- This topic has 37 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 13 years ago by
.
- Posts
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.
So, why choose this person on this day? To show high journalistic standards? To inform the racing public? To expose information previously hidden?
There is evidence from recent history that might enlighten us. A few years ago, Nicky Henderson knowingly had some of his horses injected with a banned substance on racedays. This was obviously not noted in the horses’ veterinary records. He was found guilty, fined, and was allowed to continue his training business, except for not being allowed to enter horses in races for three months. Some people connected with Henderson refused to testify at the BHA enquiry. One of those was his vet, James Main. James Main is now one of the raceday vets at Newbury racecourse (see Greg Wood’s article in The Guardian 24/02/13). Henderson gave evidence to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons enquiry when James Main was banned for ten months. Henderson’s evidence included his stating that he knew of many other trainers in the Lambourn area who used this banned substance on racedays.
Channel 4 racing commentators have not:-
Doorstepped the Queen’s racing manager to ask why he is happy to keep horses with Henderson.
Asked the BHA Director of Raceday Operations and Regulation, Jamie Stier, why a person who refused to give evidence at a serious BHA enquiry is employed at a UK racecourse.
Asked the BHA Director of Integrity Adam Brickell why no investigation has been made, or statement to the racing public has been made, into Henderson’s evidence to the RCVS.
All of these people regularly attend race meetings that are televised by Channel 4, are available to be challenged, even if they are not attending the happy equivalent of a family wedding!
You have to ask yourself what went through the minds of the Channel 4 producers and/or Clare Balding when deciding to “doorstep” Godolphin’s principal whilst he was attending the celebrations after his horse had just won a Classic? Did they really expect to to elicit new information, a new opinion, a speech on the merits of the BHA? Was it self-agrandizement on the part of Clare Balding? Or Channel 4’s well established desire to embarrass someone in front of a TV audience? Was there ever likely to be any value to anyone in racing in that question being asked at that time?
Channel 4 and their racing programme employees do not have a history of taking any action in these difficult areas that have a benefit for racing or the racing public. The question, as asked by Clare Balding, had no chance of a postive outcome for any of the stakeholders in racing. It now seems as if there is no postive outcome for Channel 4 and Clare Balding either. What a shambles.
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.
So, why choose this person on this day? To show high journalistic standards? To inform the racing public? To expose information previously hidden?
There is evidence from recent history that might enlighten us. A few years ago, Nicky Henderson knowingly had some of his horses injected with a banned substance on racedays. This was obviously not noted in the horses’ veterinary records. He was found guilty, fined, and was allowed to continue his training business, except for not being allowed to enter horses in races for three months. Some people connected with Henderson refused to testify at the BHA enquiry. One of those was his vet, James Main. James Main is now one of the raceday vets at Newbury racecourse (see Greg Wood’s article in The Guardian 24/02/13). Henderson gave evidence to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons enquiry when James Main was banned for ten months. Henderson’s evidence included his stating that he knew of many other trainers in the Lambourn area who used this banned substance on racedays.
Channel 4 racing commentators have not:-
Doorstepped the Queen’s racing manager to ask why he is happy to keep horses with Henderson.
Asked the BHA Director of Raceday Operations and Regulation, Jamie Stier, why a person who refused to give evidence at a serious BHA enquiry is employed at a UK racecourse.
Asked the BHA Director of Integrity Adam Brickell why no investigation has been made, or statement to the racing public has been made, into Henderson’s evidence to the RCVS.
All of these people regularly attend race meetings that are televised by Channel 4, are available to be challenged, even if they are not attending the happy equivalent of a family wedding!
You have to ask yourself what went through the minds of the Channel 4 producers and/or Clare Balding when deciding to “doorstep” Godolphin’s principal whilst he was attending the celebrations after his horse had just won a Classic? Did they really expect to to elicit new information, a new opinion, a speech on the merits of the BHA? Was it self-agrandizement on the part of Clare Balding? Or Channel 4’s well established desire to embarrass someone in front of a TV audience? Was there ever likely to be any value to anyone in racing in that question being asked at that time?
Channel 4 and their racing programme employees do not have a history of taking any action in these difficult areas that have a benefit for racing or the racing public. The question, as asked by Clare Balding, had no chance of a postive outcome for any of the stakeholders in racing. It now seems as if there is no postive outcome for Channel 4 and Clare Balding either. What a shambles.
A good rant but Channel Four Racing when the Henderson scenario occurred is not the same Channel Four Racing as now – so there are different editorial values.
Your point about doorstepping The Queen’s racing manager is also not a valid point. Henderson is a public trainer he does not train exclusively for Her Majesty.
Al Zarooni was, in effect, a private trainer for Godolphin, i.e. for Mohammed.
Al Zarooni, Chrisford and Bin Suroor have repeatedly attested "The Boss" is very much hands on, therefore if he is as they say "hands-on" he does have questions to answer. As he only makes himself available to interviewers who are going to write positive things about him then any opportunity to ask him questions needs to be taken.
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.
No, there is no logic in your thinking here Paul. I am not speculating anything at all. The onus in a situation like this always lies on PROVING that a third party is somehow involved, rather than the third party having to prove they are not involved in whatever offence has occurred.
It is clear you don’t like the man and I don’t think you are ever likely to give him a fair shake (no pun intended) so I’ll just leave it at that regarding this thread. I suspect if the person involved were a bastion of British racing and a hero with the public, rather than a wealthy man from a certain country and religious background, then the attitude would be different and the requests to badger people for information would be rather more muted and a bit more decorum would be showed.
If Channel 4 are going to move forward with a policy of conducting interviews in the manner used in the case in question here, I think they, and we, will find that it is more than just the "Grumpy Sheihk" who will turn and walk away.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
A good rant but Channel Four Racing when the Henderson scenario occurred is not the same Channel Four Racing as now – so there are different editorial values.
Your point about doorstepping The Queen’s racing manager is also not a valid point. Henderson is a public trainer he does not train exclusively for Her Majesty.
Al Zarooni was, in effect, a private trainer for Godolphin, i.e. for Mohammed.
Al Zarooni, Chrisford and Bin Suroor have repeatedly attested
"The Boss" is very much hands on, therefore if he is as they say "hands-on" he does have questions to answer
. As he only makes himself available to interviewers who are going to write positive things about him then any opportunity to ask him questions needs to be taken.
One of Her Majesty’s horses was injected with a prohibited substance on the morning of its race on the instruction of Henderson. It would be pertinent to ask the owner’s racing manager questions about his views of the trainer’s conduct. It would be instructive to know where on the scale of: "Utter scoundrel" to "Jolly good chap who had a brainstorm brought on by too much hard work" the answer would be.
Since Sheikh Mohammed is Prime Minister and Vice President of the United Arab Emirates and constitutional monarch of Dubai, I wonder if his "hands on" care for his aproximately 1000 horses spread around Dubai, Europe, Australia and the United States of America is a practical reality.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.