Lydia Hislop's Double Standards Re Binocular & New Approach

[Posts: 3313Joined: 14 Mar 2006, 11:35Location: Doha, Qatar and Co.Clare, Ireland.]

In one of her last (if not last) articles for The Times, Lydia Hislop rightly imo castigated Jim Bolger for his "contrary words and deeds" in the build up to New Approach's participation in the The Derby of 2008.

She wrote...

"A bad situation was made immeasurably worse by how definitively Bolger delivered his mutable statements".

"Those who placed bets on the basis that New Approach would not run will be savagely reproachful. The credibility of the sport is damaged, for some perhaps irreparably."

"His horses run for prize-money largely provided by the betting of punters. They help keep him in work. Along with racegoers, these people keep racecourses in business and attract advertisers to the sport. This provides him with venues to run his horses and achieve stallion value"

"If punters are disaffected, the whole house of cards falls down. Like it or not, deride it or not, it is a fact."

She stood on the home straight at Epsom on Derby Day and stoically cried "We won't be Bolgerised on this channel" and by all accounts delivered a post race interrogation of the winning trainer that SAVAK in their prime would have been proud of.

Today less than one month after The Racing Post published a statement by Nicky Henderson...

"We have come up with something which is obviously significant and, while he is sound, one thing we will not do is continue with him until next season."

...Hislop called all punters effected by that "definitive" statement, "thieves" and deserving of everything that they got. That statement never once mentioned. Clearly different rules for different trainers.

I never expect much from the racing media, mostly a bunch of talentless hangers on, the really good sports writers mostly give racing a wide berth for some reason, but I expected better from Lydia Hislop.

A journalist made of straw.

Integrity 3 - Hislop 0.

Sincerely

Paul Fitzgerald

[Posts: 1697Joined: 03 Mar 2001, 20:25Location: Barnsley]

What a load of tripe.

I've posted about this on the Champion Hurdle thread and I stand by my comments there.

There are no double standards whatsoever.

[Posts: 2611Joined: 08 Apr 2009, 03:03]

deleted

[Posts: 1449Joined: 18 May 2009, 03:32]

She doesn't like Irish Horse winning her races or Irish trainers disrespecting her races. She has complete contempt for Aidan O Brien and the Coolmore operation.

Bolger i agree with her views as such....he hates the English Press and thus led us all up the garden path.

Nicky is generally very open and has a good record due to his previous actions

[Posts: 650Joined: 18 May 2009, 14:37]

Not sure its just the press in england he hates....

but is he any better with the irish press?

[Posts: 1449Joined: 18 May 2009, 03:32]

A little Clive but even still its not very good

He just hates everyone that questions him basically and then winds them up even further.


Bit of a Barney Curley character but Barney is more of a legend

[Posts: 650Joined: 18 May 2009, 14:37]

Its a pity that hes such a sarcastic and awkward sod

Certainly i like listening to trainers who are open and straightforward (far more so than jockeys) and its a disappointment when one treats the press (ie the public) with scorn

[Posts: 3100Joined: 19 Jan 2004, 11:50Location: Hope Valley, Derbyshire]

I do not wish to take sides on this issue, but I feel it is only fair to point out that Cavelino Rampante's post is aimed at what he sees as double standards by a journalist and not at any action of Henderson's.

[Posts: 1192Joined: 18 Nov 2008, 06:19]

Fist wrote..Anyone who thinks Nicky Henderson did anything wrong is a being silly...
Am I right in thinking you were on Binocular, Fist? If so, I can only imagine your objectivity with regard to Cav's opinion is rather distorted, so much so that I feel you were rather intemperate in responding to his words in the ungenerous of spirit way that you did.
I can see exactly where Cav is coming from and rather than applaud Henderson both he and McManus deserve to be 'warned off' for appearing to have taken advantage of a flawed system. Once a trainer states that his horse is unlikely to run, all ante-post bets on that horse should be null and void and it should be precluded from any revised ante-post markets thereafter, only running on the basis of it being available for SP bets. This will avoid any suggestion of malpractice and skullduggery, as some might dare to suggest happened in the case of Binocular.

[Posts: 1616Joined: 16 Dec 2008, 14:57]

I hear the sound of a coin about to be dropped....



Maybe she is like all the other sell out merchants on tv, and shows preferential treatment towards the person who is alot easier to get a tv interview out of ?



clink clink

[Posts: 3764Joined: 22 Dec 2007, 19:24]

That is just plain daft Ken.

To say Fist is in effect biased because he backed it does not make sense. If that is the case then anyone who did not back it is also biased.
Nobody is left with an unbiased opinion?
So what are we doing here?

[Posts: 3764Joined: 22 Dec 2007, 19:24]

The situation was totally different.

New Approach had several alternative engagements.

Binocular only had the one.

New Approach was not injured.

Binocular was.

Not that I think Bolger said anything wrong other than not giving what I believe to be the real reason why New Approach was not going to run.

Bolger always intended to run NA in the Irish Derby and not the English version.
As a two year old it appeared he acted on any going (good-firm to very soft).
However, in the Irish Guineas it was clear he was not moving well on the very firm ground.
It also was close to the English Derby.
But what is the point of waiting for the Irish Derby if it could be firm going again? When there was plenty of cut in the ground at Epsom and the horse recovered quickly from his run in the Irish 2000, he decided to run there instead.
Had Bolger said "New Approach does not act on firm so we will run at Epsom", his stallion career may have been effected. We all know the Coolmore team comes out with spin about their stallion prospects, this was spin coming from a different sourse.

[Posts: 1616Joined: 16 Dec 2008, 14:57]

Ginger, is your middle name 'gullible' ?

Binocular had me cheering as loud as a lions roar, and i punched the air, well i tried to and punched the light shade instead, a heavy one and cut my hand.

Here is my thought, and it may be a tad paranoid. On Betfair, the 999/1s get backed right down the board. The next day, the story run that Binocular could turn up....


Now here is the important part me 'lud. After all is reported well with Binocular, he gets no support on the day of the race. The same day the trainer says he will win a champion chase 'one day'.

If i was chief inspector Taggart, i'd be suspcious about the 999/1 being matched, with no support on the day by a owner who likes a good punt, and hoses up.

I'd say there was no support, because the good prices were taken already hint hint...


I'm not being biased either, i backed the horse myself, but if we're being honest, something doesn't add up.

Using Fist as an unbiased opinion, is like using edward scissor hands to trim your eye brows.

[Posts: 3313Joined: 14 Mar 2006, 11:35Location: Doha, Qatar and Co.Clare, Ireland.]

I do not wish to take sides on this issue, but I feel it is only fair to point out that Cavelino Rampante's post is aimed at what he sees as double standards by a journalist and not at any action of Henderson's.

Unlike Fist, who has grabbed the wrong end of the stick as usual, Prufrock has it right.

I have no reason to believe Henderson, McManus or anyone else have put away ante post punters any more than I believe Bolger did, nor have I ever stated as much. I know next to nothing about racehorse physiology but I accept they are fragile creatures and plans can change with them quickly. The horse was still under treatment when Henderson made his announcement on Feb 17, he shouldn't have issued the statement about such a high profile horse in such a high profile market unless he was 110% certain the horse wouldnt run. He's in the game and in the media long enough to know it too. Not one journalist anywhere pulled him up over it.

Jim Bolger didn't have a fragile horse, he had an owner with a fragile ego who NOBODY says no to.

I fail to see the difference. Both horses were categorically stated as non runners by their trainers, both horses ran. As a result one trainer was ripped to shreds by elements of the racing media with punters rights used as justification for the mauling, today we had punters being called "thieves" by the very same journalist on the very same issue.

Like I said they pick their victims carefully these media lions(ess's)

[Posts: 3764Joined: 22 Dec 2007, 19:24]

Why can't trainers change their mind when new information comes to light like the rest of us?

He was an intended non runner.