Quote:
|
Originally Posted by stonegossard
Hey bro.
I already claimed I am not an internet tough guy.
It's unbelievable how you can't comprehend what I am talking about. I never said he shouldn't have mentioned the horse, it was just ridiculous that he called basically only that horse from the far turn to the finish. And again, if Solis horse doesn't hit the fence, the 5 wasn't winning.
Send me your address....I will send you some building blocks with the big letters on em....can spell it out for you.
|
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.