Early Present In My Stocking

[MaTH716]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

Have you had any previous experience with the author, or was this kind of out of the blue?

When I read the article I thought that there had to be some sort of past between the two. The article is so over the top, that it's ridiculous. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the call.

I guess it was a really slow week, news wise in the industry. Or just maybe the guy is just really friendly with Wrona and is just trying give his guy a leg up at Vic's expense. Who knows, who cares? I feel like the writer comes across terribly in this piece. It's so skewed, that he must have some sort of agenda against Vic. It's that obvious.

Osterman wants to talk about bad journalism, maybe he should take a look in the mirror. With all that's wrong in the sport he chooses to use his platform to rip apart a guy who does his job with personality, character and feeling.

[Seattleallstar]

I love ya Vic! I personally dont care for Wrona's nasally Australian accent, but he is good.

VJ keeps it fresh and exciting. If Osterman thinks Vic is horrible, I wonder what he must think of Battaglia?..bwhahaha

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by MaTH716

When I read the article I thought that there had to be some sort of past between the two. The article is so over the top, that it's ridiculous. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the call.

I guess it was a really slow week, news wise in the industry. Or just maybe the guy is just really friendly with Wrona and is just trying give his guy a leg up at Vic's expense. Who knows, who cares? I feel like the writer comes across terribly in this piece. It's so skewed, that he must have some sort of agenda against Vic. It's that obvious.

Osterman wants to talk about bad journalism, maybe he should take a look in the mirror. With all that's wrong in the sport he chooses to use his platform to rip apart a guy who does his job with personality, character and feeling.

Maybe he comes off terribly, but again we're only looking at it from one side. His criticism of Vic saying "darn it" is over the top, I agree. But he says its another example of Vic trying to be "the show." It's probably not the best example, but some do feel like Vic does this. If that is what his point was, he probably could have made it more effectively.

Hopefully Osterman responds or Vic answers if the two of them have a past. Maybe he is valid for having an agenda, maybe not. We don't know. But, it's worth mentioning most of us would have never even seen this if it wasn't posted. I just tried to find the actual article and I couldn't. Who knows what his platform even is.

[MaTH716]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

Maybe he comes off terribly, but again we're only looking at it from one side. His criticism of Vic saying "darn it" is over the top, I agree. But he says its another example of Vic trying to be "the show." It's probably not the best example, but some do feel like Vic does this. If that is what his point was, he probably could have made it more effectively.

Hopefully Osterman responds or Vic answers if the two of them have a past. Maybe he is valid for having an agenda, maybe not. We don't know. But, it's worth mentioning most of us would have never even seen this if it wasn't posted. I just tried to find the actual article and I couldn't. Who knows what his platform even is.

Personally, I like when announcers are colorful. I don't think it's a matter of Vic trying to be "The Show", but he is indeed a part of it. For example, most of us don't care for Battaglia. Isn't it because his monotone calls lack some sort of passion and all sound the same? Vic has personality, is Osterman saying that is bad? I also like it when Vic or another announcer uses the jocks name. It doesn't make me think that he's just name dropping because they are friends, if anything it makes me think he's aware and on the ball. As opposed to when an annoucer says something like the rider lost the irons, or is strangling his mount trying to control his speed. That's when I have to look at the form to see whom the jock is. So technically, he is reporting what is going on.

The whole thing is just very strange. Like I said before, this guy has a platform to speak and for him to waste a spot on an article like this makes me think he had an ulterior motive.

[Danzig]

i agree with maths post. i think the callers should have some personality in their calls. battaglia is just awful-races are supposed to be exciting. he sounds like he's calling paint drying.

as for 'darn it', what's wrong with saying darn it? doesn't sound as tho it was scripted, just sounded like something most of us would say (maybe a bit cleaner on vics part) if a horse pulled up or went wrong. i'm more amazed when a caller doesn't mention it at all-everyone can see that something has happened, but the caller doesn't? i think it's the callers job to give out pertinent info, a horse getting pulled up is definitely important. if a heartfelt darn it gets uttered, so what?

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by MaTH716

Personally, I like when announcers are colorful.

Yeah, it's a matter of preference. I think you can be colorful, while not over the top. We all like different things. Obviously Vic has his fans and he has people that aren't. I'm sure he'll be fine either way.

[Duvalier]

Originally Posted by Cardus

It's possible, of course, that there is no agenda and that Osterman is calling it like he sees it.

Since it is not a flattering piece, why must there be some agenda, a friendship elsewhere, or a slow news week?

If it were a flattering piece and someone posted here that there must be some ulterior motive behind publishing it, that poster would get hammered.

I'm just curious...why is it that you seem to jump in every Vic Stauffer thread on every forum and bash him?

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by Duvalier

I'm just curious...why is it that you seem to jump in every Vic Stauffer thread on every forum and bash him?

I'm just curious....why is it that you seem to jump in every Vic Stauffer thread on every forum and defend him?

[RockHardTen1985]

I dont think I have ever defended Vic but the above question is fair. Cardus is all over him. Even during my multiple bans I can still get on and read and it happens all the time.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by RockHardTen1985

I dont think I have ever defended Vic but the above question is fair. Cardus is all over him. Even during my multiple bans I can still get on and read and it happens all the time.

Don't worry, by tomorrow everyone will have forgotten about this and you can make every thread on this board about you again.

Just be patient.

[Duvalier]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

I'm just curious....why is it that you seem to jump in every Vic Stauffer thread on every forum and defend him?

Every forum bwahaha. Are you going to let Cardus answer? It was a simple question.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by Duvalier

Every forum bwahaha. Are you going to let Cardus answer? It was a simple question.

I asked you a simple question also. Take your time.

[Duvalier]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

I asked you a simple question also. Take your time.

Because I think some people are taking unfair shots at him for no reason. Let Cardus answer and give a reason and maybe I will change my mind and agree with him. Or you can just keep jumping in and defending Cardus.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by Duvalier

Because I think some people are taking unfair shots at him for no reason. Let Cardus answer and give a reason and maybe I will change my mind and agree with him. Or you can just keep jumping in and defending Cardus.

We've been doing this for like 2 years right? I don't think anyones mind is changing at this point.

[Duvalier]

Originally Posted by Cardus

"Every forum"? Tell me how many forums you follow me around?

Other than that, I owe you nothing, Chase.

Surrender Noted

Aren't the French and their servants the ones who are supposed to surrender?

[Duvalier]

Lol

[MaTH716]

Originally Posted by Cardus

It's possible, of course, that there is no agenda and that Osterman is calling it like he sees it.

Since it is not a flattering piece, why must there be some agenda, a friendship elsewhere, or a slow news week?

If it were a flattering piece and someone posted here that there must be some ulterior motive behind publishing it, that poster would get hammered.

To me it just seems like he making mountains out of molehills. So Vic said darn, let's kill him for showing some compassion to a horse that broke down.

Then to the comparison against Wrona (whom I have no issues with, he's a solid announcer).

Wrona calls the tight photos with incredible accuracy and rarely with disclaimers. When he doesn’t take a stand (“oh, they’re out of stride on the line”), there’s a good chance it’s a dead-heat. Stauffer tries to call all the tight ones but there’s always an “I think” or
something else to cover his behind. Still, he blows some outright

Really this is one of the things he's picking on?

Stauffer generally refers to riders by their first names or nicknames (“traveling well for Chantal”, or “Go Go” has so-and-so well placed). Wrona uses the last name and, as any journalism school graduate knows, that’s the way you’re supposed to do it.

I watch a lot of races from Hollywood, does Vic use first names sometimes, sure. But on many occasions he uses the last name too. Once again I don't see what the big deal is.

The only knock ever heard on Wrona is his insistence on calling the finish of every horse in the field which tends to tick off some not interested in being told that their best bet of the day straggled home sixth

Oh, I guess Wrona has his faults too . As far as this and his quip about Wrona always being accurate, I guess it's a lot easier to do when you only have about 6 horses in each race. I know Hollywood doesn't always have full fields either, but it's nothing compared to Northern California.

Trevor Denman may have lost a few steps over the decades but he remains a comfort to us all, even if his catch phrases are beginning to wear a little thin.

Really, says who? It seems like the majority of people whom I talk to and post around here aren't in love with Trevor. Did Mr. Osterman write a pointed article after Trevor missed Strett Sense in the 2006 BC? Or what about when he pleaded for Zenyatta to get up at the wire last year? Aren't those must bigger offenses than Vic saying Darn?

Obviously everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but if you are going to give a total rip job to a guy, you should at least have some valid arguments. To fabricate and exaggerate minor points to make your own agenda look valid is kind of lame.

I'm sure some sort of fluff piece would have gotten mixed reviews around here too. Some would have thought it was nice and others would have maybe mocked and taken a shot or two, especially if the fluff was exaggerated as much as the negatives were in this piece.

[RockHardTen1985]

Originally Posted by MaTH716

To me it just seems like he making mountains out of molehills. So Vic said darn, let's kill him for showing some compassion to a horse that broke down.

Then to the comparison against Wrona (whom I have no issues with, he's a solid announcer).

Really this is one of the things he's picking on?



I watch a lot of races from Hollywood, does Vic use first names sometimes, sure. But on many occasions he uses the last name too. Once again I don't see what the big deal is.



Oh, I guess Wrona has his faults too . As far as this and his quip about Wrona always being accurate, I guess it's a lot easier to do when you only have about 6 horses in each race. I know Hollywood doesn't always have full fields either, but it's nothing compared to Northern California.



Really, says who? It seems like the majority of people whom I talk to and post around here aren't in love with Trevor. Did Mr. Osterman write a pointed article after Trevor missed Strett Sense in the 2006 BC? Or what about when he pleaded for Zenyatta to get up at the wire last year? Aren't those must bigger offenses than Vic saying Darn?

Obviously everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but if you are going to give a total rip job to a guy, you should at least have some valid arguments. To fabricate and exaggerate minor points to make your own agenda look valid is kind of lame.

I'm sure some sort of fluff piece would have gotten mixed reviews around here too. Some would have thought it was nice and others would have maybe mocked and taken a shot or two, especially if the fluff was exaggerated as much as the negatives were in this piece.

Your wasting a lot of time right now, because he simply does not like Vic. Its been clear for a long time.

[MaTH716]

Originally Posted by RockHardTen1985

Your wasting a lot of time right now, because he simply does not like Vic. Its been clear for a long time.

That's fine if he doesn't like Vic. Same goes for the guy who wrote the article. My issue is that the writer goes public and gives no real basis for the rip job he gave Vic.