There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
25 Jan 26
15:01
Joined:
Date Joined:
12 Oct 02
Was a bit brutal and rightly so but did anyone else think if it was a boxing fight the ref would have said no more thank you? He was being pulled from Pullen to Post, I'm here all week #buzzzzzzzzing
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 166
|
By:
Not all but most of these female presenters across all sports are just a token gesture to keep the woke mob happy ,that’s certainly not the case with Lydia in fact almost all of the racing press could do with been as she is.
|
|
By:
And yes a ref would have stopped it very early.
|
|
By:
The other thing to underline here is enough of the horses are treated like kings and queen's and we all love them blah blah, BS, because there was no way anyone knew if there were death traps elsewhere on the track, but apart from Henderson all the other connections were happy to roll the dice with their horses.
|
|
By:
You want a full inspection of the course after every race? A freak scenario, whatever caused it. The chances of two of them occurring on the same day are pretty remote.
Perhaps we should let Lydia run the whole of UK horse racing, in her own mind she's obviously important enough. |
|
By:
Skydia,as always,is far too full of her own importance and although correct in many of her points should have been politely reminded of her actual position
|
|
By:
Oh, and it was an interrogation, not an interview, as she had already come to her own firm conclusion that it should have been abandoned.
A boxing analogy would mean he had both arms tied behind his back. Most people could win such a bout, if they are able to load up haymakers knowing that your opponent has to take them. |
|
By:
I would have no problem Lydia running horse racing in the uk rather than those well educated but no background running the sport before leaving to work in other well paid jobs for the well educated with no passion or knowledge.
|
|
By:
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 very race in their defined patch.
That should have been mentioned to Lydia when she made her final obtuse observation to Pullen regarding the safety of the whole course. |
|
By:
Well cider if it was an interrogation it was better than the **** footing around the vast majority of the rest of the racing press do not wanting to upset anyone.
|
|
By:
Cider not a fan1.01 on the exchanges #buuuzzzzzing
|
|
By:
It's got nothing to with education, imo, jim. Everyone is brave when they don't have to face any responsibility or accountability.
Perhaps it should have been called off, I don't know. But she failed to recognise the challenging scenario, need to make decisions on the hoof (pardon the pun), and accountability for the choices. Or the great work they did, on the ground, to get it on. |
|
By:
Nothing to do with education are you saying those who have run racing since the jockey club actually care about the sport after they have moved on to other pastures
|
|
By:
It was the wrong target.
If the framework around whether a race/meeting should be abandoned, it's not down to Pullen. She thinks the participants who put their lives on the line should be excluded from the decision making  I acknowledge they have an incentive to race, but cutting them out is not the answer either. It should be pretty simple to use a light meter and have a cut off. If the light isn't good enough, you can't race. That, however, is not in Pullen's gift. |
|
By:
A RTV employee interrogating the Pullen should have been firmly put in their place.
She will only get worse if not pulled up about it |
|
By:
|
|
By:
I have no firm view on yesterday but I found it interesting to note Lydia's general point (shared by Steve Mellish and Anthony Dunkley in the studio) that the participants should not be involved in the decision. They may not have intended it to come across so starkly but that is how I interpreted it. I just wonder if they would espouse the same view in the usual "low sun" scenario (in which it is pretty clear that the jockeys exercise an absolute veto). Whilst I appreciate that the stewards merely listen to "low sun jockeys" then decide, isn't that what they did yesterday to the trainers/jockeys? I struggle to see much of a difference tbh. Generally speaking, in life, the better informed a decision is, the more likely it is to be correct. The result of the process may have been wrong yesterday but the process was surely correct.
|
|
By:
The inference is that they will put horses at risk for cash. I mean the sport is very high risk by default, and of these guys could end up not going home that night. Quite often, they don't. To them, the risk is probably no more tangibly elevated than any other race. As he said, any of the connections could have hooked the horse if they wanted to.
|
|
By:
I'm not advocating an inspection of the track after every race but here we are talking about a situation where a highly unusal incident occurred and a large hole was actually found so it must be reasonable to at least consider whether something untoward was perhaps going on and err on the side of caution.
They decided to put it down to purely being a freak occurrence but made that decision based on little or no evidence to support it, they got away with it but the cons greatly outweighed the pros. |
|
By:
Yes, highly unusual, so why would there be a tangible risk of another highly unusual occurrence on the same course.
For me, the 'debate' centres around the light (or lack of), and when is it to dark, either for safety of stakeholders and/or the equipment functionality. That is something that could easily be taken out of the hands of those managing the race day, and the participants. A light meter doesn't have opinions :) |
|
By:
S0ds law that it had to be a photo finish
 |
|
By:
The light alone should have been enough not to run the last race.
The photo print was comedy gold,especially with Guy (I like a sherbert)Lewis in charge |
|
By:
Indeed, duffy. When you can't catch a break
It was a crappy situation to deal with, and I feel like what happened to SG earlier in the day has influenced a lot of people. There's not enough empathy for the people who have their heads on the block, and face the direct accountability. Yes, I have been there ( not in horse racing, luckily :) ) |
|
By:
The light was fine to race in. But Hislop would not know that, as she spends the whole day shaded behind that towering stand and never watches the racing live. If she'd got off her microphone for a moment and taken a walk to view the actual racecourse, she would have been able to see that for herself. Even the photo finish turned out to be no problem at all, thanks to the very pictures on which Hislop relies.
And we knew that there was no problem with the track, because, while Hislop was behind the stands holding a microphone, Pullen et al. had been out on the course carrying out a very long and thorough inspection looking for any problems. There weren't any. Hislop should remember that she is a talking head tied to a fixed camera. She's not a participant; she's not even a racegoer. She herself has no way of knowing what is happening on the racecourse. Her role is simply to pass on information from people who do. |
|
By:
Regretably,Skydia is a deluded individual who will only get worse,screaming without being straightened out on Air
|
|
By:
Thought Pullen handled it well,I'd have been tempted to give her some back.
|
|
By:
He should have enlightened the motormouth as to her standing,ribero
|
|
By:
Exactly.
|
|
By:
I think she already believes that she does run racing. That 'interview' was far more about her own ego than racing welfare. Her tone was shocking. Full marks to him for remaining calm. Of course the two stooges supported her, and I see Mottershead has already raced off the blocks. You almost get the impression that all these pundits live in the same house. It's the equivalent Article 5 of the NATO alliance. Pullen was just a very easy target.
You can't live by 'what if's'. Racing is a dangerous sport, and bad things will happen. In this case nothing did, Cheltenham will no doubt carry out a full investigation, and that should be the end of the matter. |
|
By:
She has already got her way with Mellish
|
|
By:
Still having to play second fiddle to Lucky though.
I always chuckle at the irony of her 'showcase' Road To Cheltenham. Nobody used to criticise the concentration on the Festival more than she did, constantly saying this is big race in it's own right. |
|
By:
She is a Socialist Fanatic
|
|
By:
In the interests of balance I presume she will be calling out all the jocks who have suggested she was making a mountain out of a molehill? Clearly they have no idea about horse welfare.
|
|
By:
The percentage call was not to run the race. Risks were taken. And practically dark.
|
|
By:
screaming from beneaththewaves
screaming from beneaththewaves25 Jan 26 16:59Joined: 30 Jan 05 | Topic/replies: 15,673 | Blogger: screaming from beneaththewaves's blog The light was fine to race in. But Hislop would not know that, as she spends the whole day shaded behind that towering stand and never watches the racing live. If she'd got off her microphone for a moment and taken a walk to view the actual racecourse, she would have been able to see that for herself. Even the photo finish turned out to be no problem at all, thanks to the very pictures on which Hislop relies. And we knew that there was no problem with the track, because, while Hislop was behind the stands holding a microphone, Pullen et al. had been out on the course carrying out a very long and thorough inspection looking for any problems. There weren't any. Hislop should remember that she is a talking head tied to a fixed camera. She's not a participant; she's not even a racegoer. She herself has no way of knowing what is happening on the racecourse. Her role is simply to pass on information from people who do. No we didn't know there wasn't a problem with the track because Pullein conceded that a full assessment would have to be undertaken before the Festival. By definition that means a full assessment hadn't been undertaken prior to the 4.10. The decision to race was the worst I have seen in racing for decades. Did no one remember the Portland handicap in the 1980's and subsequent legal action? |
|
By:
It was reasonably obvious (imv) that they would be able to do a more thorough assessment in the ten weeks before the festival, than the ten minutes before the last race.
|
|
By:
There's a difference between the 'here and now' and using a workaround as he put it, to get the job at hand completed. Than a full throated investigation and taking any remedial long term intervention that analysis may throw up. We do live in a world of safetyism now to be fair, where many people choose to opt out of something when that might seem like the easiest option (eg shutting a school down due to a few snowflakes [literally, and metaphorically]).
|
|
By:
To me it was refreshing that they pulled out all the stops to complete the job, rather than the usual 'too hard' cop out that we suffer in modern life. It was to be commended, instead he got brow beaten by someone carping from the sidelines (literally). I suppose it helps to demonstrate why we are evolving backwards. Yes there was a theoretical marginal risk, well done for taking it I say.
|
|
By:
Should have been called off for the light if nowt else. Any closer margin in the photo and it would have been called a dead heat. Lydia " farce" twice Pullen " not ideal " twice. Might as well have been down a coalmine photo finish equipment was rendered useless.
|
|
By:
I doubt anyone involved was thinking of a race nearly 40 years ago.
Had something gone amiss, who would be suing, given the participants were given the option to withdraw? It wasn't a surprise that Henderson withdrew after Sir Gino's injury. Without that would he have withdrawn? |