Gordon Elliott photograph

tipptom

Stateofyou wrote: »

And you're not aggressively defending someone you don't even know? I'm sure Gordon Elliott can explain himself also.

Why are you defending someone on the internet that you dont even know?

Im sure she can explain herself.

The same one you are defending has told outright lies about me,denigrate Elliots family and father because they work at panel beating and they are neighbors of hers,called everyone in the racing forum below intellect because they have bets and because some of them have a differant opinion to her,defends Sheikh Mohamood despite his criminal crimes against women and she has the cheek to then call herself a feminist

Baggly

Mod

Dont be posting insinuations about people without some sources please. Its just gossippy rumour mongering otherwise.

ShyMets

Lets hope common sense prevails and Elliott gets nothing more then a slap on the wrist

Stateofyou

partyguinness wrote: »

Yes, yes you are- that is exactly what you are doing.Why else would you bring it up his family business/background?

It is a thinly veiled sneer at the little upstart getting his just desserts (totally self inflicted I hasten to add).

A good old fashioned dollop of small time Parish pump begrudgery. Your posts make you look small and petty.

partyguinness wrote: »

Why else would that poster specifically bring up his family background and family business? I have not seen anyone else mention it...because it is of no relevance except to those who want to engage in petty sneers.

Like everyone else here we take the comments as we see them. I do not need to know the poster- if that is a consideration then we may as well shut down the entire site.

It is crystal clear why the poster brought that up....it was an obnoxious petty sneer.

partyguinness wrote: »

"Willfully missing [your] point" seems to be your stock lazy reply when faced with criticism.

Every other poster has been perfectly capable of voicing their opinions on his conduct all week without any referenecs to his upbringing etc.

You were perfectly capable of saying that horses have made him very wealthy and successfull and left it at that but no, you took it a step further by expressly referencing his background purely to sneer.

Little upstart from a panel beating background should remember where he came from - that was your point and trying to dress it up as something else is utterly disingenuous.

"Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining."

partyguinness wrote: »

I am not defending the guy at all. I have never at stage defended him. As I have written already, there is nothing to defend.

My posts concern the faux outrage and downright double standards from the chattering classes. Don't confuse that as a defence.

You sure have defended reference to his background quite staunchly for someone who claims not to be defending him.

The whole point from that other poster is his background should play into the gratitude and respect he's lacking in this instance for his success which lies squarely with the horses themselves. It's a valid point.

Just like yours was with the meat industry. But you've said some pretty nasty things toward this poster for their opinion. Would it be right for you to be pulled up by those in the animal butchery industry and insulted over your opinion? Surely not in this manner you reacted to partyguinnes for their opinion. That's all I'm saying.

partyguinness

Stateofyou wrote: »

You sure have defended reference to his background quite staunchly for someone who claims not to be defending him.

The whole point from that other poster is his background should play into the gratitude and respect he's lacking in this instance for his success which lies squarely with the horses themselves. It's a valid point.

Just like yours was with the meat industry. But you've said some pretty nasty things toward this poster for their opinion. Would it be right for you to be pulled up by those in the animal butchery industry and insulted over your opinion? Surely not in this manner you reacted to partyguinnes for their opinion. That's all I'm saying.

I took exception with the fact that a particular poster made an wholly unnecessary reference to his background. There was no need to do that- the very easy argument can be made that what he did was wrong without the sneers. Pretty much everyone agrees that he was absolutely wrong. But you do not need to pass cheap shots at the 'panel beater'.

I am not sure why you are investing time defending another poster (are you one and the same account?) - calling it an obnoxious sneer does not fall under the ambit of "nasty thing" IMO. The comment is an obnoxious sneer IMO- not the poster.

Being wrong does not mean it becomes open season on all aspects of his life such as his 'panel beating' upbringing. You cross the line into playing the man and not the ball. It is the type of grubby angle I would expect to read in a tabloid.

Again that is not in any way a defence of him. It is the reaction of other people I find curious.

dvdman1

A photo or frame out of context in anyones life can make them look bad.
This is a nothing story.

BattleCorp

I find the whole scenario screwed up. Fair enough, GE shouldn't have sat on the dead horse. It's not a good look.

But here's my problem........

Sit on a horse when its alive and can feel pain, run the fcuk out of it and whip it to get it to run faster = ok, very little outrage.

Sit on a dead horse when it's dead and can't feel pain = Holy fcuk, maximum outrage everywhere.

Surely how horses are treated when they are alive should be much more important than how they are treated when they are dead.

sham58107

What has background got to do with it !!

His father ( who died ) had a panel beating business, and is been ran by his brother, and it is probably one of the biggest if not biggest crash repair businesses in Ireland

So he would not have grown up working there .

Shelby Foote

I think what Elliott did was wrong, but perspective is needed.

To address the 'would you sit on your dead dog' brigade.

1. Your dog would be much lower down, not a bit comfortable.

2. Your dog is a pet to you. There are so many horses in a trainer's yard, he wouldn't have the same close attachment to each individual one. They are more like a farmer's herd of cattle that a cat or dog.

I don't know why one would want to sit on a dead carcass. That's where Elliott's behaviour is strange for me.

JustAThought

Its a question of what is or may be hidden behind closed doors . Horses don’t typically type or speak good english. If he would treat an animal with such casual contempt as this what else would he do or allow be done to it to reach his financial and business goals.

I’ve been to many a crowded funeral and wake where its been standing room only and never seen anyone hop up on the coffin for a seat. It’s beyond contempt even if the person is dead - its something you simply wouldn’t dream of ever doing.

Begs many questions about the values of this man and how he treats other animals in his care when there are no witnesses.

Quantum Erasure

Ah here...

AnBeagalltach

JustAThought wrote: »

Its a question of what is or may be hidden behind closed doors . Horses don’t typically type or speak good english. If he would treat an animal with such casual contempt as this what else would he do or allow be done to it to reach his financial and business goals.

I’ve been to many a crowded funeral and wake where its been standing room only and never seen anyone hop up on the coffin for a seat. It’s beyond contempt even if the person is dead - its something you simply wouldn’t dream of ever doing.

Begs many questions about the values of this man and how he treats other animals in his care when there are no witnesses.

The human analogy is just a massive non- sequitur.

Dead cows, chickens, pigs etc are eaten, dead humans are not. Dead horses may also be pet food, this is unlikely to be the case for the person’s wake you attended.

A dead horse is removed with a JCB, a dead human is carefully balmed and placed in a coffin. Up until last week not many people had difficulty in understanding how animals and humans are treated differently in death?

partyguinness

JustAThought wrote: »

Its a question of what is or may be hidden behind closed doors . Horses don’t typically type or speak good english. If he would treat an animal with such casual contempt as this what else would he do or allow be done to it to reach his financial and business goals.

I’ve been to many a crowded funeral and wake where its been standing room only and never seen anyone hop up on the coffin for a seat. It’s beyond contempt even if the person is dead - its something you simply wouldn’t dream of ever doing.

Begs many questions about the values of this man and how he treats other animals in his care when there are no witnesses.

Ah Jaysus...


That horse more than likely ended up in a huge mincing machine and turned into dog food. Quite literally hurled in from a height. I had the misfortune of seeing one of these machines at work and I cannot unsee what I saw that day...it will stay with me forever.

SouthWesterly

JustAThought wrote: »

Its a question of what is or may be hidden behind closed doors . Horses don’t typically type or speak good english. If he would treat an animal with such casual contempt as this what else would he do or allow be done to it to reach his financial and business goals.

I’ve been to many a crowded funeral and wake where its been standing room only and never seen anyone hop up on the coffin for a seat. It’s beyond contempt even if the person is dead - its something you simply wouldn’t dream of ever doing.

Begs many questions about the values of this man and how he treats other animals in his care when there are no witnesses.

You obviously don't understand the difference between an animal and a person.

We don't usually drag a person away from where they fell with a tractor, throw him In a truck and send him to the meat factory.

JustAThought

SouthWesterly wrote: »

You obviously don't understand the difference between an animal and a person.

We don't usually drag a person away from where they fell with a tractor, throw him In a truck and send him to the meat factory.

You don’t set up a picnic table on it either or have a step dancing competition on its back or use it as a couch or phone booth. Or do you?

twowheelsonly

dvdman1 wrote: »

A photo or frame out of context in anyones life can make them look bad.
This is a nothing story.

It's not as evil /dramatic /sensational as some are making it out to be but it is certainly objectionable behaviour at the very least. It's a bad look and definitely controversial.

It's certainly not a nothing story.

Stateofyou

sham58107 wrote: »

What has background got to do with it !!

His father ( who died ) had a panel beating business, and is been ran by his brother, and it is probably one of the biggest if not biggest crash repair businesses in Ireland

So he would not have grown up working there .

Well, because the horse to him isn't a pet, it's a business. No one would be sitting on their dead pet like that because they loved them, they would have been a part of the family. But the horse was his livelihood. So in the same way you wouldn't treat your colleagues disrespectfully or not take care of your business equipment, these horses should have been shown respect- and decency as a living, breathing, feeling, being.

partyguinness

JustAThought wrote: »

You don’t set up a picnic table on it either or have a step dancing competition on its back or use it as a couch or phone booth. Or do you?

There are plenty of pictures online from the old days where they had wakes in the local pubs.


The open coffin is there in the pub across a few tables and lads standing around with pints in their hands. I have even seen pics with the coffin used as a beer mat for pints of Guinness.

Stateofyou

partyguinness wrote: »

I took exception with the fact that a particular poster made an wholly unnecessary reference to his background. There was no need to do that- the very easy argument can be made that what he did was wrong without the sneers. Pretty much everyone agrees that he was absolutely wrong. But you do not need to pass cheap shots at the 'panel beater'.

I am not sure why you are investing time defending another poster (are you one and the same account?) - calling it an obnoxious sneer does not fall under the ambit of "nasty thing" IMO. The comment is an obnoxious sneer IMO- not the poster.

Being wrong does not mean it becomes open season on all aspects of his life such as his 'panel beating' upbringing. You cross the line into playing the man and not the ball. It is the type of grubby angle I would expect to read in a tabloid.

Again that is not in any way a defence of him. It is the reaction of other people I find curious.

We'll have to just agree to disagree and leave it there. I think the way you spoke to that poster was disgraceful though.

You say "pretty much everyone agrees" which obviously isn't true, but you clearly need to feel as if an army is behind you validating your words. People who are secure in their opinions and actions don't need to do that, do they.

To answer your question as to why I'm investing my time on this is because I saw that as aggressive and borderline bullying someone for their opinion, and there's just no need for it full stop.

partyguinness

Stateofyou wrote: »

We'll have to just agree to disagree and leave it there. I think the way you spoke to that poster was disgraceful though.

Calling her unnecessary post about his background an obnoxious sneer? If that is disgraceful to you then you lead a very sheltered life.

Stateofyou wrote: »

You say "pretty much everyone agrees" which obviously isn't true, but you clearly need to feel as if an army is behind you validating your words. People who are secure in their opinions and actions don't need to do that, do they.

Again you are completely twisting my words. I said that pretty everyone agrees that his actions were wrong..what's wrong with that?

But bizaarely you twist this observation around as though I am in need of some sort of "army"..that's utter tripe..that is taken from a quick glance through the posters. Where posters are disagreed is with the public reaction to GE's conduct.

When a poster states that they believe the public reaction to be OTT the problem arises is when some posters either deliberately or otherwise twist and misconstrue that view by automatically calling it a defence. Failure to see the clear demarcation between the two issues.

It is possible to say what he did was wrong but regard the reaction as OTT.

Stateofyou wrote: »

To answer your question as to why I'm investing my time on this is because I saw that as aggressive and borderline bullying someone for their opinion, and there's just no need for it full stop.

Your girlfriend took what I regard as an unnecessary cheap shot by sneering at his background. I called her out on that. Again if you regard that as bullying you lead a very sheltered life.

batman75

The IRHB have a difficult balancing act. On the one hand if they ban Elliott for a period of years, say two for example, they threaten the jobs at his stud. If the sentence is perceived as too lenient they'll get hammered for not taking what he did seriously. Elliott needs to hire proper professional PR people to help him rebuild his reputation if the sentence isn't too onerous. It probably can be rebuilt with time, depending on what else might come out. If nothing new appears in the papers this weekend he will probably be past the worst of the **** storm by Monday.

Stateofyou

partyguinness wrote: »

Calling her unnecessary post about his background an obnoxious sneer? If that is disgraceful to you then you lead a very sheltered life.



Again you are completely twisting my words. I said that pretty everyone agrees that his actions were wrong..what's wrong with that?

But bizaarely you twist this observation around as though I am in need of some sort of "army"..that's utter tripe..that is taken from a quick glance through the posters. Where posters are disagreed is with the public reaction to GE's conduct.

When a poster states that they believe the public reaction to be OTT the problem arises is when some posters either deliberately or otherwise twist and misconstrue that view by automatically calling it a defence. Failure to see the clear demarcation between the two issues.

It is possible to say what he did was wrong but regard the reaction as OTT.



Your girlfriend took what I regard as an unnecessary cheap shot by sneering at his background. I called her out on that. Again if you regard that as bullying you lead a very sheltered life.

This is the last I have to say. You're obviously fighting your corner. You see it as unnecessary, I think it's valid. I've seen the same sentiment online on social media so it's not a rare opinion. However your attack on that poster is what is unnecessary. You can just simply disagree without the carryon you resorted to.
"Bizarrely" "twist" "sheltered" "your girlfriend" ...
Just look at yourself. Maybe take some deep breaths and realise that everyone is entitled to their opinion, and there's no need for the OTT insults you clearly need to rely on. Is there some reason you can't handle someone having a different opinion. Your posts would suggest you're losing the plot and unable to let anyone else have a different opinion without resorting to insult and hyperbole.

partyguinness

Stateofyou wrote: »

This is the last I have to say. You're obviously fighting your corner. You see it as unnecessary, I think it's valid. I've seen the same sentiment online on social media so it's not a rare opinion. However your attack on that poster is what is unnecessary. You can just simply disagree without the carryon you resorted to.
"Bizarrely" "twist" "sheltered" "your girlfriend" ...
Just look at yourself. Maybe take some deep breaths and realise that everyone is entitled to their opinion, and there's no need for the OTT insults you clearly need to rely on. Is there some reason you can't handle someone having a different opinion. Your posts would suggest you're losing the plot and unable to let anyone else have a different opinion without resorting to insult and hyperbole.

Yes everyone is entitled their opinion and that includes me but yet you are investing a lot of time focusing on my "different" opinion which you have choosen to take offence at but yet assert that I can't handle other opinions. The irony is strong.

Her "opinion" whatever that was..was not an opinion at all. It is a small time petty sneer at his 'panel beating' background. Nobody else brought that up. It was a gutter comment. A cheap shot as I have called it and it reeked of the small town begrudgery IMO.

Furthermore, you have not said or proffered anything that would justify bringing his father and family business into the mix. The fact that others have mentioned it on social media is a poor excuse- what is not mentioned on social media. Instead you have choosen to take offence on behalf of this poor poster. Very strange.

That interaction took place hours ago. In fact at 9:20 this morning but here you are at 5:30pm still harping on about it. Again, very strange.

Interesting that Silly Gilly has not posted in several hours but yet you have appeared running to her defence on posts from 8 hours ago. I am increasingly of the view that you and Gilly are one and the same poster. Sad.

Thelonious Monk

A girl I used to go out with has a couple of horses and looks after different stables in Waterford. When the horses aren't wanted any more they are often rounded up and sent to France and other countries for meat. I never knew this or thought about it much but just assumed they grew old galloping around fields eating daisies and whatnot until they cross the rainbow bridge to doggy heaven or whatever. They seem to be just as much a commodity as cows or pigs.

krustydoyle

Gordon Elliott gets a 6 month ban and fine

Common sense has prevailed

Stateofyou

partyguinness wrote: »

Yes everyone is entitled their opinion and that includes me but yet you are investing a lot of time focusing on my "different" opinion which you have choosen to take offence at but yet assert that I can't handle other opinions. The irony is strong.

Her "opinion" whatever that was..was not an opinion at all. It is a small time petty sneer at his 'panel beating' background. Nobody else brought that up. It was a gutter comment. A cheap shot as I have called it and it reeked of the small town begrudgery IMO.

Furthermore, you have not said or proffered anything that would justify bringing his father and family business into the mix. The fact that others have mentioned it on social media is a poor excuse- what is not mentioned on social media. Instead you have choosen to take offence on behalf of this poor poster. Very strange.

That interaction took place hours ago. In fact at 9:20 this morning but here you are at 5:30pm still harping on about it. Again, very strange.

Interesting that Silly Gilly has not posted in several hours but yet you have appeared running to her defence on posts from 8 hours ago. I am increasingly of the view that you and Gilly are one and the same poster. Sad.

How do you know that poster is a she?
Second of all I have given my opinion also, so your whole post there is disingenuous rubbish.
Look at you-can't bear to be wrong or pulled up for the way you speak to people. You need to get a grip.
It's only an opinion, why are you so threatened. Sad indeed. Move on.

Absoluvely

https://www.rte.ie/sport/racing/2021/0305/1201173-elliott-barred-from-racing-for-six-months-and-fined/

Elliott barred from racing for six months and to pay costs of €15,000

partyguinness

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

A girl I used to go out with has a couple of horses and looks after different stables in Waterford. When the horses aren't wanted any more they are often rounded up and sent to France and other countries for meat. I never knew this or thought about it much but just assumed they grew old galloping around fields eating daisies and whatnot until they cross the rainbow bridge to doggy heaven or whatever. They seem to be just as much a commodity as cows or pigs.

Yeah...reality is a bitch. They are chucked into a huge mincer...I mean they are chucked in whole...everything. Hoofs, head, skin, tail everything.

Apparently donkey meat is a very common ingredient in the pepperami you get on pizzas.

partyguinness

Stateofyou wrote: »

How do you know that poster is a she?
Second of all I have given my opinion also, so your whole post there is disingenuous rubbish.
Look at you-can't bear to be wrong or pulled up for the way you speak to people. You need to get a grip.
It's only an opinion, why are you so threatened. Sad indeed. Move on.

Oh I thought you already had your final word. Apparently not then. Disingenuous rubbish...is that the best you can do..no chance of a reasoned thought out rebuttal?

I disagreed with her opinion at 9:25 this morning. End of. She has not been back to post any sort of retort or response but you are still going on about it...why are you still banging on about it? But here you are hours later banging on about an exchange with another poster.

Now I know you are the same poster. Off with you.

Stateofyou

Stateofyou wrote: »

Well, because the horse to him isn't a pet, it's a business. No one would be sitting on their dead pet like that because they loved them, they would have been a part of the family. But the horse was his livelihood. So in the same way you wouldn't treat your colleagues disrespectfully or not take care of your business equipment, these horses should have been shown respect- and decency as a living, breathing, feeling, being.

So working horses shouldn't be shown any respect?

I wonder what the reaction if a member of the Garda Mounted Unit sat on one of their dead horses and got a photo taken, laughing and joking?