Censorship on Bloodhorse

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Honu

Exactly my point , your only vested intrest is the money you bet , and I agree that the betters support the industry but so do the billionare breeders and buyers. You can call it poor breeding practices but you have little idea of what is involved , still the point of the thread was bashing the sheiks for retiring THEIR horse because it doesnt suit the racing fan consensus ( and that is what Andy is as I dont see him spending millions of dollars in the industry).

I have a problem with the entire breeding industry. The Sheikhs just make an easy target because they have the money to make things better for the actual sport of racing. It is your assessment that we as horse racing fans would be worse off without the Sheikhs that I disagree with. The owners and breeders would take a hit when the bubble burst but the sport of racing would go on without missing a beat.

[Revolution]

How people can criticize someone for being a good business person is crazy. They have Invasor and Discreet Cat for next year.


The same people that criticize them for retiring Bernardini would be criticizing them if Invasor, Discreet Cat and Bernardini won every big race out there next year. They would be saying these guys are ruining the sport by making it unfair for everyone else.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Revolution

How people can criticize someone for being a good business person is crazy. They have Invasor and Discreet Cat for next year.


The same people that criticize them for retiring Bernardini would be criticizing them if Invasor, Discreet Cat and Bernardini won every big race out there next year. They would be saying these guys are ruining the sport by making it unfair for everyone else.

Do you just make up what other people would say to argue with yourself about them?

It would be fantastic if we had the three of them back next year winning every big race. If it came down to the end of the year though and they only entered one of the three in the Breeders' Cup then yes, I'd absolutely be criticizing them.

[Revolution]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

Do you just make up what other people would say to argue with yourself about them?

It would be fantastic if we had the three of them back next year winning every big race. If it came down to the end of the year though and they only entered one of the three in the Breeders' Cup then yes, I'd absolutely be criticizing them.

I am not sure you should be talking about just making things up. You are the one throwing insane things like the bloodhorse censoring out there. The bloodhorse would never censor anything. A writer might be influenced to write something, but the magazine would never censor. Why don't you tell us how JFK was killed while you are throwing conspiracy theories out there.

Haskin may come off too strong as a cheerleader sometimes but given the choice between that a few poison pens we have out there "covering the sport" I'll take Haskin every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Hes passionate and he loves the sport. He doesn't claim to be a handicapping guru and he doesn't claim to have all the answers, but he does indeed go to the track and talk to the people he writes about, unlike many.

He doesn't take cheap shots at folks, and he doesn't blame every pick-6 he loses on a trainer "who is cheating".
The very worst guys we have covering this sport are the "handicapping geniuses" who don't know a bowed tendon from a quartercrack and have never even been around a barn other than to pass by and ask a trainer if he can bet his first time starter later that day.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by oracle80

Haskin may come off too strong as a cheerleader sometimes but given the choice between that a few poison pens we have out there "covering the sport" I'll take Haskin every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Hes passionate and he loves the sport. He doesn't claim to be a handicapping guru and he doesn't claim to have all the answers, but he does indeed go to the track and talk to the people he writes about, unlike many.

He doesn't take cheap shots at folks, and he doesn't blame every pick-6 he loses on a trainer "who is cheating".
The very worst guys we have covering this sport are the "handicapping geniuses" who don't know a bowed tendon from a quartercrack and have never even been around a barn other than to pass by and ask a trainer if he can bet his first time starter later that day.

i agree. on top of that, he's humble enough to write back to emails -- and i know not just mine. he's written me a few emails and has been so passionate about the sport -- it's great to see. i've been impressed by his lack of ego in the correspondances we've had.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Revolution

I am not sure you should be talking about just making things up. You are the one throwing insane things like the bloodhorse censoring out there. The bloodhorse would never censor anything. A writer might be influenced to write something, but the magazine would never censor. Why don't you tell us how JFK was killed while you are throwing conspiracy theories out there.

JFK was killed by a bullet.

[SniperSB23]

So, who's more pathetic? Bloodhorse for pulling the article under pressure from Darley or Darley for requesting they remove it in the first place?