With the Democratic primary contest over, Steve might be able to get the band that played the late night shows that Dan Abrams did - definitely Mike Douglas material.

I don't listen to Steve's show that often and when I do it's unfortunately during the Tony Black segment. It's unbearable.

:rolleyes:

I for one always find it interesting to hear from a perspective that I/we don't often hear from. I am not saying it's Barbara Walters or anything of the like, but some of the discussions are interesting -- hearing about a jocks mindset, what he's doing with his hands, legs, how he's positioning or trying to position on the track, etc.

I think it's good when you can offer fans, and whoever else, a point of view that is not commonly available. Why not have another jock every other week -- some Q&A, insight, etc?

Richard Migliore of course would be great at this. The passion he has for the game is never ending. Mike Luzzi is another one. I've heard Mike with fans answering questions, providing insight, etc. and he's good at it. Aaron Gryder is excellent in this type of setting.

Eric

Eric..

You managed to get almost all of the Italian and Jewish jocks in.. Good job.

Tony Black is fascinating and has seen/done it all. 5,100+ races won and likely another 1,500 lost to alcohol, drugs and similar poor decisions... and he gives you everything straight from the gut or heart. He's one of the most popular regulars.

Mig calls in pretty regularly...

Jewish? LOL. Tony is a fascinating character, and having met him, spoke with him, etc. a few times, I enjoy his segment more knowing the kind of guy he is. I know Mig calls in and it's great when he does. I think if you scheduled him in on a semi-regular basis it would be a real asset. I can't speak for everyone, but I've always found it interesting when you get a chance to "relive history with the people who made it" so to speak. If you check your ego at the door -- you just might learn something, LOL.

Why not get a jock agent? There's a side of the business that very few people truly get, understand and realize how that plays into the game. It can help from a handicapping perspective as well.

Eric

Hey it's not my show. He can have on jocks for every segment for all I care. I just cant stand their midget voices. It's unbearable to listen to.

i think there are enough repeat offenders out there to draw attention...if racing isn't serious about them, i can't imagine why they would decide to hound someone who has always been clean. that makes NO sense. that would be like ignoring the guy weaving all over the road, beer cans flying out the back, because this OTHER guy, who's never even got a speeding ticket is heading down the road right now. let's go after him.

While the state said this was random, they also said that they are selecting barns/trainers based upon random picks as well as information provided and other factors. The guy is shooting 50% -- why wouldn't they pick him? Is this a shock? Right, wrong or indifferent, he would be the guy I would suspect they would pick. As a side note, the results people are seeing from Levine at Monmouth are understandable to an extent. OTOH, those who automatically call him "cheating" merely from a results standpoint, detailed or not, probably more often than not have to call him "cheating" or come from a place of "he must be cheating" so to speak.

I think he'll end up the meet around where he normally does % wise -- 30%, maybe more due to the distortion of the #'s. The wins will be much higher, but then again, how many people knew that he has twice as many horses on the grounds as he had last year? Anyway, while they might be barking up the wrong tree, you have to be concerned even if you are the ultimate Mr. Clean.

I am all for holding people accountable -- trainer responsibility (perhaps revisited, and modified), owner responsibility (something that is practicle and feasible) and vet responsibility (more random searches, rules, regulations, higher accountability, etc.) and a higher level of overall, universal rules and regulations. However, being concerned even though you are Mr. Clean, extends to the owner as well (although the owner cannot control what he can't control).

People yell and scream because they "just know" that someone is "doing something" or "cheating" -- as a byproduct of the results. Weak arguement as far as I am concerned. Where there's smoke there's fire? Yes, true, not all the time, but true. Do unusually high %'s, record # of wins, etc. automatically mean cheating? No. Does it sometimes? Yes. But to arbitrarily say that you "just know" when it is and when it isn't -- that's BS. It's also BS to say who what % of people are cheating and who is not. This is a very blurred and very tainted landscape we are looking at. It's not a pretty picture and I hope the industry has been pushed into even more action than it's taken in recent years.

Eric