conflict of interest

[dagolfer33]

Originally Posted by JerseyJ

And that one stat up there is more or less biased due to the orgasms that are had here because Hollywood Park track announcer Vic Stauffer posts here, or because many people here are too damn shortsighted to see the point of the original post that stonegossard made, or what the argument is for. Yeah 70 whatever percent of the people in this poll voted no, so I guess that just means 70 whatever percent of the people don't understand the meaning of a conflict of interest, that means over 70 percent of the people here are wrong. As for what the stat is unmistakenly clear about, I really don't know what your getting at, but you are certainly giving Fischer and others company atop the stupidity beyer figure board...Hell gossard, it may be time to let go of the superfecta you had and explore quintifectas and higher based on what I have seen in these threads.

Thanks for letting me know how stupid I am, and how Stauffer is stuffing the ballot box on this poll. Its a good thing that poll was just yes or no......there is no way I could have figured out something more complicated.

[fpsoxfan]

Originally Posted by stonegossard

It's even funnier that I stole it from the guy who announces at HP.

Not just that, but I heard he's an agent too.

[stonegossard]

Originally Posted by fpsoxfan

Not just that, but I heard he's an agent too.

[GPK]

Not sure which is more pathetic...this thread or the fact my dumba$$ keeps coming back and reading it

[stonegossard]

Originally Posted by GPK

Not sure which is more pathetic...this thread or the fact my dumba$$ keeps coming back and reading it

Dead heat.

[fpsoxfan]

LOL and you thought I didn't have a sense of humor.

[GPK]

Originally Posted by stonegossard

Dead heat.

I don't know...not many things can compete with my patheticness

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Don't worry about them IndianGossard. All is well.

More importantly, did you know that instead of burying Michael Jackson - his final wish was to be ground up and spread into Mccollie Culkin's Chili? That way he can tear up his @sshole one final time.

HOT ASH CHILI?................If you just had used a "measured tone"(and said cremated,) then this would of worked.

Originally Posted by stonegossard

Actually....if 70% up the people on here agreed with me I would probably apologize to Stauffer and say I was wrong. Then turn off my computer and go play with some building blocks.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

I voted yes, but a conflict of interest can exist even if there are no improper acts as a result of it. If you want to hear someone acting on it, listen to that bay area homer (LIL JOE MORGAN) comment during Dodger games(on ESPN.)

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by JerseyJ

And that one stat up there is more or less biased due to the orgasms that are had here because Hollywood Park track announcer Vic Stauffer posts here, or because many people here are too damn shortsighted to see the point of the original post that stonegossard made, or what the argument is for. Yeah 70 whatever percent of the people in this poll voted no, so I guess that just means 70 whatever percent of the people don't understand the meaning of a conflict of interest, that means over 70 percent of the people here are wrong. As for what the stat is unmistakenly clear about, I really don't know what your getting at, but you are certainly giving Fischer and others company atop the stupidity beyer figure board...Hell gossard, it may be time to let go of the superfecta you had and explore quintifectas and higher based on what I have seen in these threads.

I think that technically it may be a conflict of interest but I don't think it is a meaningful conflict of interest. I don't think it's any more of a conflict of interest than when a track announcer has a bet on a race. Many track announcers like to bet on the races. Should track announcers be banned from betting on the races since having a bet would give them a rooting interest in the race?
By the way, jockey agents get 25% of the money their jocks make, not 10%.

[JerseyJ]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Many track announcers like to bet on the races. Should track announcers be banned from betting on the races since having a bet would give them a rooting interest in the race?
By the way, jockey agents get 25% of the money their jocks make, not 10%.

I am sorry I don't know exactly how much a jock agent makes...only thing as owners we do is accept who the trainer names on our horse and figure out how much we get as owners.

Show me where I said track announcers should be banned from betting on the races since it would give them a rooting interest. For crying out loud, that's not the issue here. The issue is that there is the POTENTIAL for a track announcer who holds a jock's book at his track to not do his job as the TRACK ANNOUNCER properly because he is looking for his jock's horse compared to calling the rest of the field.

It's not that god damn difficult to understand the point that the sensible people have been making in these last two threads, but apparently we aren't filled with rocket scientists here.

[Round Pen]

I am almost positve that A couple of Years ago that the Announcer at Fort Erie was also A trainer. Infact he still runs Horses there and at Woodbine Today.

[Round Pen]

Originally Posted by Round Pen

I am almost positve that A couple of Years ago that the Announcer at Fort Erie was also A trainer. Infact he still runs Horses there and at Woodbine Today.

Actually I just looked it up and he was both Announcer and Trainer

http://www.forterieracing.com/press_...April24-06.htm

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by JerseyJ

I am sorry I don't know exactly how much a jock agent makes...only thing as owners we do is accept who the trainer names on our horse and figure out how much we get as owners.

Show me where I said track announcers should be banned from betting on the races since it would give them a rooting interest. For crying out loud, that's not the issue here. The issue is that there is the POTENTIAL for a track announcer who holds a jock's book at his track to not do his job as the TRACK ANNOUNCER properly because he is looking for his jock's horse compared to calling the rest of the field.

It's not that god damn difficult to understand the point that the sensible people have been making in these last two threads, but apparently we aren't filled with rocket scientists here.

I never said that you said track announcers should not be allowed to bet. I was asking you whether they should be banned from betting since having a bet would give them a rooting interest in a race. You say that there is a potential for a track announcer who is also an agent to be looking for his jock's horse. Couldn't the same thing happen if a track announcer had a bet on a race? The anouncer may be looking for the horse that he bet on.

I guess you didn't understand my point. My point is that plenty of track announcers all over the country bet. When they have a bet, they have a rooting interest in the race. If a track announcer is a jock's agent, then he has a rooting interest in the race. I don't see how the conflict of interest is any greater with the track announcer that is the jock's agent than the track announcer who has a bet on the race.

[horseofcourse]

Let me see if I get this. Is the point of those ripping Stauffer that the "conflict of interest" involves the possibility of him making poor race calls? Is that what these multiple, multiple page threads about this are? So the only point you're making is the result of the "conflict of interest" is him making a poor race call? Is that the gist of this argument? Because he is Rosario's agent, he may make a bad race call? Ok.

[dellinger63]

after spending much time reading this thread my only question is what does a 135 beyer equal in thorograph language? Provided perfect trip.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by Round Pen

Actually I just looked it up and he was both Announcer and Trainer

http://www.forterieracing.com/press_...April24-06.htm

Hypothetical question, you happen to be at the track and you notice a trainer at the betting terminal betting a race where he/she has a horse running, problem is they are betting another horse...would this be a conflict of interest?

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by CSC

Hypothetical question, you happen to be at the track and you notice a trainer at the betting terminal betting a race where he/she has a horse running, problem is they are betting another horse...would this be a conflict of interest?

I think each jurisdiction has their own rules.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

I think each jurisdiction has their own rules.

I'm sure it has happened once or twice before...