Gulfstream Simulcast Host

[Monarchos1]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Oh good... My first reaction was right. The thread-start was indeed simply a smokescreen to insult Serling/Donovan/Blewitt.

The thread was started to see if anyone knows who will be doing the GP show. Evidently no one on the forum has anything to contribute in that regard. I guess we'll find out January 3rd.

Who is hosting the Daytime Emmy's?

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by Monarchos1

The thread was started to see if anyone knows who will be doing the GP show..

I doubt that, but I put a call in to get the answer just for you.

[Monarchos1]

Originally Posted by Kasept

I doubt that, but I put a call in to get the answer just for you.

Your post was the first in this thread that started with the hating (on Rushton), so you can blame yourself for the direction it took.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by Monarchos1

Your post was the first in this thread that started with the hating (on Rushton), so you can blame yourself for the direction it took.

Got it... Factual presentations are 'hating on Rushton'.

[Monarchos1]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Got it... Factual presentations are 'hating on Rushton'.

What's factual about this?

"But she was a mannequin on broadcasts and even failed to truly deliver off her experience as a gallop rider."

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by Monarchos1

What's factual about this?

"But she was a mannequin on broadcasts and even failed to truly deliver off her experience as a gallop rider."

It's a fact in its' entirety. All she did was regurgitate stats or minutia about what level a horse last raced, etc. She was supposed to be offering insight about physical appearance of runners based on whatever horsemanship knowledge she had. But she didn't do so nearly enough.

She never went out to observe workouts personally to be able to say with authority how a horse was coming into a race. It was all cosmetic. She was a pleasant, pretty face. A powder puff that added a softness to telecasts. Don't misunderstand me. I like Jan Rushton as much as anyone. She became an institution in New York. But she only was being tolerated in terms of her contributions to the raceday information.

Look, you think that Jan Rushton 'should' be on a racing telecast, and you're entitled to that opinion. But no one that seeks valuable information from raceday productions which will help them make money would get that from her.

Horseplayers say they want real customer service and tools delivered to them by the tracks that will enhance their wagering experience and MAKE THEM MONEY. Hard, cold facts regarding race shapes/pace, track trends, bad trips/good rides, declining/improving form, odds anomalies, trainer pattern/intent, et al, delivered authoritatively by people whose opinion has gravitas and WHO REALLY BET, is what paddock show telecasts demand now.

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

her 'hats' made me a ton of cash..

[DaTruth]

Originally Posted by Kasept

It's a fact in its' entirety. All she did was regurgitate stats or minutia about what level a horse last raced, etc. She was supposed to be offering insight about physical appearance of runners based on whatever horsemanship knowledge she had. But she didn't do so nearly enough.

She never went out to observe workouts personally to be able to say with authority how a horse was coming into a race. It was all cosmetic. She was a pleasant, pretty face. A powder puff that added a softness to telecasts. Don't misunderstand me. I like Jan Rushton as much as anyone. She became an institution in New York. But she only was being tolerated in terms of her contributions to the raceday information.

Look, you think that Jan Rushton 'should' be on a racing telecast, and you're entitled to that opinion. But no one that seeks valuable information from raceday productions which will help them make money would get that from her.

Horseplayers say they want real customer service and tools delivered to them by the tracks that will enhance their wagering experience and MAKE THEM MONEY. Hard, cold facts regarding race shapes/pace, track trends, bad trips/good rides, declining/improving form, odds anomalies, trainer pattern/intent, et al, delivered authoritatively by people whose opinion has gravitas and WHO REALLY BET, is what paddock show telecasts demand now.

Her "Closer Look" segments on Inside Racing weren't too great either.

[Monarchos1]

Originally Posted by Kasept

It's a fact in its' entirety. All she did was regurgitate stats or minutia about what level a horse last raced, etc. She was supposed to be offering insight about physical appearance of runners based on whatever horsemanship knowledge she had. But she didn't do so nearly enough.

She never went out to observe workouts personally to be able to say with authority how a horse was coming into a race. It was all cosmetic. She was a pleasant, pretty face. A powder puff that added a softness to telecasts. Don't misunderstand me. I like Jan Rushton as much as anyone. She became an institution in New York. But she only was being tolerated in terms of her contributions to the raceday information.

Look, you think that Jan Rushton 'should' be on a racing telecast, and you're entitled to that opinion. But no one that seeks valuable information from raceday productions which will help them make money would get that from her.

Horseplayers say they want real customer service and tools delivered to them by the tracks that will enhance their wagering experience and MAKE THEM MONEY. Hard, cold facts regarding race shapes/pace, track trends, bad trips/good rides, declining/improving form, odds anomalies, trainer pattern/intent, et al, delivered authoritatively by people whose opinion has gravitas and WHO REALLY BET, is what paddock show telecasts demand now.

Fact: Jan Rushton worked for NYRA.

Opinion: "But she was a mannequin on broadcasts and even failed to truly deliver off her experience as a gallop rider."

Here's a link so you can understand the difference between facts and opinions: www.dictionary.com.

If you don't like Rushton's work, fine. But don't try to pass off your personal opinions as facts.