Oh I don't know...maybe I'd prefer to get my handicapping advice from someone who already has experience?

Perhaps she can do a great job in her role but I'd be willing to bet she has never made a serious attempt at betting in her life especially considering that she has only been legal to do it for 2 years. I'd be willing to guess that the 4 candidates have never hit a pick 4 in their lives.

It seems that very few tracks have learned that trying to make their customers better players is more important than somebody shilling out picks regardless of what they look like. Reading between the lines they sound like they were looking for someone to do more than one job and probably willing to work relatively cheap. As Doug said paddock analysis for off track customers (which at Laurel based on the times I've been there recently is virtually all of them) can be important and hopefully with her background she excels there.

To demonstrate a case of what I'm talking about... think Shackleford before the Preakness.

The tv analyst on horseback made a huge deal about how washed out he was and how "everyone looks fine right now except for Shackleford. He's washed out, acting up, and looks like he's already run his race"

That behavior wasn't that unusual for him ... a lot of his form was established with the same type of behavior... and he went out and outgamed Animal Kingdom in the stretch to win that Preakness.

The focus should be on change of appearance and change of behavior. The handicapper is using past form as the basis for his betting decisions ... if a horse is washed out and acting up today, but was also washed out in each of his last few races ... big deal. I'm only interested when the new information suggests a change.

All personal preference and I was commenting on their voice and presence. The only person I really stop to listen to on a regular is Andy when it really comes down to it though.

Wasn't it after the FOY that Romans said to be worried if he wasn't on his toes? Clearly that analyst didn't read the Form!

All kidding aside, much as I hate that concept, this is exactly why Maggie talks about horses in relation to how they have looked in the past. Appearance is only relative.

Figures...form over content.

I LISTEN to Wolfendale everyday NYRA races. Not only is her voice melodic and very pleasant, she has an excellent eye as previously postesd by blackthroated wind.

Maggie has not only a degree in communications and broadcast journalism but her father is a long time trainer. In addition to walking "hots" for her dad and then getting her trainer's license...she was an excercise rider too...rode in the am at NYRA. Can't beat that for getting a first hand report on a TB.

She has a very sharp eye and refers to the horse's prior condition in her paddock presentation.(if she saw the horse)

Sour grapes and jealousy here.
Not only is Maggie smart about TB's, she is very,very pretty. Much prettier in person than she appears on TV.

How on earth did you reach this conclusion?

If any guy here had posted the same thing but about another guy no one would say he's jealous.

Am I wrong?

In being so defensive of Ms. Wolfendale the implication is that Sightseek ripped her apart which she certainly did not!

Pam Fitzgerald was really good with the content of her paddock commentary. She had many years of experience with Frankie Brothers and working for Al Stall. She knew what she was talking about, but her problem was her delivery.

You must have been going to FG during her time there. I lived in New Orleans at the time and you are spot on with your comments.
She knew what she was talking about - she just couldn't say it very well.

She still trains the Louisiana Downs string for Al Stall.

Nothing to add on the issue itself, but my lord, has Fogelsonger fallen an awfully long ways the last 8-10 years.

Funny how it works, huh? :)