- This topic has 37 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 13 years ago by
.
- Posts
Sorry Paul, but on this occasion I think you are way off the mark.
This broadcast was regarding horse racing meetings in the UK, in particular about the 2000 Guineas, as the first classic and main race of the day. It was NOT a documentary about the recent doping scandal, which if it had been, you would have had a point about the question being posed.
From an early stage today Clare Balding had an agenda to put Sheikh Mohammed on the spot regarding the use of illegal drugs by one of his trainers. She kept oohing and aahing about how great it was to see him at the races but this was clearly false enthusiasm and the only thing on her mind was getting to pop the question. She tried earlier after Universal won, putting the squeeze on Mark Johnston for information about how Godolphin felt about recent events. Unsurprisingly he made no comment.
Clare admitted that Sheikh Mohammed had refused an earlier interview and passed on the message that he might give one later, particularly if his horse won the big one. Even an imbecile could have predicted that if the Sheikh DID grant an interview, no opinion on the doping issue would be passed on. It beggars belief then, that after the merest of references to a terrific win by his horse in the big race, she went straight for the jugular and brought up the question that was always going to go down as well as a turd left in a hotel trouser press. I would have walked away and I suspect any one of us in the same position would have done the same.
For all you want to bang on about the rights and wrongs in Racing, classic winners are few and far between for owners. People pumping life blood into the sport have a right to savour the ultimate moment of a Classic winner. That was denied to winning connections today, in an interview that was premeditated, cheap, greasy, rude and unprofessional. The seedy underbelly became a better attraction for viewers in relation to watching a potentially brilliant winner, in the eyes of program directors it seemed.
If I had a quid for every time freedom of speech etc was trotted out I would have made a lot more money than if I was backing Clare Balding to produce a dignified interview. Freedom of speech is a myth that is invariably trotted out when it suits the protaganist in a debate. In this case it would only seem fair to give the Godolphin team some time to conduct their own investigations, draw their own conclusions and make a response on their own terms, when they have had time to recover from what must have been a shock. It hardly seems fair to expect much cooperation when a bumbling fool shoves a microphone into your face.
Channel 4 :- "My Lords, Ladies and Genitals"
On a lighter note, Findus have put in an offer for Toronado.
Brilliant post!
Couldn’t agree more. I cringed. Not just then but when she asked Mark Johnston and also before the Guineas when she kept barging into huddles of jockeys, trainers and owners without even asking if they minded. I thought it was rude.
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
It strikes me as common courtesy to restrict interviews with winning connections to Persadian wow-great-how-does-it-feel vacuity whoever those connections are, as winning a race is supposed to be a moment of happiness, joy and release: sport in other words
So, while I didn’t see the the interview, but judging by the comments on this thread, I would agree that it wasn’t an appropriate moment to raise the ‘Godolphin Affair’ with Shaky Mo
Also, while not being strictly
sub judice
, it might be wise to let the BHA et al conclude their investigations before the media-at-large set their sights on the Maktoums
That said, looking at this more broadly, La Balding is to be congratulated for having the nerve not only to stick her stilettos into a Tribe Elder but also for biting the hand that feeds her and C4: it would seem unlikely that she was under orders by her C4 Racing superiors to griil their benefactor, wouldn’t it?
It’s no surprise that Clare is likely to hold very strong views on doping matters given her close proximity to the training ranks
Good shot, shame about the timing
Dave Yeats hangs around parade rings dressed as a third-rate gigolo from
The Italian Job
.
Was he wearing his signature snot-rag cravat?From an early stage today Clare Balding had an agenda to put Sheikh Mohammed on the spot regarding the use of illegal drugs by one of his trainers. She kept oohing and aahing about how great it was to see him at the races but this was clearly false enthusiasm and the only thing on her mind was getting to pop the question. She tried earlier after Universal won, putting the squeeze on Mark Johnston for information about how Godolphin felt about recent events.
Brilliant post!
Couldn’t agree more. I cringed. Not just then but when she asked Mark Johnston and also before the Guineas when she kept barging into huddles of jockeys, trainers and owners without even asking if they minded. I thought it was rude.
Totally agree, it was so rude. Let the owner enjoy the winning moment, no matter who they are.
I’m afraid for me Ms. Balding is just like a dog’s willy – gets in everywhere!Sorry Paul, but on this occasion I think you are way off the mark.
This broadcast was regarding horse racing meetings in the UK, in particular about the 2000 Guineas, as the first classic and main race of the day. It was NOT a documentary about the recent doping scandal, which if it had been, you would have had a point about the question being posed.
From an early stage today Clare Balding had an agenda to put Sheikh Mohammed on the spot regarding the use of illegal drugs by one of his trainers. She kept oohing and aahing about how great it was to see him at the races but this was clearly false enthusiasm and the only thing on her mind was getting to pop the question. She tried earlier after Universal won, putting the squeeze on Mark Johnston for information about how Godolphin felt about recent events. Unsurprisingly he made no comment.
Clare admitted that Sheikh Mohammed had refused an earlier interview and passed on the message that he might give one later, particularly if his horse won the big one. Even an imbecile could have predicted that if the Sheikh DID grant an interview, no opinion on the doping issue would be passed on. It beggars belief then, that after the merest of references to a terrific win by his horse in the big race, she went straight for the jugular and brought up the question that was always going to go down as well as a turd left in a hotel trouser press. I would have walked away and I suspect any one of us in the same position would have done the same.
For all you want to bang on about the rights and wrongs in Racing, classic winners are few and far between for owners. People pumping life blood into the sport have a right to savour the ultimate moment of a Classic winner. That was denied to winning connections today, in an interview that was premeditated, cheap, greasy, rude and unprofessional. The seedy underbelly became a better attraction for viewers in relation to watching a potentially brilliant winner, in the eyes of program directors it seemed.
If I had a quid for every time freedom of speech etc was trotted out I would have made a lot more money than if I was backing Clare Balding to produce a dignified interview. Freedom of speech is a myth that is invariably trotted out when it suits the protaganist in a debate. In this case it would only seem fair to give the Godolphin team some time to conduct their own investigations, draw their own conclusions and make a response on their own terms, when they have had time to recover from what must have been a shock. It hardly seems fair to expect much cooperation when a bumbling fool shoves a microphone into your face.
Channel 4 :- "My Lords, Ladies and Genitals"
On a lighter note, Findus have put in an offer for Toronado.
I have to agree 100% with this post.
I thought Clare B’s interview of Sheik Mohammed was every bit ‘Red Top’ racing coverage. Very embarrassing to watch.
The only time I get slightly annoyed with Clare Balding is when she barges into a conversation between owners and trainers in the paddock, especially when the body language of said connections is telling her, stay away.
As for her question to the overly rich oil baron. She has my 100% support. At least she asked the question which had to be asked. Other journalists are clearly afraid to do so.
It was a joyous moment to see him squirm. The old saying that if you have nothing to hide and all that…
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
Dave Yeats hangs around parade rings dressed as a third-rate gigolo from
The Italian Job
.
Was he wearing his signature snot-rag cravat?Of course. Accompanied by some bizarrely-decorated designer shades that were probably Dolce & Gabbana but which I swear I once spotted on an episode of the
Captain Scarlet & The Mysterons.
He’s a funny cove is Mr Yeats. I’ve seen him often on RUK’s graveyard Wednesday-night at-Kempton-in-midwinter slot, yet for one who’s stock-in-trade should be tabloid precision, he speaks in a most rambling tangential way, essentially covering topics such as:
– The dress sense of Dave Yeats
– The drinking habits of Dave Yeats
– The sex life of Dave Yeats
– The punting prowess of Dave YeatsI’ve never found myself stuck a lift with Jeremy Clarkson but I can imagine it’s a lot like this.
Mike
"betlarge":3npudrit wrote: Was he wearing his signature snot-rag cravat?
Of course. Accompanied by some bizarrely-decorated designer shades that were probably Dolce & Gabbana but which I swear I once spotted on an episode of the
Captain Scarlet & The Mysterons.
MikeAs he is sitting next to me at the moment I can confirm they are Prada
[In this case it would only seem fair to give the Godolphin team some time to conduct their own investigations, draw their own conclusions and make a response on their own terms, when they have had time to recover from what must have been a shock.
Presuming, of course, it was a shock to them.
Also any investigation they carry out will not be independent.
You are speculating that the owners may have been aware of what was happening. That’s your prerogative but it doesn’t mean it is the reality. Innocent until proven guilty clearly doesn’t apply in your logic though.
Your second comment is a rather spurious attempt to make a point that isn’t really there to be made. The BHA are already holding an independent investigation and have been testing in Saeed Bin Suroor’s stables. That does not prevent Godolphin from holding their own investigation, drawing their own conclusions and making any comment they see fit at a time and place of their own choosing, rather than having some rude idiot poking a microphone into their face, probably under false pretences, in an effort to show that either they, or their employer, had a bigger pair of balls than the viewing public gave them credit for.
Still, a crap pot is not a crap pot unless there is somebody sticking a dirty big oar into it and creating a whirlpool that spirals out of control until the jobbies are lapping at the edges of the porcelain. Would that be a King Eddy?
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
[In this case it would only seem fair to give the Godolphin team some time to conduct their own investigations, draw their own conclusions and make a response on their own terms, when they have had time to recover from what must have been a shock.
Presuming, of course, it was a shock to them.
Also any investigation they carry out will not be independent.
You are speculating that the owners may have been aware of what was happening. That’s your prerogative but it doesn’t mean it is the reality. Innocent until proven guilty clearly doesn’t apply in your logic though.
Your second comment is a rather spurious attempt to make a point that isn’t really there to be made. The BHA are already holding an independent investigation and have been testing in Saeed Bin Suroor’s stables. That does not prevent Godolphin from holding their own investigation, drawing their own conclusions and making any comment they see fit at a time and place of their own choosing, rather than having some rude idiot poking a microphone into their face, probably under false pretences, in an effort to show that either they, or their employer, has a bigger pair of balls than the viewing public gave them credit for.
Still, a crap pot is not a crap pot unless there is somebody sticking a dirty big oar into it and creating a whirlpool that spirals out of control until the jobbies are lapping at the edges of the porcelain. Would that be a King Eddy?
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
I agree with wit and Steve ,,this was plainly wrong
A giant mistake , one wonders will Dubai continue to sponsor the offending tv programme
wrong time and place
beggars belief really
imo
Ricky
You are speculating that the owners may have been aware of what was happening. That’s your prerogative but it doesn’t mean it is the reality. Innocent until proven guilty clearly doesn’t apply in your logic though.
I was simply offering a counter speculation to yours as your speculation is also just that.
I wasn’t commenting on the guilt or innocence of anybody – which is why I chose my words carefully.
Either of us could be correct.
Your second comment is a rather spurious attempt to make a point that isn’t really there to be made. The BHA are already holding an independent investigation and have been testing in Saeed Bin Suroor’s stables. That does not prevent Godolphin from holding their own investigation, drawing their own conclusions and making any comment they see fit at a time and place of their own choosing, rather than having some rude idiot poking a microphone into their face, probably under false pretences, in an effort to show that either they, or their employer, has a bigger pair of balls than the viewing public gave them credit for.
I agree Godolphin can hold any sort of investigation they see fit but it is an
internal
investigation and as such is open to be questioned if they choose to publish it. Therefore it is a very valid point – anyone who takes any organisations internal investigation at face value would need their bumps felt.
Even the police, to take an example, are not trusted to carry out their own internal investigations – that’s why there is, rightly, the IPCC.
Yes the BHA are holding an ongoing investigation, the scope of which is not known, time may tell what its conclusions are and how thorough it will be.
The testing of the Bin Suroor stable is just window dressing – it should have been tested the day the first positive tests came back, not almost four weeks later.
It would require the intellegence of an amoeba to have any horse in that yard with prohibited drugs in its system after what has happened thus far.
As for the question that was put yesterday it was a valid question, it should have been asked and it was the only opportunity to put the question.
I know from experience that Godolphin, the Dubai Government, the ERC etc. will refuse to answer or even acknowledge any awkward questions they don’t like – what happened yesterday was a very public demonstration of the contempt shown when asked questions that don’t suit them are asked.
Just about the #1 complaint against the racing media is kowtowing to the elite. So what happens when a hack finally ‘doorsteps’ one of them, she gets it in the neck for injudicious timing.
It’s not often I find it easy to sympathise with both parties in a case like this, but I do here.
Clare was faced with the biggest story in racing for decades and the chance to speak live to the man at the heart of it. Doubtless she was under serious time pressure too. She’s not just a presenter in this case; she’s a journalist with an objective job to do.
The Sheikh took the decision many thought he’d duck, to attend the meeting. Winning a classic is a historic moment, and the history of British racing seems to mean a lot to the Sheikh. He could have had a reasonable expectation that the interview would have been, maybe, 90% about his fine horse with a few questions at the end about the MAZ affair.
Clare Balding was in a no-win situation imo. I think she should have talked more about the horse and the race before raising the big question. But I speculate without knowing what the director was saying in her earpiece – "30 seconds Clare" perhaps?
It might also have been a clash of egos. I suspect the Sheikh is unused to hearing anything but "Yes, Your Highness". Clare is strongly aware of her current value as a presenter. And from what I hear she is a very tough cookie too; she takes no prisoners when she feels things should have been done a certain way. Her ego is reflected regularly in that ‘barging in’ technique that’s been mentioned a few times on this thread.
The other factor is that CH4 still have not decided what it is they’re trying to do. Are they targeting an audience of knowledgeable racing fans? Infrequent punters looking for a bit more education? ‘Drive-by’ channel hoppers whom they hope will pause and spend some time? A combination of all of these? Once they’ve decided who they are trying to entertain, I think the editorial direction will become much clearer and incidents like yesterday’s less likely to happen. Whether that will be acceptable to Ms Balding is another matter.
… I suspect the Sheikh is unused to hearing anything but "Yes, Your Highness"..
that may be true outside of Dubai – but then he is after all ruler of Dubai and deputy ruler of the UAE: so basically like any other head of state.
however it is very far from true inside Dubai.
i’m guessing you’re not familiar with the practice of an open majlis ?
this is where the ruler of an emirate – the leader of his tribe – routinely attends open meetings to listen to any concern of any of his tribe members who want to show up.
concerns raised range from broad societal issues right down to intensely personal ones.
it is not unusual to see a guy in the crowd standing up and demanding: ‘I don’t have the money to send my boy to university – as leader of the tribe you must provide it.’.
deferential it isn’t, and it leaves gobsmacked those Westerners who get to see it in action
(though to see it you need to have a citizen who is sure enough of you to take you along and be ready to answer personally for what you might do there.)
its a direct form of democracy – a routine direct connection to the ruler – that you don’t see in the West, and it is important to understanding the politics of the place.
… I suspect the Sheikh is unused to hearing anything but "Yes, Your Highness"..
that may be true outside of Dubai – but then he is after all ruler of Dubai and deputy ruler of the UAE: so basically like any other head of state.
however it is very far from true inside Dubai.
i’m guessing you’re not familiar with the practice of an open majlis ?
this is where the ruler of an emirate – the leader of his tribe – routinely attends open meetings to listen to any concern of any of his tribe members who want to show up.
concerns raised range from broad societal issues right down to intensely personal ones.
it is not unusual to see a guy in the crowd standing up and demanding: ‘I don’t have the money to send my boy to university – as leader of the tribe you must provide it.’.
deferential it isn’t, and it leaves gobsmacked those Westerners who get to see it in action
(though to see it you need to have a citizen who is sure enough of you to take you along and be ready to answer personally for what you might do there.)
its a direct form of democracy – a routine direct connection to the ruler – that you don’t see in the West, and it is important to understanding the politics of the place.
You are correct; I know nothing of the majlis. I know very little about the man himself. My original comment was based on a conclusion I drew, perhaps erroneously, from Tim Adams’s recent Guardian piece. Extracts:
A couple of years before he succeeded his brother as ruler of Dubai in 2006, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktoum, never a man plagued by self-doubt, developed an idea to have some of his own poetry written on the sea of the Persian Gulf. The poetry would be in the form of man-made islands, constructed by thousands of the indentured migrant workers who form the bulk of Dubai’s population, and on which Premier League footballers and the like might be encouraged to buy ocean-front real estate. It was imagined that the lines, written in Arabic in concrete and sand, would be large enough to be read from space.
In devising such a plan, you imagine that most world-class self-mythologisers might have been content with a single line of verse. It gives you a measure of Sheikh Mohammed’s exaggerated sense of Xanadu that he decided on a whole stanza. "Take wisdom from the wise," the script would run. "It takes a man of vision to write on water/ Not everyone who rides a horse is a jockey/ Great men rise to greater challenges."
…………………….
Sooner or later, though, every myth-making dictator is met with a dose of reality. For Sheikh Mohammed, this came first with Dubai’s post-credit crunch bust, which saw a collapse in property prices, a great many unfinished ego developments and the humiliating need for an up to $20bn bailout from "Uncle Abu Dhabi" in 2010, a debt still to be repaid. At the time, an authorised biography of the sheikh was due; the rumour goes that his refusal to countenance an epilogue detailing the lessons of his emirate’s recession meant that the book never happened.
The article is here http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2 … al-profile
At the time, an authorised biography of the sheikh was due; the rumour goes that his refusal to countenance an epilogue detailing the lessons of his emirate’s recession meant that the book never happened
Who’d have thought it? Someone in racing unwilling to sanction their low points in a biography.
Was it called
‘Sheikh Mohammed – Owner of Genius’
by any chance?
Mike
Was he wearing his signature snot-rag cravat?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.