Again....I just reply to the guys posting to me/taking shots at me. It's either that or clam up and have the same clowns say I am chickensh#t or as you so eloquently put it...can't stand the heat. I chose the first approach.


The only thing sadder than me responding I guess is you actually counting my replies. That is pretty sad amigo.


But who am I to criticize a Turf Economist.

Most of the time, I could care less what the announcer is saying, because my computer is in my living room and my wife is watching a movie and she would throw my ass out if I had the sound turned up. With that being said......until Stauffer announces during a stretch call, "WATCH OUT JOEL, THE 6 IS COMING UP THE RAIL", I am going to have to say I would care less whether he sells concessions, serves food up in the boxes or however many jobs he wants to take on. He isnt driving a tractor between races, nor is he shooting buckshot at the other horses when they are running against Rosario, he is trying to relay (especially to people who are at the track who mostly have their views obscured while the race is being run) what he interprets is going on during a race.:zz:

I never thought I would say this.......






but I actually miss conversing with Justindew. Your post pushed me to that level. :tro:

Wow 9 pages.....we haven't had a thread like this in ages

Thirty-eight... LOL! I did not take shot at you and did not call you any name. Simply, I stated my opinion that enough is enough. Counting replies merely quantified your level of obsurdity, or obsession, here.

Let me close with famous Dan Rowan-Dick Martin bit, "Say goodnight, Dick. Goodnight, Dick."

I think people should always try to be polite, even on a message board. Yet I still can't fault Vic in the least bit for his orginal response. I think the first post of this thread was way out of line and very mean spirited. I think Vic's response of "Bite me" was actually a tame response to a very personal attack.

I think it would have been fine if the original post was something to the effect of, "If you listen to Vic's calls very closely, you may be able to pick up that he is paying slightly more attention to Rosario's horses." That would have been fine. It wouldn't have been rude and it wouldn't have been a personal attack. It would have just been an observation. But that wasn't what happened. It was a personal attack and I don't blame Vic for responding, "Bite me."

I think Vic would have responded in a more respectful way if the criticism was given in a respectful way.

Vic is not "thin-skinned" in the least bit. He takes criticism extremely well and he is the first one to poke fun at himself.

Vic is one of the premiere racecallers in the country and Hollywood Park is lucky to have him. I don't care if he has a rooting interest in each race. As others have said, many racecallers are bettors so that means they have a rooting interest in races too. That's just reality. I think that all the racecallers I have heard do a very good job of staying objective in their calls. I think it is only on rare occasions when an announcer tips his hand as to who he is rooting for. Announcers are human. They try to stay objective but they are human. It's the same with newscasters. They try to stay objective but at times you can figure out what political party a newsman is affiliated with. That doesn't mean the newsman is not a great newsman.

By the way, I think the only reason that some people even think they notice a bias in Vic's calls is because they know that Vic is Rosario's agent and they are looking for a bias in his calls. If these people didn't know that Vic was Rosario's agent, I doubt they would notice any bias.

Anyway, I think Vic is doing a great job and it doesn't bother me in the least bit that he is wearing two hats. Vic is a true professional. Even though he doesn't take himself seriously, he takes his work extremely seriously and that is why he is so good at it. He bends over backwards to stay objective in his racecalls and I think he's doing a great job.

Keep up the great work Vic!

It wasn't written with the aforementioned measured tone?

I actually agree with this and see it as no worse than Churchill having Mark Johnson as their on-air handicapper and announcer.

I'm sorry I couldn't read through all 167 posts in this thread needless to say I got the jist of the discussion...what I can only add to this discussion is, I believe Vic is trying to be impartial when calling races that Joel's partakes in and perhaps he is; however as a fan who is watching the races it is hard for me to separate the thought that one of the riders he represents is one he calls regularily in races. To me this has much more to do with what may be perceived rather than what is said, to me I'm not sure even King Soloman would escape this type of microscope and that in itself hinders the watching of the race.

I had zero clue Vic Stauffer was the agent for Joel Rosario until last night when I saw the poll questions on this board. I've watched quite a few HP races this season. Honest to God, I had no clue he was Rosario's agent. I don't watch HP every day, but I have probably listened to over 50 of his calls this season and had no idea of this fact of him being connected to Rosario. Take that for what it's worth. I did have a 100 percent clue that Jeff Van Gundy was Stan Van Gundy's brother. I honestly did not care he did commentary on the NBA finals despite the obvious and complete conflict of interest. It bothered me not at all. Everything you do in life is a freaking conflict of interest. Everything. Every stinking decision you make in life is a conflict of interest if you really look closely into any aspect of your life. End of story. Period. Cool thread. OF course my opinion is meaningless. It does go without saying, that whatever answer Coach Pants gave on this thread is the correct answer. So just refer to that.

I have complete comprehension of what you're talking about. If you have a distorted view of what happened in the race, or I should say, what the announcer said about the race, you're entitled to such.

However, your whole premise is that Stauffer lathered up the 5 from the point where he made his move to the wire, you're wrong, which upsets the argument you are looking to make. The 5 ran at the tail of the field until the mid backstretch, when he started moving up. The announcer has to mention the 5 when Vic says the horse was "catching the eye". He then proceeds to reset the top of the field as they are turning for home, as any announcer worth their salt would, and by the time he gets to the fourth or fifth position the 5 is right there....are you saying he should not mention the 5 because he does the jock's books? What if he did Tyler Baze's book? Should he not have mentioned that the 10, Zaino, was 5w around the first turn, then 4w racing up the backstretch, and then 3w going into the final turn? Where do you draw the line on what's kosher and what's not?

So, after resetting the top of the field, Vic mentions the 5 is "two and a half from the lead", which was accurate, not sure where he is remiss in mentioning that because now the horse, with some ground yet to cover is in contention. He also mentions the 5 is "continuing to close" which is true. I watch and bet HOL fairly regularly and I don't see the inconsistency here in Vic's calls. He always has something to add to a top flight runner moving to the wire. He again resets the top of the field, mentioning the lead horse who is moving nicely, he skips over the fading 11, which I think was a mistake, but who am I to say? I don't think making a mistake equates to bias or conflict of interest. He then mentions the 5 moving up into second, with a chance to get the money. Which again was true.

The 5 had every right to be mentioned at every call Stauffer mentioned him. I'm willing to bet if a non-Rosario horse
made the same move, put itself in contention and then continued a decent run down the lane, Vic would have said
essentially the same thing.

My problem with it is you seem to have come in with a pre-conceived notion that Stauffer was bias to Rosario's mounts in his calls. If that's your premise, fine. But you picked a lousy race to try and back it up. You twisted a pretty pedestrian race call to fit your hypothesis. Your premise that Stauffer is biased on Rosario mounts may have some basis, I don't know, but you failed to present such here. I tend to doubt it. Maybe he's just forced to mention Rosario because, well, he's having a decent meeting? Could be. But to say Vic is in a state of complicity to have his cake and eat it too is just, like I said before, embarrassing.

I can't wait for Vic's last call at Hollywood Park only then will we likely see how creative this guy can really be.......

Hopefully that doesn't happen for a very long time.

Whenever I bet Rosario at Hollywood Park, which I do quite often, I damn sure know where my horse stands throughout the race.

Vic is probably human and does concentrate a bit more on Rosario than others, and how could he not? He does have a vested interest in the success of one horse over the others, and like anyone in that situation, you tend to keep an eye on that horse and the trip he's getting.

If people are noticing this, and I believe those who watch Hollywood everyday are, then Hollywood has to make a decision whether or not this is a significant problem. The problem not being Vic, but the problem allowing announcers to be jock's agents.

Others on this forum have rightly alluded to announcers wagering on a race and thereby having a conflict as well. While I agree, it would seem much easier for them to "mask" this conflict, as there allegiance changes from race to race, and is not focused on one jockey (or trainer, for that matter).

And announcers do have lots of friends at the track, especially announcers such as Vic.

So I guess individual tracks have to decide on their own what to do with each of these "conflicts", keeping in mind that many (such as gambling on the races) are not enforceable (the announcer would just have a friend make the wager like jockeys do).

For me, I would not allow the announcer to be a jocks agent as well. I think I would be setting the track, and my announcer, up to criticism. Our sport has enough perceived conflicts surrounding it with the general public.....

Excellent post, Chalky.

Maybe he would actually concentrate on Rosario less, knowing that others know he is Rosario's agent. I personally believe Bob Griese did this when calling his sons games.

What is interesting to me is how many people actually listen to the call. My speakers are out on one computer and I actually dont like hearing the call on most races that I am looking back at. Personally, I only like the call live. On review, I find it distracting.

Vic when you get a chance get this guy an autographed picture of you strolling thru the barn area at 5:20 AM with horse KaKa on your shoes. Pupkin will treasure it forever maybe even use it to start the Church of Stauffer. lol

Hey wait a minute....if Vic can indeed influence the outcome of races with his race calls....we are all missing out on a golden opportunity to become incredibly wealthy. Vic just has to let us know who he will be favoring in his calls and we will all be camped out in the cashier's line.

See how absurd this thread is???? Nuff said.....

lol:D

lol it is kind of hilarious to imagine the kind of call a race announcer would give if his sole intention was to shout alerts and advice to his jockey.

I will say one thing, the discussion may or may not be absurd......but your post certainly qualifies as such.

If Vic is betting a race, is it a rule that he must bet on Rosario only?

I'm pretty sure they can bet whatever they want. It would be a very slippery slope if they tried to regulate what people so far removed from the actual races bet.

All I can say is wow!

I just watched the replay, and based on what I saw and heard, Gossard is clearly just trying to stir up shid.

It's funny how people will say I am being ridiculous, then others turn this conversation into Vic's calls actually effecting an outcome of the race. I am 99.9% sure I wasn't saying that.

Gotta love some of the geniuses that post here. These same people are most likely part of a partnership that owns The Brooklyn Bridge.

So let me get this straight. You come on here before saying I am out of my mind/starting a dumb thread, and now you just watched the race ? Kind of weak on your part. I guess you just blindly follow the VS Fanclub on here or what other people tell you. Try and think for yourself at times.

Douglas is not going to be happy when I report to him that his good friend IC is a mindless fool who can't think for himself.

Could it be that we have a bunch of weenies that need to get the last post in?

Call me mindless and I fold like a cheap suit.

It's kinda funny that people are criticizing you for your number of posts here when this whole thing has turned into some absurd game of telephone where your point is nearly distorted beyond recognition.

Aaaah well... congrats on the thread of the year anyway.

I am mindless, true, for bothering to explain myself to a shid stirrer such as yourself, but nevertheless, I will correct your attempts to distort reality.

1. What I did state was that this was a dumb thread. I did not insult you. What is dumb about this thread is that it's such a non issue and people are devoting so much effort to it (including myself). I didn't need to watch the race at that time because it didn't matter. Even if Stauffer had made a biased call, why does that even matter?

2. I just watched the race now because I was watching other replays from the last few days and figured "what the hey, why not see what the fuss is about while I'm here". I saw nothing to fuss about.

3. As I've pointed out previously, I am no fan of any caller. I don't listen to them very much at all, as I can tell where my horse is and how it's moving. While I do have the audio on while watching, it's really just more of a background thing that I pick up very little on.

4. Try and think for myself at times? That one is pretty comical. I can pretty much guarantee you I'm more of an out of the box thinker than you are.

5. Dougie already knows I'm a mindless fool, as evidenced by my attempts to call you out and/or talk reason to you.

yea it was very anticlimactic.

That stupidfecta comment I made is still stinging huh?

Let it go man.

Again....more comedy. People can blast Durkin for his Derby call (which I agree with them)....people can blast Denman for the Street Sense call in Bc (again...I agree with them). But god forbid I say anything about VS on here and there is a HUGE uproar.

According to your logic then I guess race callers can say whatever they want and nobody should care?

It's funny....I am willing to bet that if I made a comment about Collmus,Durkin, or any other announcer very few would say a thing. But because VS graces us with his presence on here some bow down to him no matter what.

I wonder if julio pezua posted on here if these same people would demand he be on the hall of fame ballot.

no, i thought the racecall was very anticlimactic for the allegations from the original post.

This was an interesting topic. You could have done a better job of presenting a case, but obviously the emotional(not sure of a better word, opinionated?) original post sparked a lot of replies. I thought Steve Byk's reprovement was surprising given the way I took the original post, but maybe he has a point.

Ok Judge Wapner....what could I have done differently ?

My original post was unemotional and very to the point. Sorry you missed that.


Now give me a moment. I am going to run head first into the wall , then sit down again so I can continue conversing with you.

give it a rest

I'm back.

aspof0988hf--8qhehbefq9qb-7-gq9-g7ef-gqf7eg-

Or, more likely, as many have said, you had no real basis to bash VS like you did (or anyone for that matter). You had a presumed theory and you cited a pretty poor example to back up your argument. If you think Stauffer really is bias get a real example of it.

Otherwise, you deserved to be taken to task on it. You got on someone's case with weak evidence and you got called on it. If you had a real example, I'm sure a lot more people would agree with you, myself included.

Because some agree with me and some don't, I don't have any concrete evidence? I guess I need 100% approval to be right. Nice thinking there.

If you can't see the bias from that call I am sorry. It's painfully obvious. I guess I should take yours and Bobby fischer's word on this topic.

A few questions:

1) Did a thread started by Stonegossard really elicit 200 responses?

2) Is this entire thread really about whether or not Vic's perceived bias is an issue that needs to be dealt with?

3) Did Stonegossard manage to squeak my name in here somewhere?

I did. I actually said something nice about you. I think.