Censorship on Bloodhorse

[Revolution]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

That link now just has a picture of Bernardini and no article when you click on it. Augh! Is it still up anywhere?

Maybe the writer had second thoughts. You know the bloodhorse had no problem running it, so the writer might have thought twice about what he said.

He sure did write some stupid things.

Originally Posted by Revolution

Maybe the writer had second thoughts. You know the bloodhorse had no problem running it, so the writer might have thought twice about what he said.

He sure did write some stupid things.

Did YOU actually just accuse someone of writing stupid things?
Thats gotta be the most incredibly ironic thing I have ever seen.

[Revolution]

Originally Posted by oracle80

Did YOU actually just accuse someone of writing stupid things?
Thats gotta be the most incredibly ironic thing I have ever seen.

Well his article is down. And just to let you know I am not a writer at the bloodhorse and this is a chatsite.

What he wrote actually could get him sued. The fact that he didn't see that is funny. My boss from this summer said they probably took it down because one of his comments could expose him to a multimillion dollar lawsuit.

Originally Posted by Revolution

I am not a writer at the bloodhorse.

What he wrote actually could get him sued. The fact that he didn't see that is funny. My boss from this summer said they probably took it down because one of his comments could expose him to a multimillion dollar lawsuit.

Your boss that was gonna sue all of us earlier this year? Great, thanks for the update.

[Revolution]

Originally Posted by oracle80

Your boss that was gonna sue all of us earlier this year? Great, thanks for the update.

My boss has never posted here. You are the idiot who believed that. I know you are not very bright, but do you think an attorney is going to waste his time with you.

The guy wrote "The chance of Bernardini reproducing himself at stud is slim to none" and that isn't exactly something a person marketing his horse wants to see in print, especially when Haskin has no expertise for making that decision.

Originally Posted by Revolution

My boss has never posted here. You are the idiot who believed that. I know you are not very bright, but do you think an attorney is going to waste his time with you.

The guy wrote "The chance of Bernardini reproducing himself at stud is slim to none" and that isn't exactly something a person marketing his horse wants to see in print, especially when Haskin has no expertise for making that decision.

What he said was absolutely logical. "Freaks" very rarely reproduce themselves and I'd be doubting that any little Ghostzappers will run with the brilliance of their old man.
I think his point may have been what many people are wondering. WHy do you spend billions of dollars looking for a horse thats so good only to retire him at the end of his three year old year when hes been lightly raced and is sound? Its not like they need the money, and its indeed puzzling.
Do you actually disagree with these sentiments?

[Revolution]

Originally Posted by oracle80

What he said was absolutely logical. "Freaks" very rarely reproduce themselves and I'd be doubting that any little Ghostzappers will run with the brilliance of their old man.
I think his point may have been what many people are wondering. WHy do you spend billions of dollars looking for a horse thats so good only to retire him at the end of his three year old year when hes been lightly raced and is sound? Its not like they need the money, and its indeed puzzling.
Do you actually disagree with these sentiments?

The horse isn't even as good as 2 of his other horses. When did Bernardini become this great horse. He is a $100,000 stallion and they think he gives them the best shot of breeding a KY Derby winner. Out of all their horses racing that is probably correct. It still doesn't give Haskin the right to make such a bold statement. It could hurt the marketing off the horse.

I guess the bloodhorse or the writer agrees with me, considering the article is gone.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Revolution

My boss has never posted here. You are the idiot who believed that. I know you are not very bright, but do you think an attorney is going to waste his time with you.

The guy wrote "The chance of Bernardini reproducing himself at stud is slim to none" and that isn't exactly something a person marketing his horse wants to see in print, especially when Haskin has no expertise for making that decision.

First of all Haskin has plenty of knowledge and understanding of the subject. Secondly, he voiced an opinion, one in this case that, if anything, is overly obvious. Sorry, but grounds for at least a successful lawsuit are not " my marketing guy didn't like that ".

If the article was taken down it is related to the furor over Beyer's piece, in all likelihood, and an example of why I disagreed with another poster in this thread.

Originally Posted by Revolution

My boss has never posted here. You are the idiot who believed that. I know you are not very bright, but do you think an attorney is going to waste his time with you.

The guy wrote "The chance of Bernardini reproducing himself at stud is slim to none" and that isn't exactly something a person marketing his horse wants to see in print, especially when Haskin has no expertise for making that decision.

Youuuuuuu'll neeeeeeeeeever walk alooooone

[Merlinsky]

Here's what Ray supposedly said about Haskin. Ray likes to be the one to write stuff like this it seems like. Maybe I'm wrong but seems like comments of import in the commentary section are things he likes to handle.

"The decision to pull Steve Haskin's editorial commentary from bloodhorse.com was mine and mine alone... With the exception of an occasional Final Turn, which is labeled an opinion piece, Steve was not hired to write editorial commentaries on industry issues... This article was billed as a Breeders' Cup wrapup but clearly was written as a commentary; it should not have been posted as written. I'll take the blame for that."

I normally would've caught the article but somehow didn't check Bloodhorse.com in time. The remark about a slim to none chance of Bernardini hitting the big time as a sire or whatever the phrase was is pretty clear to most people. Odds of replicating himself is based on normal numbers in the industry for the last century. Even Man O'War and Secretariat didn't do it. The great Cigar turned out to be sterile. Did Affirmed ever sire another Affirmed? What about Seabiscuit or the Bid? The Sheikhs shouldn't have a problem with the numbers on that what with things like Snaafi Dancer going down. I bet they know darn well that the odds are against them. They also can make for darn sure Bernardini will get the mares he needs. I just don't see them suffering for Steve's remarks and spitefulness by removing the ads is annoying (but typical of the magazine and television industries--heck some companies did it because of boob-gate with Janet Jackson). I'm hoping things'll die down but he was absolutely right and we all know most stallions can't sire a champion whatever their own accomplishments.

I couldn't let things slide without doing a greatest hits of things that made me snicker...there were others but some of these were all on the same page and drove me to point them out.

Originally Posted by Pillow Pants

Youuuuuuu'll neeeeeeeeeever walk alooooone

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Sorry, but grounds for at least a successful lawsuit are not " my marketing guy didn't like that ".

(amen)

Originally Posted by oracle80

Some of these guys think Gastrogard is a contraceptive.

(Classic, hall o' fame stuff there oracle)

Originally Posted by Revolution

Listen to Oracle, he knows about lawsuits for saying moronic things.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I find it laughable that someone could sue a writer based upon his opinion of a stallions chances to replicate themselves. I think Reveloution should not be allowed to breed. Sue me.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I am shocked and stunned at what that mean man Ray Paulick has done!

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

When I tell him YOU said that he will put the article right back up!

(first 'take their ball and go home' remarks by several people and now this...hilarious references to when I was 6 yrs old, awesome)

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by oracle80

Did YOU actually just accuse someone of writing stupid things?
Thats gotta be the most incredibly ironic thing I have ever seen.

Well, he is an expert in the field.

[Hickory Hill Hoff]

Originally Posted by oracle80

Did YOU actually just accuse someone of writing stupid things?
Thats gotta be the most incredibly ironic thing I have ever seen.

The King's Bishop of 2003, I believe he broke poorly and finished like a rocket ship for third at 6-1 no less! Pick him that day and had Valid Video as my longshot. This might have been the race to lead him to "superstar" status. I'm I right?

Originally Posted by Hickory Hill Hoff

The King's Bishop of 2003, I believe he broke poorly and finished like a rocket ship for third at 6-1 no less! Pick him that day and had Valid Video as my longshot. This might have been the race to lead him to "superstar" status. I'm I right?

I actually made my biggest score of the meet that day, maybe the year, boxing Valid Video and Great Notion and screaming for the wire to come.
There was an incredible speed bias that day, and on that basis I tossed the Zapper, who came rolling like a train for 3rd against the bias.
But his greatest race was his BCC, although some would argue his met Mile.
His BCC was a flat out display of raw power.

Originally Posted by oracle80

I actually made my biggest score of the meet that day, maybe the year, boxing Valid Video and Great Notion and screaming for the wire to come.
There was an incredible speed bias that day, and on that basis I tossed the Zapper, who came rolling like a train for 3rd against the bias.
But his greatest race was his BCC, although some would argue his met Mile.
His BCC was a flat out display of raw power.

Both races were phenomenal. I was convinced after the Met that the horse wouldn't lose another race. I was right for the wrong reason unfortunately.