"Certified safe"

[Bigsmc]

Sort of.

When I am reading a two or three line blurb in my local paper in April of '09, I don't want Eight Belles bashed over my head again. This particular paper has a "columnist" that rails against horse racing any chance he gets, he didn't need Eight Belles brought back to the forefront of his consciousness. I can feel the anti-horse racing comments coming.

I'm fine with it. Anything to make track surfaces safer while keeping the dirt (I'm not really sure this certification does, but what the heck).

[opusone]

Bigs I believe you are speaking ot Tom Jones. My wife actually called the number they list in the Times. He picked up and she bitched him out for while. Said not to write about s--t you know nothing about.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by opusone

Bigs I believe you are speaking ot Tom Jones. My wife actually called the number they list in the Times. He picked up and she bitched him out for while. Said not to write about s--t you know nothing about.

Well done Good for her!

[Bigsmc]

Originally Posted by opusone

Bigs I believe you are speaking ot Tom Jones. My wife actually called the number they list in the Times. He picked up and she bitched him out for while. Said not to write about s--t you know nothing about.

You got it. That dude is a complete anti-horse racing jagoff.

[pointman]

The thing that gets me about the whole dirt/synthetic safety argument is the assumption that the track surface causes all fatal breakdowns. Logic dictates that breakdowns can occur without the track playing any role in it, but we seem to be fed the conclusion that any breakdown must be the cause of the track. Regardless, I have no problem with tracks taking measures to ensure that their dirt surface is safe. It is a much cheaper way of dealing with the race surfaces than the garbage we have been fed about synthetics and while it will not eliminate break downs, keeping tracks vigilant regarding their dirt surfaces surely will reduce breakdowns.

[westcoastinvader]

Originally Posted by opusone

Bigs I believe you are speaking ot Tom Jones. My wife actually called the number they list in the Times. He picked up and she bitched him out for while. Said not to write about s--t you know nothing about.

Remind me to buy you and your wife a drink some day.


We all want safety for these horses and riders. But when some sports writing novice gets the beat for covering racing, I think he/she owes it to his/her readers to let it be known he or she is learning more as it goes along.

Personally, I get a nice kick out of reading articles by sincere nubies struggling to latch on to the legacy of this sport in their writing.

We've got a racing writer out here who freely disclosed he just sort of fell into horse racing stuff and writing about a decade ago. He learned fast though, and I usually like his stuff.

Any writer who is faking....and learning on the job without outstanding research...or disclosure.....needs to be sent back to the classifieds department.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Bigsmc

Sort of.

When I am reading a two or three line blurb in my local paper in April of '09, I don't want Eight Belles bashed over my head again. This particular paper has a "columnist" that rails against horse racing any chance he gets, he didn't need Eight Belles brought back to the forefront of his consciousness. I can feel the anti-horse racing comments coming..

Let us know what he says. The Animal Rights movement is slowly, state by state, trying to get increasingly restrictive animal-related legislations passed "in the name of what is good for animals" - but really takes away individual rights, and fails to protect animals in many cases - and guys that sound like him are ripe to fall for it and support it.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Riot

Let us know what he says. The Animal Rights movement is slowly, state by state, trying to get increasingly restrictive animal-related legislations passed "in the name of what is good for animals" - but really takes away individual rights, and fails to protect animals in many cases - and guys that sound like him are ripe to fall for it and support it.

This is so true. I am the first person to want safety for animals, but as a lawyer I have seen the other side of it. Many SPCA's are run by a bunch of total nuts whose idea of safety for animals borders on insanity, many are not paid and many are not qualified. Some are even given guns and badges, the right to make arrests and the ability to ruin people's lives on mere allegations without proper foundation or investigation. The sad part of it is that they destroy their own credibility and IMO they often put animals in more danger as you cannot believe them when they start screaming.