Censorship on Bloodhorse

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by redransom

Trust me when I tell you the Blood-Horse doesn't censor. I know that first-hand.

However, several different people are responsible for posting stories to the website and sometimes things get moved around and links are dropped by mistake. The "time sensitive" thing is an auto response.

You better speak with Ray Paulick about that. He's the one that had the article pulled. Of course he's conveniently out of town for a convention.

[Revolution]

They have ever right to pull the article. They are not censoring his opinion, they are taking the article down because some of what he wrote is just not based on anything. In fact some of his statements were bizarre. Is this guy on the Coolmore payroll or something.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by Revolution

They have ever right to pull the article. They are not censoring his opinion, they are taking the article down because some of what he wrote is just not based on anything. In fact some of his statements were bizarre. Is this guy on the Coolmore payroll or something.

If he's writing his own opinion, isn't he allowed to gather his opinion from wherever he wants? I read the article and I thought he had some good points. The chances of Bernardini reproducing himself are slim to none... I think that's pretty accurate, don't you?

[Revolution]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

If he's writing his own opinion, isn't he allowed to gather his opinion from wherever he wants? I read the article and I thought he had some good points. The chances of Bernardini reproducing himself are slim to none... I think that's pretty accurate, don't you?

You can have any opinion you want, but you can't just go saying things like the stallion is not likely to produce a great horse. He has no way of knowing that.

He could have said it is "unlikely" he would produce a great horse, but instead he said his chances were "slim to none" language that is not exactly professional.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by Revolution

You can have any opinion you want, but you can't just go saying things like the stallion is not likely to produce a great horse. He has no way of knowing that.

He could have said it is "unlikely" he would produce a great horse, but instead he said his chances were "slim to none" language that is not exactly professional.

Rev,

That was his OPINION, though... he never stated it as fact. I just think he's entitled to his opinion and in all honesty, if Bernie DOES reproduce a horse like himself, than Haskin is the only one that looks dumb, so he's the one taking the bigger risk! Why should the Sheiks care who says what about their business practices and what they do with their horses? The fact that they didn't like what he said just proves to me that there is some merit in what Haskin thinks.

[Revolution]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

Rev,

That was his OPINION, though... he never stated it as fact. I just think he's entitled to his opinion and in all honesty, if Bernie DOES reproduce a horse like himself, than Haskin is the only one that looks dumb, so he's the one taking the bigger risk! Why should the Sheiks care who says what about their business practices and what they do with their horses? The fact that they didn't like what he said just proves to me that there is some merit in what Haskin thinks.

I don't know. People complain about these Sheikhs but the writers are the ones always focusing on the negative. Maybe the editor doesn't like negative stuff written about people that aren't being given a fair deal by the writer. They are bringing back their top 2 horses. Are they just supposed to never retire their horses?

These writers have clearly banded together against Godolphin and the editor of the magazine isn't stupid enough not to see that. These writers have some agenda and it isn't for the good of the sport.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Revolution

These writers have clearly banded together against Godolphin and the editor of the magazine isn't stupid enough not to see that. These writers have some agenda and it isn't for the good of the sport.

Now THIS is funny. Thanks.

I am shocked and stunned at what that mean man Ray Paulick has done!

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Revolution

They have ever right to pull the article. They are not censoring his opinion, they are taking the article down because some of what he wrote is just not based on anything. In fact some of his statements were bizarre. Is this guy on the Coolmore payroll or something.

He said exactly what the majority of the people on here are thinking. There was nothing bizarre about anything written in the article. I'm sure if Coolmore had just retired Bernardini and Henny Hughes the same sentiments would have been directed towards them. This issue is way more racing fans vs Godolphin and Coolmore than it is Godolphin vs Coolmore.

[paisjpq]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

He said exactly what the majority of the people on here are thinking. There was nothing bizarre about anything written in the article. I'm sure if Coolmore had just retired Bernardini and Henny Hughes the same sentiments would have been directed towards them. This issue is way more racing fans vs Godolphin and Coolmore than it is Godolphin vs Coolmore.

i didn't get to read the article but IMO Coolmore doesn't seem to care much if they get bad press...they either ignore it or rebuke it, and then it goes away...the Maktoum's on the other hand get furious and threaten people the best way they know how--with money (or more accurately the loss of it)...thereby ensuring that no other negative items will be printed. They are so bent on appearing benevolent and sporting---while seeming to have no concept that their actions prove just the opposite.

[Revolution]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

He said exactly what the majority of the people on here are thinking. There was nothing bizarre about anything written in the article. I'm sure if Coolmore had just retired Bernardini and Henny Hughes the same sentiments would have been directed towards them. This issue is way more racing fans vs Godolphin and Coolmore than it is Godolphin vs Coolmore.

Who cares what you say on a chat site. You don't have a magazine that employs people and needs advertising dollars. Maybe the editor just thought it was in poor taste. I did. I thought it sounded like a guy who didn't like a new power in racing. Much of the article read like a chat room, not an article for a top magazine.

I really think beyer wrote something and his publication slapped him around and then haskin did the same to prove some point. He got slapped around and now pricci is doing the same. These guys are really little fish in an ocean where Godolphin is the big shark.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Revolution

Who cares what you say on a chat site. You don't have a magazine that employs people and needs advertising dollars. Maybe the editor just thought it was in poor taste. I did. I thought it sounded like a guy who didn't like a new power in racing. Much of the article read like a chat room, not an article for a top magazine.

I really think beyer wrote something and his publication slapped him around and then haskin did the same to prove some point. He got slapped around and now pricci is doing the same. These guys are really little fish in an ocean where Godolphin is the big shark.

Alienating the people who subscribe to your magazine isn't the smartest way to do business. The Sheikhs are a bunch of whiners.

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

You better speak with Ray Paulick about that. He's the one that had the article pulled. Of course he's conveniently out of town for a convention.

Still not censorship. And his reasons for pulling it a right on, IMO.

Now if they want to publish it as a Final Turn, that's a different story altogether.