The Racing Post and ITV partly responsible for low attendances?

[Quartu SE]

I am sure there are multiple agencies within the industry who have had a negative effect but these two have more exposure to the world at large than any other entity.Ever since the pair of them started the bullsh!t about becoming "Inclusive" and pushing their agenda's down our throats the backbone i.e the older punters have been pushed aside and ignored.It has been proven that their strategies do not work and never will,the failed "Racing For Change" proved that and yet they still try and re-vamp the concept.

Lately the courses seem to have realised the mistakes made by getting into bed with both and acknowledge the older racegoers are the hardcore and bread and butter of their product.ITV are the worst of the two but not by much e.g "The paddock expert" who is as much use as tits on a bull but ticks a box for them,ditto the Mulrennan lady e.g The horse is sweating badly,looks to be limping on her off fore but nothing negative?

Only a couple of small examples but it seems to me the people on there are patronising and insulting the majority of us simply to tick boxes?

The Racing Post has gone so far downhill it is barely recognisable,the "Industry Paper" that seems to be so overstaffed with "Experts" that you would think the bookies should all be skint.Again they have gone the way of ITV in pushing "Inclusivity" and certain individuals using the paper for their own agenda?

Half of them cannot spell or use basic grammar to back up their "expertise" and there race card summaries are lazy and incompetent compared with even a decade ago,they are a joke in terms of being a punters reference.Just one example of such is the write up for The Green Man 1730 hrs Leicester i.e Raced too freely on reappearance,last seasons RPRs bring him into it.

The fact that the horse did not run last year and had been gelded since his last run never got a mention,not only would I not trust and RPR I certainly would not trust a word these people say without double checking but they are supposed to be the go to source.

Is it only me who is disgruntled and disaffected when the obvious is so "Obvious"

[Quartu SE]

1 minute ago, Quartu SE said:

I am sure there are multiple agencies within the industry who have had a negative effect but these two have more exposure to the world at large than any other entity.Ever since the pair of them started the bullsh!t about becoming "Inclusive" and pushing their agenda's down our throats the backbone i.e the older punters have been pushed aside and ignored.It has been proven that their strategies do not work and never will,the failed "Racing For Change" proved that and yet they still try and re-vamp the concept.

Lately the courses seem to have realised the mistakes made by getting into bed with both and acknowledge the older racegoers are the hardcore and bread and butter of their product.ITV are the worst of the two but not by much e.g "The paddock expert" who is as much use as tits on a bull but ticks a box for them,ditto the Mulrennan lady e.g The horse is sweating badly,looks to be limping on her off fore but nothing negative?

Only a couple of small examples but it seems to me the people on there are patronising and insulting the majority of us simply to tick boxes?

The Racing Post has gone so far downhill it is barely recognisable,the "Industry Paper" that seems to be so overstaffed with "Experts" that you would think the bookies should all be skint.Again they have gone the way of ITV in pushing "Inclusivity" and certain individuals using the paper for their own agenda?

Half of them cannot spell or use basic grammar to back up their "expertise" and there race card summaries are lazy and incompetent compared with even a decade ago,they are a joke in terms of being a punters reference.Just one example of such is the write up for The Green Man 1730 hrs Leicester i.e Raced too freely on reappearance,last seasons RPRs bring him into it.

The fact that the horse did not run last year and had been gelded since his last run never got a mention,not only would I not trust and RPR I certainly would not trust a word these people say without double checking but they are supposed to be the go to source.

Is it only me who is disgruntled and disaffected when the obvious is so "Obvious"

And yes I did not proof read before posting so" there" should be their,apologies.