New Pimlico Analyst
 

Apparently she beat Ryan Fogelsonger, who also applied for the job. I would have thought he would have been a shoe in, since he won so much there. Instead, they went with beauty over the beast. http://www.drf.com/news/pimlico-laur...w-race-analyst

... a terribly presumpteous thing to say.

It's not like she's some bimbo they found at Hooters.

She obviously grew up around racing, writes and has done a little of the on-air thing...

Good for them for giving her a shot. Racing needs this kind of thing.

Did you watch their respective tryouts?

I'm guessing not.

I am applauded that you reference the fine young ladies at Hooters as Bimbo's. My sister works their and I am offended that you lumped(EXCUSE THE PUN) in as a Bimbette. Feel free to retract your disparaging remarks..From a woman no less

There was a monumental dead-rail bias at Presque Isle Downs in the second season of racing. It was a habitual thing, day in and day out...and it went on for weeks.

After weeks, the only jockey left in the room who still failed to recognize it was Fogelsonger. He was taking EVERYTHING to the inside, and no one was close to him. It was a joke.

The fields weren't even that big and post position number 1 had lost over a hundred straight races. Mike Luzzi came in to ride a strong favorite in a stakes race who was lone speed from post #1. He had never even rode the track before, and from simply watching a few replays of races earlier on the card... he sent the horse leaving the gate, took him out to the 4path in an instant, and went wire-to-wire.

Luzzi is no rocket scientist... but from simply watching a few replays, he had a better understanding of what was going on than someone who had been riding the track all along.

Fogelsonger didn't even make it through a full meet here.

Forget 22-year-old ... a 12-year-old girl would make a better analyst than he would. He may have won a lot of races riding in the Mid-Atlantic ... but it doesn't take a lot of thinking to do that.

"her ability to write a blog was significant."

Who couldn't write a blog? (Well maybe the jock)


“I am really excited about the opportunity,” Gaudet said. “Frank is a really good handicapper. One of the things I need to focus on is studying the charts and [Daily Racing Form] Formulator. I am going to enjoy the blogging aspect of the job.

Well there is this...

Me and about half of the horse-loving woman I know have that necklace. :o

Somewhere in Hossy Heaven, Hendrix is shaking his head! :D

Meaning... (?)

I don't see how someone who has been given a chance and then presented herself in this light... how this is a negative.

:tro:

Why yes. Yes, it is. Point taken. :D

I know you know what I meant though and won't insult you by explaining myself.

The analyst formerly known as Katie Mikolay has landed the Keeneland job as well. She has also apparently taken her husbands last name of Gensler.

That is name change #2 for her. Mikolay was a shortened up version of her original last name.

I just don't understand why every track can't hire someone like Andy or Calzone Lord. It always has to be another pretty face on the T.V. screen, telling the public "this horse looks so pretty in the paddock". Give me someone who knows how to bet and give great insight into a race any day. Give us a degenerate gambler who is actually going to push money through the window. Send the Pretty faces to TVG and HRTV.

As long as they actually know what they're talking about ... they can be great in that limited role...and it's useful info to everyone who isn't at the track and isn't strong in that aspect.

Maggie Wolfendale is very good in that role imo. Maybe the new girl at Pimlico will be as well ... but they are probably doing a wise thing by not letting her make the morning line. Keep her to her strengths.

There are a lot of great horse racing TV analysts.

On top of everything else, Blackthroatedwind is an extremely good tv presence. I hope he isn't too offended by you putting his name next to mine.

Jeff Siegal is incredible at HRTV. Randy Moss is excellent for ESPN. Kurt Hoover for SA and Jon White for HRTV are very good. Brad Free is good. TVG has a few that do a good job and a few others who could be useful if they applied themselves. A few different tracks have useful analysts. Monmouth with Brad Thomas ... I've seen guys here like Pat, Travis, and NTamm all do very good jobs. NTamm is very articulate.

As great as a guy like Jeff Siegal is ... tracks want "image" people in that role. The kind of people they think can get attention with looks and sound cool.

I'll likely be cursed out for this, but Maggie's voice kills me. It is better now, but when she was at CLN they could never get the sound right and it was like nails on a chalkboard.

Katie has a really great voice and is a smooth speaker. She has on occasion swapped the odds for the horses # etc., but I would much rather listen to her than anyone else and she doesn't do that pouty face hair-toss thing that Jessica P. did.

Whatever happened to Jessica P? She kinda fell off the planet.

Just asked that question today to a few people who know these things. Word on the street is she's a diva and hard to work with, got the boot because of it.

She's just been busy filming Season 2 of the Timmy Thorton Youtube Reality series.

This years 25 episodes should be fun to watch.

Disagree on both accounts.
Maggie is great with giving an account on how a horse looks and, how it looks compared to previous starts.
So far at KEE Katie has tripped over her words and has seemed really nervous, while adding nothing to what Mike B has already said.

That is the key reason that makes her very helpful in her role. Migliore is very good with this as well.

Even if you can trust that someone is a very good judge at looking at horses in the flesh ... they aren't much help unless they have seen the horse in prior races before and have made, at the very least, a good mental note.

I'm not interested at all in hearing how a horse looks and is behaving before a race ... unless the same person can tell me how the horse has looked and behaved before prior races.

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? :)