Gordon Elliott photograph

anewme

BattleCorp wrote: »

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

I think you need to pull back in your horns there. Who is blaming a woman anywhere for wrongdoing? I certainly am not blaming a woman.

Ahh stop, you are blaming someone you allege circulate the photograph, rather than the person who posed for the photo.

If the women had not have been 'scorned", the photo might be ok.

The guy is clearly lacking in morals to disrespect animals under his care in that manner. If a vet did that with someones pet, he/ she would be struck iff and rightly so.

dickdasr1234

anewme wrote: »

Ahh stop, you are blaming someone you allege circulate the photograph, rather than the person who posed for the photo.

If the women had not have been 'scorned", the photo might be ok.

The guy is clearly lacking in morals to disrespect animals under his care in that manner. If a vet did that with someones pet, he/ she would be struck iff and rightly so.

A vet would be struck off for sitting on a dead animal? Really?

What a weird and wonderful world!

anewme

J.O. Farmer wrote: »

Rumour has it that it's an ex posted the photo due to other far worse behaviour against said ex.

Hell hath no fury like a woman's scorn generally means don't annoy a woman or she'll make you pay.

Don't see how this is misogynistic or that the woman is wrong.

That in itself is sexist- men can be anoyed and take actions as well for whatever reason.

The big caps WOMAN SCORNED is just another instance for this same minority to blame women for something.

This is nothing to do with scorn or making anyone pay.

It would be more suitable to say in this case - don't bite the hand that feeds you.

JJayoo

Muahahaha wrote: »

Ruby Walsh certainly isnt too impressed with Elliot



So I guess in some posters minds we can add Ruby Walsh to the list of 'snowflakes' who are pissed off about this.

The whataboutery and deflection on this thread is a sight to behold. All while it is the horse industry themselves who are heavily condemming what Elliot did. But I suppose they're all snowflakes too :rolleyes:

In the horse racing business if a horse can't potentially win/be competitive, so let's say they hurt a leg and had a limp they are put down.

They add jumps, which are responsible for the vast majority of horse injuries/deaths, because it makes it more exciting for gambling.

These are the points the horse racing industry don't want people.to think about so everyone piles onto one guy, oh he's bad and we are good

anewme

dickdasr1234 wrote: »

A vet would be struck off for sitting on a dead animal? Really?

What a weird and wonderful world!

Read what Ruby Walsh said about respect for your position if you cant grasp basic professional ethics or charter.

Feisar

Muahahaha wrote: »

Ruby Walsh certainly isnt too impressed with Elliot



So I guess in some posters minds we can add Ruby Walsh to the list of 'snowflakes' who are pissed off about this.

The whataboutery and deflection on this thread is a sight to behold. All while it is the horse industry themselves who are heavily condemming what Elliot did. But I suppose they're all snowflakes too :rolleyes:

In fairness Ruby Walsh is deflecting like fook as well. Its a harsh industry. What happens to the horses that don't make the cut? Did anyone think to ask Ruby that when he was making his statement? On a plate or dogfood on the continent. That's grand, most of us eat meat so it is what it is but Ruby shouldn't be makin out to be some sort of horse philanthropist.

anewme

JJayoo wrote: »

You are the worst kind of person

No, I'm an honest kind of person.

Personal abuse is against the charter.

FileNotFound

anewme wrote: »

And as if by magic, the good old misogyny rears its head on Boards.

Sure it would have to be a "scorned woman" to blame somewhere. People here have read too many salacious tattle magazines and have disregarded facts in favour of "it was the bad women dunnit".

Instead of trying to blame others for this guys nasty behaviour, maybe blame should be laid at the door of this same individual who disrespected all of the privileges afforded to him by way of his job. He is responsible for this, not anyone else.

Sure the statement you responded too seems to be accurate - nothing wrong with that

J.O. Farmer

anewme wrote: »

That in itself is sexist- men can be anoyed and take actions as well for whatever reason.

The big caps WOMAN SCORNED is just another instance for this same minority to blame women for something.

This is nothing to do with scorn or making anyone pay.

It would be more suitable to say in this case - d'ont bite the hand that feeds you.

Don't bite the hand that feeds you is far more sexist whatever way you look at it especially as it was his ex partner not his private chef being referred to.

Do you think the photo was posted for a laugh. Accordingto reports Michael O'Leary confirmed it was his horse which died in 2019 yet the photo surfaces now on social media. When things appear years later it's rarely for a laugh.

More than likely somebody be it man or woman was scorned and they knew full well that it would reflect badly on Gordon Elliot. It's not saying they were wrong to do so either.

anewme

FileNotFound wrote: »

Sure the statement you responded too seems to be accurate - nothing wrong with that

"seems"

Its bordering on libel.

anewme

J.O. Farmer wrote: »

Don't bite the hand that feeds you is far more sexist whatever way you look at it especially as it was his ex partner not his private chef being referred to.

Do you think the photo was posted for a laugh. Accordingto reports Michael O'Leary confirmed it was his horse which died in 2019 yet the photo surfaces now on social media. When things appear years later it's rarely for a laugh.

More than likely somebody be it man or woman was scorned and they knew full well that it would reflect badly on Gordon Elliot. It's not saying they were wrong to do so either.

Dont bite the hand that feeds you - don't fck up in your job. Its not referring to anyone.

Clearly someone has a reason for disclosing this information now. It could be anyone, it could be someone who was sent on the information and has only recently received it and went, this is not on!

Lot of speculation here and some very ropey gossip monger posts - not very fact based. Too much rumour and innuendo.

JJayoo

anewme wrote: »

No, I'm an honest kind of person.

Personal abuse is against the charter.

Oh I have no doubt that you believe what your saying is correct it's just that the content is toxic. Desperately trying to pull everything down to a sexist level.

anewme

JJayoo wrote: »

Oh I have no doubt that you believe what your saying is correct it's just that the content is toxic. Desperately trying to pull everything down to a sexist level.

Im not trying to pull everything down to a sexist level.:rolleyes:

Im highlighting casual toxic sexism that is too prevalent on boards.ie.

The message from that OP was ...keep it in your trousers Mr. E, there are some dangerous women out there........instead of have some respect for yourself, your clients and the animals entrusted under your care.

They guy fcked up, but clearly it has to be a woman who brought him down. Could have been anyone and speculating as to who is only idle gossip.

J.O. Farmer

anewme wrote: »

Dont bite the hand that feeds you - don't fck up in your job. Its not referring to anyone.

Clearly someone has a reason for disclosing this information now. It could be anyone, it could be someone who was sent on the information and has only recently received it and went, this is not on!

Lot of speculation here and some very ropey gossip monger posts - not very fact based.

I know the general meaning of don't bite the hand that feeds you, however you said it would be more appropriate than another phrase seemingly referring to an ex-girlfriend. In that context it is referring to someone but you didn't think it through in your rush to be offended.

J.O. Farmer

anewme wrote: »

Im not trying to pull everything down to a sexist level.:rolleyes:


The message from that OP was ...keep it in your trousers Mr. E, there are some dangerous women out there.......

I must've missed the bit about dangerous women.

Not refferring to anyone in particular but men in general should keep it in their trousers as it generally refers to not cheating on their partner.

anewme

J.O. Farmer wrote: »

I know the general meaning of don't bite the hand that feeds you, however you said it would be more appropriate than another phrase seemingly referring to an ex-girlfriend. In that context it is referring to someone but you didn't think it through in your rush to be offended.

That is the very point I am making. This is nothing to do with the ex girlfriend. The only person responsible is the egocentric individual who posed with the unfortunate animal.

Don't bite the hand that feeds you very clearly applies here and has already been proven- don't offend your employers or the money dries up - that could be man woman or Company as this individual has clearly found out already today with the horses being pulled from the UK Stable.

Different than rushing to assume it must be the ex-girl friend - a rumour told me she was scorned. Keep it in your trousers lads. That's the only rushing here - rushing to jump to conclusions that somehow it has to be a woman behind the poor man's downfall.

I notice it wasnt dont abuse your job or you get fired. It was keep it in your trousers or the woman will sort you. Casual sexism.

FileNotFound

anewme wrote: »

That is the very point I am making. This is nothing to do with the ex girlfriend. The only person responsible is the egocentric individual who posed with the unfortunate animal.

Don't bite the hand that feeds you very clearly applies here and has already been proven- don't offend your employers or the money dries up - that could be man woman or Company as this individual has clearly found out already today with the horses being pulled from the UK Stable.

Different than rushing to assume it must be the ex-girl friend - a rumour told me she was scorned. Keep it in your trousers lads. That's the only rushing here - rushing to jump to conclusions that somehow it has to be a woman behind the poor man's downfall.

I notice it wasnt dont abuse your job or you get fired. It was keep it in your trousers or the woman will sort you. Casual sexism.

You are really working hard to change the direction of this thread.

Lets get back to the man and his dead horse....

Take a break and have a cuppa.

anewme

FileNotFound wrote: »

You are really working hard to change the direction of this thread.

Lets get back to the man and his dead horse....

Take a break and have a cuppa.

The person who changed the direction of the thread was the person who introduced the sexism.

Have a cuppa yourself. Looks like you've had the aul fig rolls already.

It's not his dead horse either. Catch up.

Bluwave

dickdasr1234 wrote: »

Your comment is an unfair slight on those who look after these animals.

A trainer is a manager, agent, logistician. I think you will find that many managers across all fields necessarily lose a little humanity as their focus veers toward problem-solving which may involve unpalatable choices.

I have worked in the industry and it is generally staffed with tough, hardy people but you would rarely come across an individual who did not respect the animals he is working with.

Working with racehorses is a life like no other, offering the ultimate in highs and lows, thrills and spills. It is poorly paid and dangerous. Callous people don't operate under such conditions. It is a labour, largely, of love.

For many who experience emotional trauma as an occupational hazard, a dark humour can develop as a coping mechanism.

I cannot see how a man sitting on the carcass of a horse translates into the habitual abuse of live animals.

Elliott could not possibly be as successful as he is if the animals in his stable were being abused. It just couldn't happen.

I think of the gratuitous abuse of humans around the world and scratch my head at the furore over this 'man-sits-on-dead-horse' non-event.

I have watched people refuse to wear a face-mask and abuse others when requested to so do. Now that, my friends, is f***ing outrageous!

So that’s another few things to add to the dislike about horse racing column.

The employees of the trainers are poorly paid and put in physical danger and this exploitation is excused because the people who are exploited love horses.

There is plenty of money in racing, so there is no need for anyone to be poorly paid.

FileNotFound

anewme wrote: »

The person who changed the direction of the thread was the person who introduced the sexism.

Have a cuppa yourself. Looks like you've had the aul fig rolls already.

It's not his dead horse either. Catch up.

Calm down and back on topic with you. Stop trying to usurp the thread.

If you want a thread on other topics find or open one.

Back the the man and "someones dead horse"

Sandor Clegane

Its no secret that these people don't give a **** about the animal welfare, they are in it for the sport and money, a lot worse goes on than this you can be sure.

osarusan

Am I the only one who thinks the horse-racing industy doth protest too much?

I'd imagine every trainer has a few skeletons in their closet. Maybe not as 'thick' as what Elliot did, but things which are not in the welfare of the horse.

I mean, in Elliot's case the horse was already dead. Is what he did really worse than sending healthy horses to the abbatoir purely because they are not as competitive as it was hoped they'd be?

FileNotFound

osarusan wrote: »

Am I the only one who thinks the horse-racing industy doth protest too much?

I'd imagine every trainer has a few skeletons in their closet. Maybe not as 'thick' as what Elliot did, but things which are not in the welfare of the horse.

I mean, in Elliot's case the horse was already dead. Is what he did really worse than sending healthy horses to the abbatoir purely because they are not as competitive as it was hoped they'd be?

As a major face of a sport under pressure for the reasons you state what he did is stupid and unacceptable.

I think that's really the matter at hand. No one has any illusions about everyone else being a saint but he has made a mockery of his sport through that pic.

It will be the sport who punishes him - and for the sake of saving face they may have to make an example.

fryup

i wonder who leaked it?

did he have a falling out with someone within his immediate circle..or maybe a rival training stable ?

anewme

Sandor Clegane wrote: »

Its no secret that these people don't give a **** about the animal welfare, they are in it for the sport and money, a lot worse goes on than this you can be sure.

It's the optics and damage limitation.

Though I'd say there are a fair few genuine people involved.

Think of the impact of the Running For Their Lives Documentary had ion Greyhound Racing.

anewme

fryup wrote: »

i wonder who leaked it?

did he have a falling out with someone within his immediate circle..or maybe a rival training stable ?

The fact that theres another one out today with the other lad indicates this is a bigger issue.

fryup

fryup wrote: »

i wonder who leaked it?

did he have a falling out with someone within his immediate circle..or maybe a rival training stable ?

supposed to be the ex who did

horse-racing is the most crooked and bent "sport" in so many ways (betting industry in general, race-fixing, money from unsavoury characters and regimes) and all the virtue-signalling stuff coming out from the "industry" is primarily happening as they don't want people looking under the covers in a more diligent way.

at the end of the day it's a dead animal carcass.

fryup

fryup wrote: »

i wonder who leaked it?

did he have a falling out with someone within his immediate circle..or maybe a rival training stable ?

Don't ask. It's sexist or something.

fryup

ex - wife or gf or employee ?

at the end of the day it's a dead animal carcass.

at the end of the day it's distasteful

Kaybaykwah

glasso wrote: »

supposed to be the ex who did

horse-racing is the most crooked and bent "sport" in so many ways (betting industry in general, race-fixing, money from unsavoury characters and regimes) and all the virtue-signalling stuff coming out from the "industry" is primarily happening as they don't want people looking under the covers in a more diligent way.

at the end of the day it's a dead animal carcass.

No, at the end of the day, it's a big eejit sitting on a dead horse with a big smile on.
That's his branding.
He's branded.
Move on.