Racing Media

[phystech]

I am amazed at what a kotex-sucking bunch the racing media is when it comes to calling out trainers like Jamie Ness.

Can't say anything because they might miss a chance to get a butt-snorkling interview for their paper column or radio show.

Unlike normal journalists who sniff out stories and beat the bushes to arrive at the truth, racing scribes cower at the thought of investigative journalism.... Why? Because they may not cash a bet? Or, because they might not get that elusive interview?

Bernstein and Woodward, who risked it all - they don't compare to racing scribes whose johnsons shrink at the thought of doing their job - just call the racing guys stumpy.

Whatsnottolike got an 81 Beyer for her effort Fri night. Previous best before Ness was a 58.

As a bettor, is that acceptable? As a horse owner, is that acceptable? As a trainer, is that acceptable? As a media person, is that explainable without questions? No journalist to date has the cojones to do an investigative report on it, though......just accept it, you bunch of pigs.

For one out of 4 questions mentioned, it's apparently acceptable for the media, especially if it enhances your paycheck.

I can't think of another sector of journalism that would let this crap fly. The racing media does, and embraces it..... especially if they got down for a score.

[Calzone Lord]

http://www.drf.com/news/beyer-tampa-...-its-ascension


http://www.goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/...=2011307219865

[phystech]

OK, so you've got some nuts. Kudos to you. I love guys like you!! But where's the blood and guts of the real story? Where's the expose'? It doesn't stop with Ness simply saying, " Oh geez, I made a mistake..." That's not ok.

And where's the rest of these print, internet, tv/radio blow-hards? Oh yeah, cashing a Pick-4 ticket......and doing handicapping seminars at Pimlico prior to the Preakness.

In every historical event worth mentioning, the public benefits from the media doing investigative reporting. That term seems to be the anti-thesis of the racing media, though.......

Haskin, Crist, Sheinman, Magee, Byk, Beyer - just give us the us the fluff, right? And cash that paycheck.

[Calzone Lord]

Originally Posted by phystech

And where's the rest of these print, internet, tv/radio blow-hards? Oh yeah, cashing a Pick-4 ticket......

I think you're overestimating a lot of these guys as handicappers and bettors.

The list of suspicous trainers out there goes well beyond Jamie Ness. I wrote a very rough and tumble column about Stephanie Beattie when she gave me the chance because she had a bunch of overages here.

General newspaper coverage of horse racing simply isn't very good anymore. I'm only being paid to also write occasional columns here because the general sports guys want no part of attempting to cover horse racing... even though a few of the writers do show up at the track quite a bit. Guys like Beyer, Crist, and Moss did great work covering horse racing for newspapers in the 80's.

As for the guys who write for the Daily Racing Form -- they take themselves very seriously. Other than Jay Hovdey anyway, but he does absolute clown work most of the time and wastes his writing ability.

It's not 1905 anymore, the DRF writers aren't going to pin their ears back and take people on and call people out anymore. They are a friendly and very kind bunch.

Bloodhorse and Thoroughbred Times every bit the same.

[phystech]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

I think you're overestimating a lot of these guys as handicappers and bettors.

The list of suspicous trainers out there goes well beyond Jamie Ness. I wrote a very rough and tumble column about Stephanie Beattie when she gave me the chance because she had a bunch of overages here.

General newspaper coverage of horse racing simply isn't very good anymore. I'm only being paid to also write occasional columns here because the general sports guys want no part of attempting to cover horse racing... even though a few of the writers do show up at the track quite a bit. Guys like Beyer, Crist, and Moss did great work covering horse racing for newspapers in the 80's.

As for the guys who write for the Daily Racing Form -- they take themselves very seriously. Other than Jay Hovdey anyway, but he does absolute clown work most of the time and wastes his writing ability.

It's not 1905 anymore, the DRF writers aren't going to pin their ears back and take people on and call people out anymore. They are a friendly and very kind bunch.

Bloodhorse and Thoroughbred Times every bit the same.

So, who does the $hit work and holds these guys accountable? Obviously, I'm on a rampage two days after the fact but what ear do I have? Maybe 102 people might read what I write, 57 of which will simply dismiss me as a whiner, while the another 30 will worship Ness and accept what he does while getting beat 70% of the time on their 2/5 tickets.

Who does the $hit work? The media used to dig stuff like this, but not this current bunch of cowards we have in the racing media.....

[Calzone Lord]

Originally Posted by phystech

Who does the $hit work? The media used to dig stuff like this, but not this current bunch of cowards we have in the racing media.....

Believe it or not -- the DRF of the 1970's and 1980's was like Blood-Horse ICE.

Blaming the media for a Jamie Ness isn't the most logical thing. Ness was a sports writer himself and worked in the press box at Canterbury. He doesn't care what anyone writes about him.

You can make jokes in front of other people with him listening about the Jamie Ness move where horses re-break, he'll laugh about it. You can go up to a TV screen he's watching and yell "kick in with the juice! kick in with the Ness JUICE!" as his horse is closing to win a race. He'll smile or act like he doesn't hear it.

The stewards, track managment, and racing officals are where the blame should start. Look at when Ness ran the wrong horse here, a KY bred in a PA Bred race no less, not only did they not suspend him... but the fine was only like $500.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by phystech

Unlike normal journalists who sniff out stories and beat the bushes to arrive at the truth, racing scribes cower at the thought of investigative journalism.... Why? Because they may not cash a bet? Or, because they might not get that elusive interview?

Bernstein and Woodward, who risked it all - they don't compare to racing scribes whose johnsons shrink at the thought of doing their job

In what world are journalists of any kind still like that? Journalism in general is devoid of the Woodwards and Bernsteins, not just racing journalism. The scarcity of Watergate journalism in America is staggering.

[phystech]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

In what world are journalists of any kind still like that? Journalism in general is devoid of the Woodwards and Bernsteins, not just racing journalism. The scarcity of Watergate journalism in America is staggering.

Don't detract from the issue at hand. You and I, as racing enthusiasts, deserve better. We need someone to look out for our interests. I expect more - do you?