I just saw this article on Sporting Life and personally found the photo unnecessary - it purports to show Richard Johnson falling from Pembridge at Ludlow, yet nowhere in the story is this incident referred to. What exactly are they trying to convey by showing this photo and yet not even referring to the fall in the article itself?? I looked at the comment against his running on Sporting Life (he ran in the Ludlow 12.40) and it says "Held up towards rear, left in modest 5th bend after 6th, weakened 3 out, poor 7th when fell last". So this was an innocuous fall of a horse that was not involved at the business end of the first race on the card which wasn't even mentioned in the article. I am assuming the horse is OK (can't see any reports to the contrary) but I find publishing the picture totally unnecessary.
Certainly strange considering the article makes no mention of that race. My only guess Oddy is that it is certainly a striking picture. Only explanation I can think of.
Speaking of striking yet irrelevant (for this forum anyway) images... http://www.decidethis.co.uk/images/5322e2e6/87afe4-00591965.jpg Thank me later
Not sure what the problem is oddy, photographers take pictures of what is happening and they contribute to a story, such as the famous napalm image from history. Racing is a sport that has dangers and I think its fair enough to show such whenever it occurs.
I think that's fair enough Nass, but there was nothing in the article about the race. It just felt like they were saying "oh look at this photo of a horse falling" without it being in any way relevant to the written article. A bit like writing an article about a Man City v Man United match with a photo of Suarez biting that Italian bloke at the World Cup.
