Second Captains Part II

deisedude wrote: »

The Tiger documentary is compelling viewing but it is also ridiculously one-sided as he nor anyone close to him wanted to take part in it for obvious reasons

Armen Keteyian wrote a fairly comprehensive book on Tiger in 2018. He conducted over 400 interviews of 250+ people and gives a fairly balanced view on Tiger. He was an executive producer for this documentary and the documentary if effectively just the book. I personally wouldn't consider that a one-sided account. Tiger and his people chose not to take part or refute the stories in the book.

The feeling I got at the end of the book was that I pitied Tiger and everything he had to put up with. The events from 2009 onwards made a lot of sense to me after reading it. I got a similar vibe from the documentary. I know a lot of people (Golf Weekly for example) felt very different.

Did anyone else find the Zlatan stuff extremely tedious to listen to today?

Don't know why but I found it hard going.

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

Lots of media outlets are trying to hype the zlatan vs Lebron story but nobody really cares...

mcgucc22 wrote: »

Getting rid of it entirely would be the best move to make.

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.

[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.

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.

TXPTGR1 wrote: »

They ignore it because it’s a sports podcast

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.

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.

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.

finglashoop wrote: »

all sports are now activities for gambling companies

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.

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.

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.

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.

so horse racing was started by betting companies? for the sole purpose of putting bets on?

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

You think horse racing would exist in its current form without gambling?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I'm not saying there's not a massive gambling market around football, I'm saying if it didn't exist then football would not be affected too much. All that money in gambling markets goes to the gambling companies, not the teams or organisations running the sport.

On the last point, I think we're in agreement that horse racing would struggle, I just think it would struggle a bit more than you do.