[Kasept]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

I didn't write that. Not close. If you read what I wrote, you'd have saved yourself some time as I mentioned there were four. Not ALL.

There's no thinly veiled inference. Only the obvious one I mentioned which is that there are NYRA, NON-PROFIT NYRA, directors that have FOR-PROFIT interests that could be in conflict.

You don't see that? Fine. You can't perceive that? Fine. Are you stupid, inane or naive for thinking that way? Who knows.

Suppose you run a non-profit entity. You need a board. You can choose from a wide range of qualified people. But you choose to fill some seats with members who, among them, have FOR-PROFIT interests with, oh yeah, one of your two biggest competitors.

And you call me stupid?

Number one.. You did say it:

Originally Posted by SentToStud

What about all the people who are on the Board of Directors of Churchill and/or who are Breeders Cup Trustees who are ALSO on the Board of Directors at NYRA?If you want to be critical, that's a fair place to start.

Number two.. You got the wrong Evans... The Evans on the NYRA board isn't the Bob Evans at Churchill.. So your head count is off. Your whole concept here is so misguided that's its' comical. "NYRA's bloated Board" you wrote? That's funny.. NYRA has less than 20 trustees for the biggest operation in racing (22 with the 4 officers), and the BCL has 14 Directors and 48 Member/Trustees for a two day event. But NYRA's board is bloated.


Your suggestion is that the three NYRA trustees, that happen to also be on the totally inconsequentioal 48 member BCL member/trustee board, have financial benefit to gain from the Cup backing out of the handshakes deal with NYRA... That's what you suggested, and it's so utterly preposterous as to be laughable. That those three need financial benefit off their BCL member/trustee positions is so outlandish that I must indeed be Gump-like in my myopia towards its' obviousness...


You're impossible to deal with on any topic NYRA-related.. Its' quite amazing.