The home of intelligent horse racing discussion
The home of intelligent horse racing discussion

The Morning Line 2006

Home Forums Lounge The Morning Line 2006

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 119 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #2842
    The Market Man
    Member
    • Total Posts 396

    When are Channel 4 going to get rid of this bloke? He’s an embarassment. Nothing but a clown but just not funny. He does nothing for their coverage of racing whatsoever.

    #74824
    Andrew Hughes
    Member
    • Total Posts 1904

    What did he do today?

    #74825
    The Market Man
    Member
    • Total Posts 396

    Quote: from Aranalde on 6:19 pm on Aug. 5, 2006[br]What did he do today?

    <br>Nothing in particular its just his whole personality is far more suited to panto than it is to horse racing, you can’t take him seriously at all. He’s always trying to be the funny guy. Personally I just find him trying.

    #74826
    Matron
    Participant
    • Total Posts 5858

    Just think, now that "Glorious Goodwood" is no longer with the BBC, he will no doubt be making an arse of himself and Channel 4 next year.

    Regards – Matron<br>:cool:  

    #74827
    Purwell
    Participant
    • Total Posts 657

    He does not take himself seriously so why should we? He is there to entertain the 50p lucky 15 punters, of which there are thousands, so just watch the races you want to watch and ignore him if he upsets you.

    #74828
    bluechariot
    Member
    • Total Posts 569

    I watched the morning line yesterday, first time in a while, McCririck was shouting down anyone who disagreed with his view, he was on about the whip, they discussed the headbutting incident for much longer than the Stoute fine though in fairness Mac and Cattermole said it was blatant, Hayley Turner kicked to touch when asked any questions that involved the industry. Tommo leered at her and made sexist remarks throughout.

    #74829
    Wallace
    Participant
    • Total Posts 862

    McCririck and Thompson should be banned from serious racing coverage.  Let them take the easy money from C4 but keep them away from ATR & RUK output.

    #74830
    Maurice
    Participant
    • Total Posts 355

    Think what you like of Thomson, he has countless years experience in presenting and works on the premise that the programme has to try to appeal as much to the first time viewer with no understanding of racing as seasoned pros.

    McCrirck is a bookies mouthpiece who doesn’t nkow where to draw the line between impartial presentation of the facts and subjective chestbeating. I’ve seen him in action off-camera at the track and concluded he’s a moron.

    Tanya is, I’d presume, sleeping with someone in a position of influence. She may have sound knowledge of dogs (being one herself, in my opinion) and the market but she makes Angus Loughran come across as articulate. I feel sorry for her.

    #74831
    clivex
    Member
    • Total Posts 3420

    Tanya is, I’d presume, sleeping with someone in a position of influence. She may have sound knowledge of dogs (being one herself, in my opinion

    )

    <br>:o

    #74832
    Purwell
    Participant
    • Total Posts 657

    Miaow………..!

    #74833
    Matron
    Participant
    • Total Posts 5858

    :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

    #74834
    slipperytoad
    Member
    • Total Posts 419

    Tanya is, I’d presume, sleeping with someone in a position of influence. She may have sound knowledge of dogs (being one herself, in my opinion) and the market but she makes Angus Loughran come across as articulate. I feel sorry for her.

    As tommo would say..

    "Ho Ho Ho…that’s one for the judge!" :biggrin:

    #74835
    Grimes
    Participant
    • Total Posts 1891

    I wish Tanya would turn her back on McCirick and look around at great length, while he is talking to camera. Is he watching the tic-tac activity, while she is talking? Well, so can she.

    Really, she needs to show him the fathomless contempt she must feel for him for his endless infantile rudeness. It’s gone on for far too long. Some may have found his  mode of address, "female" droll the first time they heard it, but to say it’s worn too thin ever since would be to seriously understate it.

    Though no amount of public derision by fellow-racegoers has proved sufficient to shame him or his employers, no young woman should be routinely subjected  to such humiliating rudeness week after week, on the implausible grounds of humour.

    Maybe Im paranoid about freemasons, though I know there are some good ones, but I can only assume he is one, to have remained in that job. It doesn’t make any sense at all otherwise. There are, after all, many other people at least as knowledgeable and infinitely more personable to fill his place.

    Is that libel? It sounds fair comment to me, however reluctantly made.

    <br>(Edited by Grimes at 2:42 pm on Aug. 6, 2006)<br>

    (Edited by Grimes at 2:43 pm on Aug. 6, 2006)

    #74836
    dilysb
    Member
    • Total Posts 51

    Totally agree with Maurice.  There are two jockeys I can’t stand but I try to confine myself to slagging them off no more than a couple of times a year.  The Derek Thompson haters should try to be a little more continent, as it is very boring.

    #74837
    Andrew Hughes
    Member
    • Total Posts 1904

    Tanya is, I’d presume, sleeping with someone in a position of influence. She may have sound knowledge of dogs (being one herself, in my opinion)

    I read this after having a mid-afternoon doze, so had to have a quick check of the calendar to make sure I hadn’t slipped back in time. But no, sure enough, it wasn’t 1976 after all.

    I can only think your comments are motivated by two things. Either you think the revelation that you don’t find Tanya attractive is so profound and interesting, you needed to share it with us (like the bloke on the other thread earlier this week who felt compelled to divulge that he found Lydia Hislop attractive at a train station – what a thrilling anecdote that was). Or, you feel that a woman has to pass a threshold of physical beauty before she should be allowed on television, a threshold that clearly doesn’t apply to men, judging by the collection of gurning idiots we are presented with most Saturday mornings. And not only that, but if a woman gets a job on television, she must have slept with someone to get it. Tell you what, while we’re at it, lets have another look at that universal suffrage legislation, those ladies are far too emotional and delicate to handle important matters such as general elections.

    Apologies for the extended rant, but I thought this was supposed to be an intelligent racing forum, not the letters page of the Daily Star.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 119 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.