$5.50 for this?

[NoLuvForPletch]

Why do we moan on a daily basis about gas prices going to $4.00 a gallon, when we are paying $5.50 for the paper they refer to as the DAILY RACING FORM? How long ago was it just $4, and $3.50 on track? It couldn't have been that long ago. Now, don't get me wrong, I like the articles but they could be read for free (most of them anyway) online. And call me a nitpicker, but is anyone else getting tired of the insane amount of errors in this thing? What the hell is 5/16 medication? Did anyone else see that yesterday or was that just special for my FORM? Why is it that they can't get the appropriate trainer stats correct ALL THE TIME? Is it too much to ask that if a horse is running with blinkers for the first time that the trainer's stats for 1st time blinkers appear in the PP's ALL THE TIME? How about some additional improvements? Why not have the M/L next to the horses name in the PP's so I don't need to spend the 1st half an hour I sit down with the FORM transposing them from the Graded Entries? How about listing the conditions of the race on top of each page the race is associated with? Why not add somewhere if the race is 1 turn or 2 turns? Is it a secret that only the most knowledgeable horseplayer is allowed to know how many turns are in a race at all of the different racetracks throughout the country?

And finally, the CLOSER LOOK. Is it me or are these guys just mailing it in at this point? I will do my best to keep the players a secret because they may be friends of your's and I know they come on Steve's show every now and again. But the content is poor at best. Pochman is most definately the most entertaining and supplies the most useful information. But the collection behind him leave something to be desired. I used to pick on Jan Rushton because her segment on the NYRA broadcast used to consist of reading the CLOSER LOOK to the fans at the track and at home. But even she must find the content useless because I've actually seen her taking the time to gather information on her own from trainers in the paddock. Here is my latest example of the offense. I wont say who, what horse excetera, but this is pathetic.

In referencing the performance over a racing surface the writer notes that the horse's performance over this specific track was "not very strong". The horse had two races over the surface. The last time he raced over the track the horse lost his jock. The first time he ran over the surface was his 2nd lifetime race, a MSW for 2YO's, where he went off at 20-1 + odds and finished third, 4 1/2 lengths behind a horse that won a G2 stakes race the following year. Do you think this guy even took the time to look at why his record was such over the surface?

$5.50 for a newspaper that doesn't even give you what you deserve, that's offensive.