Spot the obvious mistake!!!

Shadow Leader

Shadow Leader

At the Start
Joined
Nov 9, 2003
Messages
9,884
Taken from the RP online :

Bell seeks firm ground for Gull Wing in Geoffrey Freer Stakes

Racing Post staff​


MICHAEL BELL is hoping for testing ground at Newbury on Saturday to allow Gull Wing to take her chance in the CGA Geoffrey Freer Stakes.

The four-year-old was a Listed winner at Nottingham earlier in the season and chased home a smart sort in Yellowstone at York last month.

However, she finished last of 10 on her latest outing and Bell believes cut in the ground is essential for the daughter of In The Wings.

"We're certainly monitoring the situation for Gull Wing and if the ground at Newbury was to get very testing and become specialist soft ground, then we will give it serious thought," said Bell.

"She just didn't let herself down on the ground last time and Jamie (Spencer) said we probably should have taken her out down at the start.

"She is more at home on an easy surface so we will just have to hope for cut in the ground at the weekend."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The title-"Bell seeks firm ground for Gull Wing in Geoffrey Freer Stakes"
Yet the whole article states she needs cut.

*Send the cheque in the post,Shadz :D*
 
I've found quite a few inconsistencies (is this spelt correctly, looks weird) in the RP lately. And The Times. Must be jobs for proof readers out there ......
 
Just like in the race report from Windsor last night it stated that

'Exceptional Art racing in the colours of Art Connoisseur'

Erm,nope.
Art Connoiseur is owned by Richard Green,not Matthew.
 
I agree! Really a shame since it is the only racing paper we have, but then that is why isn't it? No real competition.

When I am in Ireland I always notice how even the local papers carry much better articles, tips and analysis of the races than the RP does.

Mind you that will be insider information won't it?
 
I played golf recently with a lad who is closely involved in RP. He was asking me why I didn't buy the Post as he knows I'm a keen racing person. I gave him my views and would be interested in yours so I can pass it onto him. They done some market research recently and got a good response from post readers but in a hope to try and improve it, let me know what you think and I will send him link to the site.
 
I think overall it has gone downhill. The thing that I find most difficult are the smaller meetings where whoever it may be who has done the review seems to be too lazy to actually report the race properly. I don't know how this works, whether the RP just give press badges to those on the day, or even free badges, or if these are done by someone on the payroll.

I'm no expert and am always trying to learn, also trying to make some sense of horse form so I can place a bet so it is important to me what is said about maiden races at Yarmouth etc. In the current weather conditions it might also be really useful if someone writing up a later race mentioned that during the meeting the ground was changed due to further rain. I've noticed that all we have to go on are the ground conditions at start of day, and by the end often quite different so the animal goes down as having won or run poorly on one type of ground which they actually have not encountered. If I was at the meeting I make my own notes, but if not able to attend or watch the RP as history is not too reliable.

I've given up buying the paper except if I am at a race meeting now because the coverage of races other than the big ones is pretty hit and miss. I think I must not be alone in gaining more valuable insight from members on forums!

As I say, I'm not expert, but on many occasions the reporter appears to have just written who won and who placed, as if they have been in the bar, read the result and not even watched the race. And I have watched the race which was considerably more complicated than that with trouble in running, broken reins, slipped saddle, or even a broken down horse. I found one where there was a jockey change and tbhy were giving the jockey who had been stuck in traffic full credit for getting a horse home - doh! None of which gets reported and could be very useful next time those horses are seen out.

The other thing is that when writing up a race in prospect they also overlook major things they might have told us about a horse who has been out of form, or the ground one prefers. Maybe I am wrong but I used to look upon this as kind of a summary of what each horse has done, can do, might do against the others in that race. They used to be a lot more forthcoming with things like whether a horse has had some hard races, been unlucky, never carried that weight before or won off it. And if one has just been gelded, changed yards or jockeys for better or for worse. I don't expect a book on each horse, but if I have seen the horses perform before I frequently know a lot more about them than you could glean from reading the RP on that day. In fact lately I do not read it because they have an opinion which they have not backed up with a reason.

Sorry to go on, it just seems to me that they have got lazy, kind of lost the plot - as if they are bored with it all or something.

There are some good articles, it is not all gloom and doom.
 
sunybay said:
Most of the people dont buy it becasue they have it for free online.
Click to expand...

I don't buy it because there's not enough by way of news. Plenty of tipping & quotes, too light on news journalism. As was said earlier, I'd like some facts about all the runners, jockeys & stables.
Another point that I'd see as an improvement is to get away from all the page turning needed to check out each race. It's not helpful having all racecards in one splash, all the form elsewhere & speed figures (I jest: that's not what they are, is it, really?), stats, pointers etc all over the place.
Yes, there seems to be a lot of information, but not enough by way of organised and 'informed information'.
 
Tell him to read the Irish field. It has news in it and interesting articles. I know it's a weekly but it takes three days to read it and digest.The post takes 3 mins and than you want them back.
 
You're not wrong there. I find that approximately 4 minutes into the paper I ask myself why I bothered buying it in the first place.
 
Not so sure the Field is that easy a read though except for the really dedicated. I wouldn't be too pushed on reading the reports or the form so that's half the paper gone. I do read the first ten pages and any features although I find the features fairly drab.

I did make the point to him that it would be interesting to run features each day on people in the industry. One page with four people in it or spend a little time looking at stud management, training techniques, equine science etc. Short sections which are easy to read. I personally can't be bothered to read a full page article which traces the lineage of Duke of Marmalade, but I'd be interested in reading what they saw in him as a yearling if they bought him, some of his background etc without tracing his great grandmother. Something that can take up a quarter page. My one feeling is that the writers in the post have been there too long and they can't adapt their style to be shorter and punchier. He was listening to the points. whether it helps or not I don't know.
 
Not so sure the Field is that easy a read though except for the really dedicated. I wouldn't be too pushed on reading the reports or the form so that's half the paper gone
Click to expand...
.

I suppose there is a compromise to be struck here as I find the stuff in the post extremely banal but I can see why some of the stuff in the field can be heavy going ,that's why I said previously that it takes time to digest

I did make the point to him that it would be interesting to run features each day on people in the industry. One page with four people in it or spend a little time looking at stud management, training techniques, equine science etc. Short sections which are easy to read. I personally can't be bothered to read a full page article which traces the lineage of Duke of Marmalade, but I'd be interested in reading what they saw in him as a yearling if they bought him, some of his background etc without tracing his great grandmother. Something that can take up a quarter page. My one feeling is that the writers in the post have been there too long and they can't adapt their style to be shorter and punchier. He was listening to the points. whether it helps or not I don't know.
Click to expand...

Pretty much agree with all of that (which is a bit worrying) and would love to see those articles you mentioned.
 
...just so long as they aren't the usual fawning, gushing, arse-licking articles that we are getting so used to seeing in the RP on a daily basis.
 
The post raised its game when The Sportsman appeared on the horizon but reverted to type when the competition sunk.
At one time I would buy the post every day now 2 or 3 days a week.
I buy the Irish Field during the jump season -at times it can be hard going but every so often you come across an absolute nugget of information.
 
Shads, I think you should be appointed the official Racing Post ombudswoman!

As for the Irish Field, I personally think it too has has declined considerably in the last five years or so (admittedly I've only read it that long). However, I admit I still check it out every week for the reports/ features. The persistent refusal to adress many of the most serious, yet perhaps awkward, issues facing the industry is little short of pathetic. I should add that having spoken to a few of the staff, I certainly wouldn't put the blame on them.
 
Cheers, trackside!!

I did make my opinions clear at Ascot last weekend though on the lack of printing the weeks entries in the paper. Well, to be fair, my mate approached Graham Dench to point out to him that it just wasn't right, it is the only trade paper, the entries are essential and why can't they elbow Clement Freud to Tuesday if they're that short of room? When Graham saw me walk up he laughed and said "oh, you're not coming for a moan as well, are you?!" to which I replied that I wasn't, but I agreed totally with said mate that the entries should take precedence over crap like Clement Freud. Graham said he'd speak to Bruce [Millington] about it.

I'm sure I said before that at the Chester May meeting Barry Hills went mad over the matter. When he trained his winner on the first day, as the journalists crowded round he held his hands up and said "ok. Any RP reporters amongst you?". A couple identified themselves as he continued "well, you can f*ck off then. I'm not talking to RP reporters. On a Saturday I need to see the following weeks entries, not a note saying they'll be in tomorrow's paper. You're the only trade paper and the entries are essential" - or words very similar and to that effect. Well done that man!
 
If you see Mr Dench again, can you ask him to pass a word on to Mr Millington? The word is 'staples'.
 
Trackside, the Irish Field is ten times better than it used to be. It is a better read than the Post, but you're entitled to expect that from a weekly. Its form database is not a patch on the Post's, however.

I think most of you are being far too harsh on the Post. Have a look at their counterparts in other countries before putting on your kicking boots. And be honest with yourselves: if the website and its form database wasn't free, would you buy the paper more often?

Personally I don't buy it unless going to the races, but that's partly because I live abroad and finding copies is not easy.

Some suggestions:

- Bring the Post's coverage of Irish racing and French group races up to the standard of their UK coverage;

- Making the Weekender available on-line;

- Including in the online race reports a self-updating Racecheck section showing the subsequent placings for each runner.
 
I disagree Grey. The overall standard of writing has declined sice I first started picking it up about 5 years ago. To be quite honest, I don't think too highly of it. It should be noted, however, that I still buy it most weeks!

What role does Alan Byrne occupy in the RP hierarchy these days does anybody know BTW?
 
I disagree Grey. The overall standard of writing has declined sice I first started picking it up about 5 years ago.
Click to expand...

Until comparatively recently the Irish Field hadn't changed in at least 30 years and had become moribund. It is far better than it used to be, even if the editor thinks his job is to be a cheerleader.
 
Back
Top