redbuck wrote: Did anyone else find the Zlatan stuff extremely tedious to listen to today?
jones wrote: » Yeah I agree smacked of a slow news day. They spent about ten minutes too long on it imo but it didn't bother me
mcgucc22 wrote: » Getting rid of it entirely would be the best move to make.
Raisins wrote: » Be interesting to see if the lads cover this Gordon Elliott story. They usually ignore racing completely.
Seamy Fitz wrote: » PUT SOME RESPECT ON MURPH'S NAME! Yes he is not the star of the show (Ken) and he isn't amazing like Eoin and all his comments aren't hilarious BUT he is funny more often than not and he makes some insightful comments. I won't hear a bad word against Frances or her TV guide. That's when I know its the weekend.
TXPTGR1 wrote: » They ignore it because it’s a sports podcast
[Deleted User] wrote: » It's such a boring story I hope they ignore it. Man sits on dead horse. People pretend to be outraged. Media wags finger. Rest of world shrugs shoulders.
Deleted User wrote: » It's such a boring story I hope they ignore it. Man sits on dead horse. People pretend to be outraged. Media wags finger. Rest of world shrugs shoulders.
Ivefoundgod wrote: » I'm not sure if this was meant in the way I took it but for me Horse racing isn't a sport, its an activity for gambling companies and has absolutely no business being discussed as part of Second Captains.
finglashoop wrote: » all sports are now activities for gambling companies
Raisins wrote: » That in itself is worth discussion. The lads covered gambling in depth a few times - like on the players chair or in the book released by that postman who stole millions and spent time in prison - they have not avoided racing entirely. The Gordon Elliott story attacks the very core of horse racing. There’s a good article in the guardian where the point was made that most of the general public who have no interest in racing know that a lot of horses die but don’t really get outraged at the sport because there’s a social contract that the horses who live and die racing are well treated in life and that the loss is felt by those who own and care for the horse. The moment that premise is challenged in the public eye all bets are off (literally). It’s the type of story the lads are good at covering. On social media it’s day 1 outrage, day 2 fallout (loses his business), day 3 outage at the hysterical virtue signalling, day 4 old news. It’s around day 4 that the issue gets a disciplinary hearing in the real world.
Ivefoundgod wrote: » While there is an element of truth to that, I can still play Sunday league or 5 a side without gambling involvement and the premier league would continue even without gambling sponsorships (albeit with a lot less money). Horse racing would not exist without gambling companies to sponsor it or spectators being able to gamble on it. While I agree that they would probably do a good job covering it I'd rather leave OTB to cover it. To be honest its not a story that interests me, the social contract you mention doesn't apply to me, I would have and have never had any confidence in the good treatment of horses as part of the industry. To me its no different to greyhound racing and I expect that in years to come it will become similar to hunting in terms of broad public distaste for it. All this story has done is highlight what many believe was always the case in this industry. Several parties and politicians have looked at removing government support for these industries on that very basis. As usual with this kind of story there are plenty who see nothing wrong with it and I don't think anything the lads contribute will be enough to make any difference. Let the usual suspects like Johnny Ward on OTB fawn over the glorious industry of horse racing and explain how this is a one off.
finglashoop wrote: » so horse racing was started by betting companies? for the sole purpose of putting bets on?
Ivefoundgod wrote: » Where did I say that exactly?
finglashoop wrote: » an activity for gambling companies. surely you can accept that horse racing exists and gambling companies create markets around it. same with all other sports /markets. so people interested in horse racing would still be interested in it if the gambling aspect was taken away. same with other sports
kippy wrote: » You think horse racing would exist in its current form without gambling?
finglashoop wrote: » in its current form absolutely not. but look at the amount gambling around english football. if gambling was outright banned it would affect all sports.
Say Your Number wrote: » Ah who cares about this horse racing stuff, can we talk about Ken's appreciation for 80s synth football themes instead.
Ivefoundgod wrote: » I do accept that yes but on your second point, if the money that gambling companies inject into the sport was no longer available the entire industry would collapse. It would cease to exist as a "sport" which would support trainers, jockeys and all the ancillary parts of the industry. Racecourses etc. would no longer be financially viable. I've no doubt that there may be some hardcore fans who would continue in a massively reduced scale but the industry would be absolutely decimated without gambling. I acknowledged that gambling being taken out of football would impact it as well but the point is it would still exist almost exactly the same as it currently does, less money floating around for sure but to my mind the sponsorship of football teams by gambling companies is no different to the recent enough banning of tobacco sponsorship (with alcohol not far behind and already banned on kids shirts and completely in France). Even banning gambling completely would not have a major impact on football, people would still be fans. You'd possibly lose some of the idiotic "acca" fans who's weekends revolve around gambling but that's no great loss, these are the kind of people who send abusive tweets to team accounts because they cost them a bet. Hardly a great loss to the game. Question; if people could no longer gamble on horse racing, would the grand national/cheltenham/aintree festivals still operate do you think? I certainly don't think so. If gambling was banned in football, the World Cup, Champions League and all major leagues would continue without a doubt.
Raisins wrote: » Terrible take for a number of reasons. Whether you think it’s pretend outrage the rest of the world definitely isn’t shrugging its shoulders. It made news from the US to Australia and Japan. I won’t say anything else because it would be way off topic. The lads are entitled to ignore certain sports.
finglashoop wrote: » i think your downplaying the amount of gambling money around football. The sheer amount of markets available and ads during games means there is more than people doing an acca of a Saturday. As regards racing there would be a massive impact unless they could replace that sponsorship money from gambling companies with something else. similar to tobacco and alcohol restrictions football would find it easier to plug that gap. that is where racing would struggle imo.
dulpit wrote: » If there was no gambling then horse racing either wouldn't exist or would be super niche.
It's the only sport that is reported on where gambling odds form part of the coverage.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Absolutely. Sadly not the case, as Arsenal's social media feeds demonstrate... a new low that.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c9236bc67b608c3603b1ed089c896282.svg)
