern about this threads title, I’ll change it to reflect the more specific issue.
I have issued no personal comments towards you (how could I?), given you fair praise where’s it been due and merely taken you to task for what in my opinion are your professional inconsistencies on this matter. In return you have directed words such as ferverant, hysterical, rude, unpleasant and insinuating towards me. This is absolutely no problem, all part of robust and and at most abrasive debate, but further evidence of double standards in my opinion and again it shows racings almost complete disregard for any measured critical analysis that comes from a perceived “outsider”, whether a paying customer or not.
Kangaroo courts don’t allow for any reasonable defense, in this case you’ve had as much opportunity as the rest of us.
The bottom line is this – Binocular re-entered the Champion Hurdle market a confirmed runner at a general price of 8/1, New Approach re-entered the Derby Market a confirmed runner at a general 6/1. The price difference in market effect is tiny, 3 percent. The difference in your reporting of both stories (where punters were used as a basis) is enormous.
Sincerely
Paul Fitzgerald
Spotted on Google…. Prof Paul Fitzgerald is the Deputy Director of APRC. He is a consultant psychiatrist and senior lecturer with the Department of …
Is this the same Paul F. me wonders? There’s certainly been some mind games and lecturing on this thread.
Did Binocular visit Lourdes between the run at Sandown 6th. February, and the consequent announcement that he wouldn’t run in the Champion Hurdle, and his best ever performance (RPR 175, OR 173)on March 16th.?
Either that, or have Lazarus’ resuscitation team been re-united?
I think we should be told.
Colin
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.
Wholly unnecessary words Cormack IMVVHO and while I realise Lydia probably went to a "top university", on here she is just AN Other poster like the rest of us and should not expect to be treated with either kid gloves or awe.
This singling out of her for ‘nothing but admiration’ only reinforces the perceived ‘them and us’ relationship we smelly-socks have with those gifted a key to racing’s executive bog viz free entrance to the racecourse, an invitation to join the huddle within the winner’s enclosure, and being paid a nice little retainer to write about something they adore.
None of which is meant as a sleight against Miss Hislop; indeed her responses to CR have been a credit to her beleaguered profession, just as CR’s words have been to TRF
The allusion to ‘wasting my spare time’ did grate a little ma’am; we all choose to correspond with TRF in our spare time, there’s no rule saying we have to. That you chose to is welcome, no more no less
Good thread
Dear all
Two final points, for the avoidance of doubt:
1. There is a huge difference between (a) contributing to a thread in your spare time because you choose to do it, and find it pleasurable and (b) feeling obliged to contribute to a thread because its original title contains your name and publicly questions your integrity, and finding it unpleasant. This is an obvious point of difference that should not “grate” with any objective assessment, surely.
2. I do not seek or expect to be treated any differently from any other poster on this forum just because I work in the racing media. Nor have I ever sought or expected that. In fact, I would like to be treated exactly the same, by which I mean I expect to be accorded the basic human courtesy and consideration that we all have a responsibility to extend to each other, whatever our profession or education or whatever. To take just one example from this thread, I don’t think that suggesting without one shred of evidence that I took a biased view for reward, as more than one contributor has implied, corresponds to this premise.
Lydia Hislop
Sweet divine Jesus.
There is a trailer for that preview show on RUK where James Willoughby accuses you of semantics…
The tone of many of the comments on this thread is hostile, and even bullying. There’s a case for saying that the title of it is libellous (one of the definitions of a libel being a statement that is likely to harm a person’s reputation among her/his peers). Reading it makes me feel ill. Enough.
Since Cormack PM’d me last night, having deleted my post and apparently those of other members, he gave me the impression that we both felt this thread had reached its limit and it was to be locked up, out of harm’s way. Since when, I now see we have a further page added and am wondering why Corm seems to be applying double standards in his treatment of posters? Or is that a new thread altogether?
KNickc your post has been the best one on this thread. I can’t believe people have been praising this thread, it is verbose, repetitive, turgid and pointless.
Cavelino accused Lydia Hislop of something (which could possibly be construed as libel,) Lydia has rebutted this. Cavelino has repeated his point with added snide remarks, Lydia has rebutted this with added snide remarks, repeat
ad nauseum
.
It’s like watching one of the gaff track Nationals being run on heavy ground, the rest of the field has given up and pulled up while the 2 lone competitors plod on at a snails pace trying to cut each others throats. It doesn’t matter who wins you’ll still only be rated 85
Your efforts would be better employed on anything else other than this argument.
If I were Lydia and Paul I would spend the rest of the day thinking of puppies, kittens and lambs and other nice things and forget this thread exists.
If I were Lydia and Paul I would spend the rest of the day thinking of … lambs
Like the ones Binocular was supposed to be frolicking with on his spring holidays while instead he was pounding the treadmill down in Martinstown Stud!
Jim Bolger imo was disrespecting The Derby as a race, where as Nicky Henderson was defintely not disrespecing the Champion Hurdle at any point, Nicky Henderson clearly wants to win the Champion Hurdle, Jim Bolger couldn’t of cared less winning The Derby imo, didn’t he say winning the Derby adds hardly no value to a horse studs career and were looking for more 1m2f G1’s.
What Nicky Henderson did was no worse in what Thomas Cooper, in the Champion Chase, yet he is more low profile than Nicky Henderson no one has said anything about him even though he declared to the public Forpadydeplasterer done for the season, yet a Curragh gallop changed all that.
I don’t think those are ‘wholly unecessary’ words Drone. Because of her position in the racing media Lydia Hislop is in a different position than most of the rest of us, with regard to what she might post on TRF. We can say anything on here about racing, pretty much, but because she is employed in a high profile media role two things are clearly different –
1) What she says/posts is likely to come under much greater scrutiny than anything you or I might post and…
2) Her livelihood is dependent to some greater or lesser extent on how she is percieved by both the public and her employers – that perception can be altered by what she posts so therefore she takes a much greater risk than you or I when posting.
That, in my opinion, makes her TRF presence very different to that of you or I and why I applaud her for engaging with us on the forum.
In addition, you’ve now made reference, in fairly sarcastic terms, several times to the ‘top university’ line we included in our recent advertisment for an intern. I’ve got the message on how you feel about it, no need to repeat the jibe endlessly.
Finally, my interests are in being as fair as possible. I do not single out anyone for special attention/favour (in fact I resisted pressures to moderate this very thread – not from Lydia or Paul I hasten to add) and you only need to look through the archive of extremely challenging material on this forum to appreciate that I do not shirk from challenges to authority or to whom you and others percieve as racing’s ‘insiders’.
I’d also reckon that most working journalists within racing (if that’s who you are getting at) would take issue with the fact that they’ve been ‘gifted’ any keys. The majority are there, I’d suggest, because they are good at what they do and have worked hard to get there. They are paid to do a job for which they’re paid the going rate and I think it’s condescending to term that as a ‘nice little retainer’ and imply they are reimbursed for not doing much.
Ken – I did hope to put the thread to bed but can’t be on here all the time to moderate posts and once they’ve been on for a period there’s no point removing them. Aplogies to you and Ginegertipster whose posts I removed after they’d crossed in cyberspace with the one I made last night.
As I said last night, I think the thread has run it’s course, both the leading players have made their points, neither looks like budging. I think it’s a case of who is happy to let the other have the last word. I know from personal experience that is difficult to do, we all like the last word I expect!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.