- This topic has 118 replies, 46 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
Call me hopelessly old-fashioned but, referring to female racing TV presenters as "dogs" or making other wild suggestions regarding their private lives, does nothing for the standing of this forum among many of its members or the racing media.
It strikes me the only way in which an incompetent such as the bold T could get on TV is by sleeping her way there
And you miss the point. Because she is a woman, you conclude she must have slept with someone. Whereas you have nothing to say about how the male incompetents who litter the same programme got there.
Please don’t try to tell me sleeping with the bosses doesn’t happen. It’s naive in the extreme. There is a ‘celeb’ (B at best, I’ll admit) who once offered herself to me in return for a ‘favour’ which would improve her career prospects considerably.
And what has this got to do with Tanya Stevenson? Is your argument that because one woman once offered to sleep with you for the sake of her career, that all women must be the same? Please don’t attempt to dress up simple misogyny as worldly wisdom.
Zilzal has it spot on. This might be the sort of thing that goes down well on the Betfair forum, but surely this forum is better than that.
(Edited by Aranalde at 11:49 am on Aug. 7, 2006)
Maurice
Your assertion though doesn’t make sense, if as you put it, she looks like a dog, surely she’s that repulsive that sleeping her way to the top is not an option.
Barry, we’re not all ego merchants who go out to promote themselves for free of even get paid to do so.
I gave up watching tie Morning Line years ago as I cannot bring myself to waste time on such rubbish. McCrick and Thompson can stay there but they should not be on serious racing coverage.
There are far too many people on the racing-media gravy train and a good number should be replaced to make way for new blood.
(Edited by Wallace at 1:34 pm on Aug. 7, 2006)
To be fair to Barry, I’ve seen him side on on his perch at the races, and he seems to be an expert on guts.
Reading back over the last few replies I have to admit I was in the wrong. I can hardly be a misogynist, though, since I married a woman and often find them better company than blokes.
I should have made no reference to T’s looks at all or how someone as inarticulate as she managed to get on TV.
Thomson got there because he was once a good (radio)presenter and commentator. McGrath because he is a form expert and director of Timeform. Barry Dennis is a successful bookie but he’s also a self publicist. McCririck is a failed bookie (by his own admission) and after that I’m struggling to find anything good to say about him. Should he be on TV? Never. How did he get there? Probably not by sleeping his way there. Probably by blustering his way past interviews on the premise that he’ll make for colourful and ‘interesting’ TV. Maybe he was for the first few times he appeared but my experience of witnessing his antics off camera leads me to conclude he is a moron.
(Edited by Maurice at 2:40 pm on Aug. 7, 2006)
I can hardly be a misogynist, though, since I married a woman and often find them better company than blokes.
post of the month ;)
Maurice
John McCirick is an ex- Journalist of the Year for his exposure of the then Tote Board’s practice of pouring money back into their own pools to reduce dividends to punters. I believe this may have been in the late seventies. Since then, he’s worked an angle. Not to everyone’s taste, clearly. But he’s certainly a more articulate and informed broadcaster than, say, the largely bland ex-athletes who populate the BBC’s athletics coverage
He’s also the reason I – and many other people – noticed Horse Racing and became interested in the sport despite having no parental influence, peer involvement or knowledge of horses.
On the scales, I reckon he’s still a positive, innovative influence for a sport fast losing it’s pitch in the modern sport marketplace.
If you don’t like Channel 4, then don’t watch it. It’s simple.
What was it about McCririck’s performance that attracted you to racing, Max?
I agree he has written a decent article or two but as a TV "personality" I find him bad-mannered and boorish and if that is what a public school education does for one, then I am glad that I could never afford to send my daughters to one.
It seems to me that in most businesses these days, the drive to win new customers overcomes the fear of alienating present customers.
Colin
(Edited by seabird at 3:37 pm on Aug. 7, 2006)
Bit too much McCririck bashing methinks. The bloke is quite obviously a bit strange to say the least and he plays to an audience. He’s a clever bloke though and a lot of his points are good ones even if he does put them across in an unattractive way.
McCririck is one of those people everyone knows even if they don’t like racing and I’m sure people initially find him entertaining, he must have attracted many people to the sport.
There are others I’d rather get rid of first.
<br> What you have got to remember about<br> our Tommo is
erm,,, :scratchchin: erm
flatcapgamble….:coolwink:
Jim McGrath makes me laugh. The Timeform form expert that barely ever picks a winner.
Most of the ATR pundits are better.. Dave Duggan seems to really know what he’s talking about..
The late 70s is obviously over 25 years ago and he’d have been something like 35 years old and with a cause to fight. Now that he’s ‘established’ he is more into making a cult of himself (choosing my words carefully).
He may be educated but I’m not convinced he’s clever. After all, he failed as a bookie, which must take some doing.
I agree that he’s better than ex-athletes being employed (most typically by the BBC) but that’s saying more about them than about him.
Jim McGrath makes £500kpa, allegedly, from punting, unless I misread a newspaper article about him. Perhaps someone can correct me on that one.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.