Censorship on Bloodhorse

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I don't agree with the second paragraph....though I do agree about the lack of hard-nosed journalism in Racing ( over all ) and surely Ray has done a great job with the Jess Jackson story.

Okay, that's the beauty of it all... not agreeing. And Ray has stepped on a lot of toes (as have several of his cohorts) in the name of doing the right thing and reporting as is. Think, for example, of the ethics in sales stuff and double commissions, Jockeys' Guild, California racing, NYRA, bogus horse ownership lawsuits, drug testing, etc. The BH has covered it all, objectively I believe. And many, many people came away angry. Mission accomplished? I dunno, but I think so...

I, unfortunately, have first hand experience with the BH stepping firmly on very large toes and me having to go back for more info. Not a terribly friendly situation often times.

[blackthroatedwind]

I wouldn't say the reprinting of Empire's press releases has been hard hitting journalism in the case of NYRA.

[Danzig]

i know back when the jocks were negotiating with manley bloodhorse had no problem in questioning his credentials, and suggesting he was a bad choice and that the guild could do better...matter of fact, i was kind of surprised that they went as far as they did.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

i know back when the jocks were negotiating with manley bloodhorse had no problem in questioning his credentials, and suggesting he was a bad choice and that the guild could do better...matter of fact, i was kind of surprised that they went as far as they did.

Jockeys dont advertise with the Bloodhorse. Perhaps they were a little skittish following the reports that the Arabs stud farms pulled all their ad's from the DRF after Beyers unflattering piece on the arabs.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Jockeys dont advertise with the Bloodhorse. Perhaps they were a little skittish following the reports that the Arabs stud farms pulled all their ad's from the DRF after Beyers unflattering piece on the arabs.

They did? Wow...

Jockeys may not buy advertisements, but consignors do.

And, truthfully, I sincerely believe if anyone over at the BH thought that the Sheikhs spending billions was bad for business, they'd comment. But I don't think anyone does. I mean, I won't speak for them, but the economic impact of selling those horses trickles down all over the Bluegrass. How can that be bad?

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by redransom

They did? Wow...

Jockeys may not buy advertisements, but consignors do.

And, truthfully, I sincerely believe if anyone over at the BH thought that the Sheikhs spending billions was bad for business, they'd comment. But I don't think anyone does. I mean, I won't speak for them, but the economic impact of selling those horses trickles down all over the Bluegrass. How can that be bad?

But you do seem to be speaking for them.

Suprised you didn't hear about the pulled advertising....just about everyone has heard that story.

Godolphin is kicking American racing fans like me in the stomach.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

But you do seem to be speaking for them.

Suprised you didn't hear about the pulled advertising....just about everyone has heard that story.

I'm not speaking for them whatsoever. There's a significant difference between speaking for someone and speaking based on personal experience with someone. These are my personal experiences and opinions.

And I haven't heard the story because I've been out of action for a week... stuck at home, doctor's orders.

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

But you do seem to be speaking for them.

Suprised you didn't hear about the pulled advertising....just about everyone has heard that story.

I had to chuckle when I heard that news. And to think, when I took exception to his now widely criticized column, you wrote that he found time to speak with you about MY comments. All of your "Beyer may have meant 'ostentatious' when he wrote vulgar," ( that's paraphrased, pleeze don't sue me, ok?) explanations, with you pulling up supporting dictionary definitions were fairly amusing, if not especially interesting, along with the anger you directed at me culminating, predictably, with you questioning my mental capacity.

It was certainly curious when Crist came out a couple days later with a column on the same topic, written in far more modulated tones. A direct apology for Beyer's "working over" of the Sheiks? Maybe not, but DRF's Publisher covering the same topic as Beyer did a couple days before makes it an interesting notion.

Your thoughts are clear. So are Beyer's. Hopefully he's more open to criticism of his work on this occasion than you.

You probably don't give a rat's a ss about what I thought of his work, other than to take the occasion as opportunity to attack me in a fashion which brought to my mind the image of a rabid lhasa opso.

I doubt what you or I think about this really matters. But I'd bet my last freakin dollar the DRF's Publisher and Board of Directors care.

Give my regards to your friend, Mr. Beyer, if he's not too busy offering his expert insights on geo-politics and the collective psyche of the Dubai populace.

[GenuineRisk]

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

[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.

[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?

[blackthroatedwind]

So let me get this straight, in order to accurately write about racing it is necessary to understand physical ailments thoroughly and not bet?

That is baloney.

Not sure what writers that was referring to, and frankly there aren't an abundance of terrific writers covering racing, but the smattering of good ones are more " handicapping oriented " so to speak...thus perhaps the opposite would be true. Maybe the less known about horses the better.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

So let me get this straight, in order to accurately write about racing it is necessary to understand physical ailments thoroughly and not bet?

That is baloney.

Not sure what writers that was referring to, and frankly there aren't an abundance of terrific writers covering racing, but the smattering of good ones are more " handicapping oriented " so to speak...thus perhaps the opposite would be true. Maybe the less known about horses the better.

The less known about horses the better?
You can't be ****ing serious.
Yeah, I think at least a minor knowledge about horses and what can be done to improve them should be a prerequisite before you write articles about "juicing" and "cheating".
Some of these guys think Gastrogard is a contraceptive.
Sorry, but you can't pass yourself off as having any true knowledge of the sport with at least knowing a bit about it.
Its true that "handicappers" require none and can be quite successful at what they do without it, but saying a writer doesn't need it doesn't wash with me if hes going to write about things other than handicapping and selections.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by oracle80

The less known about horses the better?
You can't be ****ing serious.
Yeah, I think at least a minor knowledge about horses and what can be done to improve them should be a prerequisite before you write articles about "juicing" and "cheating".
Some of these guys think Gastrogard is a contraceptive.
Sorry, but you can't pass yourself off as having any true knowledge of the sport with at least knowing a bit about it.
Its true that "handicappers" require none and can be quite successful at what they do without it, but saying a writer doesn't need it doesn't wash with me if hes going to write about things other than handicapping and selections.

I was making a point concerning the better writers in the game.

Your comments are dangerously close to the silly horsemen comments spewed when some trainer doesn't like hearing the truth. The common backstretch comment of " have you ever ridden or trained a horse " or the like are just frivolous cover-ups for " we don't like what yer writing ".

It would be a lot easier to respond specifically if you identified what writers and/or pieces you are referring to. Frankly, if some writer was putting out the kind of stuff you seem to be referring to he, and his publisher, would be embroiled in a lawsuit.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

So let me get this straight, in order to accurately write about racing it is necessary to understand physical ailments thoroughly and not bet?

That is baloney.

Not sure what writers that was referring to, and frankly there aren't an abundance of terrific writers covering racing, but the smattering of good ones are more " handicapping oriented " so to speak...thus perhaps the opposite would be true. Maybe the less known about horses the better.

You mean like those "great handicappers and writers and tv personalities" that explained to us all that Afleet Alex's lung infection "was just an excuse" and that he was "just a closing sprinter"? I wish I had one buck for each one of those.
If any of them had one ounce of horse knowledge they would have seen that he was done before the 6F mark and that he had indeed run like a horse who had an air problem. But nah, don't go using physical conditions and effects of a lung infection on a living breathing creature.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by oracle80

You mean like those "great handicappers and writers and tv personalities" that explained to us all that Afleet Alex's lung infection "was just an excuse" and that he was "just a closing sprinter"? I wish I had one buck for each one of those.
If any of them had one ounce of horse knowledge they would have seen that he was done before the 6F mark and that he had indeed run like a horse who had an air problem. But nah, don't go using physical conditions and effects of a lung infection on a living breathing creature.

Look, there are MANY people covering this game that are downright incompetent. However, their incompetence is hardly based on not knowing the things you are pointing out. Sorry if I don't disagree with a writer questioning excuses coming from a horse's camp. Yes, any one ( myself included ) that disbelieved the Afleet Alex story was wrong in this case ( and I know a number of people that know horses very well that were also skeptical ) but frankly this was, sadly, more the exception than the rule.