Gold Cup 2009 (was: Denman)

Let's face it, horses can make fools out of anyone, it is not an exact science. Why should these two be any different?

I just hope they both remain in great shape, enjoy the rest of the season - and come back next season! :)
 
EC1 said:
there is no evidence to suggest that any of those horses could have done what MDB did today

MDB has put the best figure up by any chaser this season today...you are really underestimating him in my opinion

I think NC is a very very overrated horse...in fact very
Click to expand...

good spot EC :lol:



that should ensure minus votes in bet idol anyway..lmao
 
Too right I'd have thought - Alastair Down seems to think he is entitled to slag off whichever owner he likes for such disloyalties as moving horses or being displeased with their trainer. When A Down pays the bills, then he can have an opinion on what these horses are doing.
 
He's free to have any opinion he likes, and put it in print, as long as it's not actionable. Anyone know what the specifics were?
 
Shadow Leader said:
Too right I'd have thought - Alastair Down seems to think he is entitled to slag off whichever owner he likes for such disloyalties as moving horses or being displeased with their trainer. When A Down pays the bills, then he can have an opinion on what these horses are doing.
Click to expand...

Well not really, anyone is allowed to have an opinion on how a horse is trained or campaigned (you have done so yourself) even if they do not pay the bills. Problem is when it goes to print and he is threatened with solicitors!
 
Precisely! I don't plaster my opinions all over page three of the Racing Post, laden with insults (and full of shite).

His piece on The Listener's owners when he moved to Nick Mitchell was disgraceful.
 
I agree! I think he has lost touch. Seems to be trying to be the angry young man or something. Has a bit of a chip (more like an office block) on his shoulder lately but not sure what his point is. Maybe being off the drink has made him grumpy.
 
he has always been the angry man though - when he first appeared on C4 he gave the impression he was trying to do a McCrirrick - outspoken from day one

it looks like something did go off after the race and those involved are pretending it didn't - so tbh its no use crying when someone spots it
 
SL,

I rarely agree with Down but think the Post will only get worse and worse if opinion pieces criticising people in the racing industy become a no go area. Especially if a writer needs to have lived the life of the subject of his criticism to enable the article to have any credibility.
 
So that will be one 'opinion piece' having a pop at an owner, in amongst the thousands of fawning ones, Hamm?

The Post is already a rag, is utterly beyond repair, and is only fit for wiping the arses of urchins.
 
He is entitled to have an opinion and to express it in print. The reason for the apology appears to be that based on what Paul Nicholls has said - the Rp seems to be accepting that A Down's opinion was based on factual errors about John Hales' behaviour .

So for example hypothetically were an owner to refuse to shake the hand of the winning owner and shout at his trainer and stomp out of the winner's enclosure cussing - then A Down's comments would have been justified - as none of them or similar bad behaviour happened the Rp is accepting that they weren't .
 
Grasshopper said:
So that will be one 'opinion piece' having a pop at an owner, in amongst the thousands of fawning ones, Hamm?

The Post is already a rag, is utterly beyond repair, and is only fit for wiping the arses of urchins.
Click to expand...

GH,
Don't think I was defending either Down or the Post; i think they're both pretty awful. I was merely saying opinion pieces need not be afraid of criticising racing insiders.

If he got his facts wrong, fair enough. I was under the impression the fact Hales and Nicholls had some sort of issue after the Gold Cup was widely reported?
 
So were a great many people who were there; but since the *alleged* participants have denied it, and have presumably threatened action in the absence of an apology, the RP had no choice but to demand that AD apologise.

As I've remarked before, a journalist friend of mine - not a racing journo - was sued for reporting in the Sunday Times something which many racing insiders witnessed, and freely admitted on the phone that they had witnessed; but not one of them would subsequently testify in court; and both he and the ST were done for libel.

It's very difficult for any journo to tell it as he sees it, in racing, since ranks are swiftly closed against any who step out of line. That is what the RP is up against, and the anodyne coverage of raicng in that and other papers is down to the culture of 'omerta' in racing. It's pretty impossible to buck it.
 
Quite right Headstrong. The paper had to publish an apology as those concerned claimed it to be factually incorrect. Whether it was factually incorrect in another thing. Who knows? More to the point who cares?
 
Not me - there have been enough owners in the sport who really do behave badly and throw their toys out of the pram . The late Daniel Wildenstein perhaps being the worst.
 
Back
Top