That Lydia Jon Pullen Interview

Hypocrisy in horse racing Cider……it’s steeped since day one……I remember punters walking away when Alverton died…..

They are still punting and following…..

Best to keep a lid on…

Painting obstacles white and hollowing out races. It's just a mirage really. Either you consider horses are expendable, and the benefits of jump racing outweigh sacrificing them on the track, or they don't. Once you are comfortable with the acceptance that the sacrifice is worth it, the 1/100 risk of finding two holes on the same track at the same time is put into some perspective.

So the 95% (guessestimate) of horses that would never have lived is the sacrifice that is acceptable as the alternative?

That's the argument/divide, however you want to couch it. Either you think that it's worth it to breed horses for sport, when a significant percentage will die early in the pursuit bof it, or you don't. If you are an advocate of, and derive your income directly from said sport, By default I'd say that puts you in the camp that does feel it is acceptable. I don't think you can have cakeism where you think the risk is elevated too high in one particular incident, but accept the material risk of daily jumps racing, knowing that horses will die doing it on the track. Hole, or no hole.

A simple analogy is driving or riding in the car. Around 2000 people will die doing that every year in the UK. Nearly every one of us accepts that risk. As the benefits outweigh not using cars, even though there is a guaranteed attrition rate. So would you ban using cars due to poor weather conditions, and the risk is guaranteed to be elevated? Most people will still choose to drive in riskier conditions. But nobody has to. Perhaps you could get the transport minister on and berate them for allowing the motorway to be open in freezing conditions even though nobody crashed!

1/ Hislop did not have to be that aggressive in her interview. The media's job is primarily to report and not comment. After all, the jocks, trainers and stewards were happy to go ahead - yet Hislop thought she knew better than they did!

2/ Typical British Racing f*ck up though.

Why were not the horses sent to post while the bit of ground was railed off? Worse that could have happened was that the railing off did not work and the horses would have had a canter to post for nothing. Cannot see any issue with that. By doing what I have suggested, the race would have been off around 7 to 8 minutes earlier and before the light went.

3/ It really is about time that tracks put a spotlight on the winning post which shines across the finish line to assist with photo-finishes in poor light. This works at floodlit meetings. Of course, the racing tech people are apparently considering cameras with advanced resolution. Good stuff but the BHA take forever to introduce new stuff so let us have some simple spotlights for the time being, eh?

The light/fading light is a much more pertinent discussion. As that is not a one off scenario.

One assumes that they wanted to make sure that they got the go ahead before mounting and going to the start. Which is understandable.

There are multiple aspects to the light aren't there. For example, if a horse falls and the jockey is knocked out 'in the country', it would be problematic for the medics. What if a horse gets loose 'in the dark'. Attending to a stricken horse. The technical equipment functionality as well.

As I noted above, that is something that could easily be standardised, and have a threshold for light, if falling below the threshold you can't race. Period.

Possibly was a bit aggressive the knight but was very courteous at the end of the interview.

the 1/100 risk of finding two holes on the same track at the same time is put into some perspective.

If you were offering 100/1 another hole somewhere on the track immediately after the first one was found I reckon you'd have seen plenty of business, taking the view that if it was a drain issue and presuming the whole system is linked under the ground, 100/1 about another collapse somewhere would have been more than fair.

Cider 27 Jan 26 12:43 
A simple analogy is driving or riding in the car. Around 2000 people will die doing that every year in the UK. Nearly every one of us accepts that risk. As the benefits outweigh not using cars, even though there is a guaranteed attrition rate. So would you ban using cars due to poor weather conditions, and the risk is guaranteed to be elevated? Most people will still choose to drive in riskier conditions. But nobody has to. Perhaps you could get the transport minister on and berate them for allowing the motorway to be open in freezing conditions even though nobody crashed!

But the least drivers can expect is that those responsible for maintaining the roads ensure they are in good and safe condition to drive on eg pot holes (!) dealt with quickly, roads gritted in icy conditions.

Of course we still drive when we know pot holes and / or ice are a risk, but on a racecourse, whilst we know a small percentage of horses will die, the very minimum should be that the surface is not a risk to them, as that is within our control.

Indeed George it the least we can do.

That's what people on the ground determined GB. That the course was safe to race. It's some people who weren't looking at the conditions and had no responsibility or accountability that are moaning. Lydia wants the people who put their necks on the line (literally) to be cut out of the decision making.

If she is a champagne socialist (I have no idea if she is or not, no idea of her personal politics), it wouldn't be too surprising. The proles clearly aren't intelligent enough and are too biased to look beyond the incentive of cash, so let's leave it to the 'clever' people who haven't been within 5 yards of a racehorse.

Cider
Cider27 Jan 26 18:59Joined: 29 Aug 02 | Topic/replies: 66,957 | Blogger: Cider's blog
That's what people on the ground determined GB. That the course was safe to race

If a full ground survey is required (I'm sure there is a technical term ) which will likely take some days they couldn't possibly have known based on a 25 minute inspection that the course was safe. They took a punt. Fortunately it worked out. That does not justify the original decision. To assert it does merely demonstrates outcome bias.

Even maintaining the suitability and safety for racing of all-weather racing surfaces cannot be guaranteed at times.

Cider 11.21.  Agreed.

Cider 27 Jan 26 18:59 
That's what people on the ground determined GB.

Cider, they did so under time restraint with little daylight remaining. As has been said, the fact he's then said that they need to have a proper look, would suggest the race should not have taken place.

I agree with that pp. Impossible to inspect every blade of grass on the course in between races. Therefore it was a judgement call between the participants, and those managing the race day on the course. It doesn't mean that another problem was impossible.

If there's an unexplained hole on the course before the last at Catterick, which is a £3K-to-the-winner bumper or whatever, it's off.

But hey, it's Cheltenham, so we'll have a quick look and if 't seems alright we'll carry on

GEORGE B nails it.

Of course the same procedure should operate in all circumstances but money talks. However the decision makes a mockery of the claim that "welfare is paramount".

It's nonsense what GB stated. I'm pretty sure I saw horses slipping in Fakenham once only for them to run another race and slipping again. They are often seen 'sanding' road crossings or dodgy ground at the gaffs, and railing off bits on occasion. What you don't have is an on course 'army' on hand to effectively change the course. But I don't think there's any evidence that gaffs give up mid meeting at the first sign of trouble. Cheltenham does have more means to deal with trouble. I'm happy to be convinced otherwise by cited examples.

[i]The hole was found by racecourse staff putting back the turf after the race. That was being done all over the racecourse. There are staff posted at every obstacle and it is their responsibility to check the ground conditions after every race in their defined patch.

Cider's analogy to roads was incomplete due to the omission that the roads should at least be safe to drive on, even if we accept the risk that people will die in accidents or due to dangerous driving.

On Saturday when Jon Pullin was notified of a hole on the course that you could stick your arm down, and he had no clue as to what had caused it, his attitude with welfare in mind should have been - I can't allow horses to race on this track until we know what has caused the hole in case it is something structural / more widespread.

We now know that issue was not something that could have been identified from a quick glance around, and drainage experts have had to be called in to check the drainage system.

They got away with it.

Cider 28 Jan 26 10:08 
I'm happy to be convinced otherwise by cited examples.

I can actually cite an example where an actual hole was discovered in the ground, and not the infamous Doncaster instance already cited:

Haydock 1993

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/racing-hole-swallows-haydock-meeting-1509207.html

DISCOVERY of a hole in the ground two furlongs from the winning post caused the sudden abandonment of racing at Haydock yesterday. This afternoon's card has also been called off.

Minutes before the third race was due to start, Alan Fyles, a groundsman, found the hole as he was treading down divots caused by runners in the first two races.

'All you could see was the hoof-print, but when Alan was treading a piece of earth down his foot went in,' Philip Arkwright, clerk of the course, said.

Richard Hills and other jockeys saw Fyles probing the hole as they trotted past on the way to the start. 'Thank God for the groundstaff because we wouldn't have seen it,' Hills said later.

'He was lying down with his arm up to the shoulder in the ground. It was about 18 inches deep, but like a rabbit burrow because it went underneath.'

Take away the issues on the day,the woman was ignorant imv….

The main issue is down to incompetence by the drainage workers…..

I'm reminded of the Peter Hitchens quote whereby he believes the relationship between journalists and those in authority should be like that between a dog and a lamp-post, if they are to be held to account.

So fair play to Lydia, she wasn't there to be nicey-nice and be his pal, she was a racing journalist doing her job and holding Pullin to account.

Welfare can’t be paramount, because if it was we would have no racing over obstacles.  None at all. 
What is an “actual” hole?

theres a big hole in boy georges head. room for many lizards

It's like the one between your two ears.

George was you a barrister before you became a competition organiser and racing tipster

LoyalHoncho and Busyfool, I know the pair of you are the equivalent of Dumb & Dumber, but out of respect to other forumites, would you mind not disrupting good threads as you try to target me.

1993

The allegation was the gaff tracks would abandon egg and spoon races at the drop of a hat.

Haydock is a grade 1 / group 1 track.

Lol

As a former annual member at haydock and still a regular visitor I can assure everyone haydock is a long way from a grade one track

Cider, any examples of holes found on a course prior to Saturday where they carried on racing, other than Doncaster.

What does the date matter anyway, were they all idiots back in 1993?

The allegation was the gaff tracks would abandon egg and spoon races at the drop of a hat.

Yes, if an unexplained hole was discovered in the ground. You've failed to demonstrate otherwise.

In 1993 it had a better rep.

It stands to reason that they will have more determination to put high profile races/meetings on where they can. And as I alluded to, the availability of resources, ie the practicality is a consideration. But I'm convinced that generally, racing isn't abandoned unless it can't be avoided.

Oh, saintly GEORGE B doesn’t like being questioned.  Very reasonable question - what is an “actual” hole, as opposed to a hole?

You're not the brightest so I will explain.

Cider had cited examples which were not instances of holes being found in the ground, so I cited an actual example.

Please do try to keep up.

Target you?  Your grossly over-inflated opinion of yourself does you no favour.  You’re a forumite, and on forums people discuss things.
So, what, in your untargeted opinion, is an “actual” hole?

LoyalHoncho, you're not the brightest are you?

Hundreds of forumites witnessed you having an epic meltdown on the Champions' Day tipping competition thread after I'd won it, and there have been other examples of you turning up on threads trying to 'trip' me up.

But perhaps you're blinded by an epic seethe and don't realise you're doing it?

GEORGE.B • January 27, 2026 7:29 PM GMT
If there's an unexplained hole on the course before the last at Catterick, which is a £3K-to-the-winner bumper or whatever, it's off.

But hey, it's Cheltenham, so we'll have a quick look and if 't seems alright we'll carry on

The inference obviously is that they carried on only as it was an important track/meeting. I asked for examples of a gaff like Catterick abandoning a £3K race when it could have been avoided. You gave me Haddock from over 30 years ago I don't know which meeting it was, but I wouldn't consider it a low grade racecourse.

It's moot really as my overarching point is that people who are paid to make those decisions actually on the ground made the call, collaborating with the participants. Those claiming to know much better are only tapping away from their sofas, or bleating from the side lines.

the voice of pained reason boy geotge. ha ha

you have not complained about me not stalking you any longer. and im not

because when you announced you had muliple stalkers i couldnt deal with the competition and gave up

us storkers are not ones for sharing and are very possessive and jealous as a rule

now, if you let on who my rivals, the other storkers are, then maybe we can do split shifts and share the storking duties. that might work

who are they?

Thanks for posting that Cider as I clearly stated "an unexplained hole on the course".

But never mind Cider, you can have the last word, dear.

madtolo, this thread is about what happened on Saturday, but you couldn't help yourself, you had to try and provoke a response from me. You are f*cking obsessed with me. Seek help.

You did. I would personally say that Haydock is a premier racecourse. So it's not an example of what you are claiming, it's actually the opposite.

You can definitely claim that if a racecourse finds a hole that can't be accounted for, they should be compelled to abandon. I don't believe that's the case.

It has appeared as if Pullen is being held solely responsible for the decision to run the race but the bottom line is that it is most likely the jockeys who ultimately agreed for it to go ahead so perhaps Lydia should have spoken to those who rode in it before launching into him? When Fakenham was abandoned after one race it was ultimately the jockeys who made the decision that the track was unsafe.

Also the drainage pipes do not stretch across the whole width of the track and they were obviously satisfied that the collapse was localised?

Two more obdurate individuals would be hard to find

To be clear, 'premier' in the sense of the racing product/quality. Not the facilities or topography. I do know that many people have complained about Haydock's turf management and racecourse facilities.

The decision should always be made by the jockeys Cag…….

After all………Cag.

The trainers were involved as well. One at least, we saw Ben Pauling on the course.

The jockeys / trainers can safely now say it was a "storm in a teacup", but if something had gone wrong on Saturday, no doubt the lawyers would have been getting involved?

Owners & trainers could've withdrawn their rnrs.
They must've thought it was safe to race.

Well they were wrong because unbeknown to them there was a manky hole in a drain beneath the racing surface, and the full extent of the 'problem' has yet to be revealed, the drainage experts are investigating.

bg i am not obsessed and you well know it. ive never even looked at your fred, hardly obsessive. what irks you is that i rubbish your rubbish, which is why you rarely venture from your own fred

and you dodge

did you accuse me of storking or not?

They obviously were not wrong George because they did know about the hole?

Busyfool 28 Jan 26 14:38 
theres a big hole in boy georges head. room for many lizards

This was a good thread discussing what happened on Saturday. *YOU* used it for yet another ad hominem attack on me.

As I said, you are f*cking obsessed with me.

CagliariG 28 Jan 26 15:41 
They obviously were not wrong George because they did know about the hole?

But did not know what had caused it, or if there was a more widespread issue which could cause the ground to be unsafe to race on.

So my opinion Glen is this, until they had established the cause of the hole they should not have raced. As was the case at Haydock in 1993!

did you accuse me of storking? y or n? easy question

how many times have you brought up covid or richard d hall or david icke or peter hitchens or other such nonsense?

your complaint is hollow

You've been exposed as know-nothing bluffer, and YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

how many times have you brought up covid or other such nonsense?

The berk who claims to know all about the tyranny in Russia, didn't actually recognise tyranny when it visited him in his own country.

As I said, you're a know-nothing bluffer.

when did that happen? answer the q know-nothing blusterer

did you accuse me of storking and claim to have multiple storkers or not? to save me finding and re-posting, which would embarrass you further

i will happily take our tyranny compared to putins version, which you are complaisant with. and to compare covid to the evil brute is grotesque and dishonest but normal for conspiracy nuts

Thank you very much.  See how easy it is?  Abuse not required.

And btw the way you know-nothing bluffer, what you think you know about Mark Rutte means diddly squat.

Go ask the Dutch farmers what they think of him, the ones whose businesses he tried to destroy with his globalist net zero policies.

No Dutch farmer was surprised when Rutte then walked into a top NATO job. It's one big club...

Getting a tad off subject here.
Skydia's interrogation(because that is what it was)was way over the top

Charming fellow that George.

I'm sure he'll survive.

Fair play to you LoyalHoncho, you're 'famous' for two reasons on this forum...Your undying love of Robert Dunne, and your epic meltdown on the Champions' Day competition thread after a certain 'rival' had won it.

An 'impressive' forum CV.

LoyalHoncho 28 Jan 26 16:46 
Charming fellow that George.

Says the 'defender' of Robert Dunne. You're in no position to judge anyone.

and to avoid the question he brings up nato and dutch politics. hilarious

did you accuse me of storking and claim to have a multiple of them? y or n

I shall now have to expose your previous username,Busy.
He is Delashay

How many do you have ?

at least make it plausible Irondraws

got me draws mixed up 

The "two bobber" is thicker than an elephant's trunk

Looks a bit dangerous in Kempton

Looks like everyone survived it, few :)

phew indeed

And this is gorgeous George’s issue.  How sad is anyone who digs out historical threads/ posts then gets them totally wrong.
I never once defended Robbie Dunne.  I have always believed he bullied her and feel free to find any post of mine from your ( clearly ) substantial library of old threads and reproduce them here.  What I did do was criticise the female jockey, roundly, consistently, with vehemence and conviction, for using the Media to “try him in public”, and encouraging her advocate to rubbish racing in public.  The “toxic” weighing room which was, and still is, a lie.  Racing, eventually came to the same conclusion, hence her running away.
Georgie boy still rants about it, as you all see.

I never once defended Robbie D*nne...I have always believed he bullied her and feel free to find any post of mine from your ( clearly ) substantial library of old threads and reproduce them here..

You were actually keen to defend his reputation, referring to Fr0st as a "minx":

LoyalHoncho 19 Oct 21 20:20
"It is disgusting how Dunne's reputation is being so maligned by hearsay, dropped rumours and simply vile innuendo etc:  Athletes do, and always will, strip off in dressing rooms.  It;s not his problem that the BH* can't find adequate facilities for another s*x.  What is he meant to do and is this minx accusing him of doing it deliberately to offend her?  I even read some idiot on here accusing him of going around the dressing room waving his manh00d around without an ounce of shame on the writers part.  It is disgusting how this case has and is being handled."

Racing, eventually came to the same conclusion, hence her running away.

I believe she went to France to take advantage of the generous weight allowance for female jockeys. FrOst apparently won over one million euros in prize money last year.

LoyalHoncho17 Oct 21 19:
Ms Frost will reap what she has sown in my opinion.  Daddy can;t help her now, neither can her soppy media darling Chamberlin.  She has to prove her allegations.  The this will follow her around like a bad smell.

I thought the interview was unnecessarily aggressive bordering on rudeness

fwiw GEORGE.B, Andrew Cooper was on RTV yesterday and he outlined an example from Sandown where they'd identified a hole on the track, and carried on racing. It was apparently a flat evening meeting, the hole was in front of the stalls, and Princess Anne was riding one of the runners, apparently. Since Andrew still has his head, we assume it was completed without incident.

When you listen to Rachel on RTV compared to the interview in question…..

A lovely person.

And it has.

She claimed he dropped his kegs and waved his duck at her.  Never proved or corroborated.  Hearsay.

See fellow forumites.  The saintly George dredging up drivel from history.  Please don’t blame me for spoiling your enjoyment of the forum.

“Rachel who”?  Lovely person the female jockey.

Rachel Casey is a "fill in" person who rarely pauses for air (ask Neil Foulds).
She would be incapable of asking a tricky question.

Dunne was heard more than once belittling her before and during races by third parties. Tom Scu also knew all about his nasty side but conformed to the weighing room omerta much to his disgrace.

HSM on Ak pod absolutely ripped the decision to carry on to pieces, he went back to the Portland handicap where a horse died and it ended in court, he said that the moment that Pullien admitted that they weren't clear as to the cause he was in trouble, I expected AK to go the other way but he doubled down on it calling it the worst decision he'd ever seen on a racecourse, Calvin made the point that if an incident happened where they had to attend an injured horse, they'd be pretty much doing it in the dark.

Thankfully, I have no idea who HSM or AK are? If they are media then it isn't surprising. It's just one big club, and let's face it who would want to incur the wrath? Other than those, I would strongly suspect a fair few sycophants, also known as 'roadies' who probably wet themselves if they get a shout out.

Would that be the same AK who is a two bob flimper?

Nothing will change my views on the iniquity of her betrayal and deliberate misportrayal of U.K. Racing.  She dragged it through mud when it didn’t need to be.  Then ran away.  Dunne, to his credit, stayed, took his medicine and continued to ride ( albeit very moderately ) in the U.K. 
Have said all I’m going to say on the subject which is clearly best left where it is, in history.

HSM is a lawyer and AK is a bookmaker.

AK The Flimper.
Total mugs only will be tolerated

Another bunch of people who have never been near a horse or the racing turf, I'm assuming :)

Calvin was Head of Media on BF until replaced by Barry Orr.
He had been there 11 years

He was indeed. Perhaps that makes him experienced in crisis management, rather than turf :)

And suffering from people bleating from the sidelines, when he was directly involved in operational decisions!

Ruby disagrees with Skydia on the Road to Cheltenham regarding whether the race should have been run.
Strangely,she didn't try to shout Ruby down