A new low...
 

J. Edwards reports that "unnamed Keeneland officials" said they did not think the horses last work was as good as his previous ones. That is a new low for reporting. Redboarding on breakdowns....


On another note
Hank Goldberg's head looks like it is close to just exploding...

And I'm reporting that Jeanine Edwards looks like a dried up raccoon.

Maybe they should get S. Scott to emote a "Booyah!" during the replay of the breakdown.

Goldberg's whole body looks like it is about to explode. Has that boy ever met a meal that he didn't like?

Does a pint count as a meal?

Yeah she's taken a downturn. Plus some of you guys mentioned the vein thing back during the Saratoga meet. Still has pretty eyes, but she dropped some serious knotches on my list of people I'd like to uh, em, er, uh...meet.

Chuck, I've thought a great deal about this entire situation. Let's say it's true, conceptually speaking since none of us know any of the facts. If this is the case -- the horse's last work was not as good as previous ones. Perhaps the work was questionable, at least it is now. While it's not cut and dry -- who is to blame here?

Thanks.

Eric

Edwards is to blame by speculating about the horse's soundness using rumors from "unnamed keeneland officials" about a horse, after the horse just broke his leg, especially when there is no way to confirm or deny the rumor. If they had they had videotape of the work or someone on the record before the race, then it is news and I have no problem with reporting it. I am the first to say that we have to accept bad coverage as well as the good coverage but this is nothing more than rumor mongering in a sensationalistic fashion.

Whether it is true or not can not be proven either way therefore is a moot point as far as reporting it as news on television. We can speculate here on the validity of the rumor because this is an opinion forum but ESPN should have some responsiblity in what it reports.

I agree 1000%. True or not is nothing more than sheer speculation, and ESPN should not have created potential controversy by reporting, inferring or otherwise.

And yes, while we do have to accept the good and the bad, and as purely hypothetical as this might be, if it were true, then reporting it is more than acceptable. We all know what happens when you don't. Thanks.

Eric

I agree 200% with that statement.
I was very surprised that she reported that without having reliable sources to prove it such as you stated above.

EDIT: LOL didn't see ELA's response...sorry to repeat what was already said.

The unnamed Keeneland official was probably one of the hundreds of people who, like me, were watching the race -- saw it happen and yelled at the TV "was that teuflesburg?! phuck her. i phucking hate Jamie Sanders, for running her cash cow into the ground to pay all to bills she racks up while sporting a non-teuflesburg winning percentage of 1%. who didn't see this coming at some point? I HATE HER."

Only, they pretended they saw a workout that said the same thing that we were all thinking.

But not good for my otherwise favorite part of that ESPN team for running with an unverifiable rumor at a time like that.

Chris Crocker is going to save the world.

i agree 50%. she should have reported the soundness issue before the race but if she was not able to get it in then after the race was ok. it was newsworthy and definately worth reporting in the context that she did.

Are you kidding? There was no soundness issue until after the race...She didn't 'report' on anything, just offered up an unnamed sources "opinion", post breakdown. If there was mention of this horse not working up to par before the race then I agree it would be fair game. However post race it looks senationalistic and lacking in class.

So in comparison how does this compare to the snide remarks thrown not too long ago about some individuals not getting ESPN in jail?

This lady is a reporter with class unlike others, not saying that Jerry B, Randy M etc don't quite the contrary. To throw her under the bus on this is laughable at best from my eyes, and I do respect your opinion Chuck Simon as you make your living in this business. With that said, she did what she is paid to do, reported what she knows from her "source", "sources" and life goes on. She brings more to most broadcasts then she gets credit for - she speaks with a clear concise voice, well spoken and has knowledge of the game inside out.

Nuff said

If you can't understand the difference between snide remarks about a couple of criminals in jail and spreading unfounded rumors about a horse being vanned off the track with a broken leg then there is nothing more that I can say that you will get.

Her camera prescence or voice have nothing to do with this. Suggesting that this horse may have been compromised before the race and using "unnamed sources" is a cheap, sensationalistic job of reporting. If she had some real evidence or the matter had been brought up before the horse ran, I have no problem with them rehashing it.

And though my personal feeling is that this horse has been mismanaged pretty much his whole career, there is zero shot that if a prominent trainer has trained this horse there would have never been any mention of "unnamed sources".

I wonder if Edwards ever reported that ""unnamed keeneland officials" said that a horse worked great? or would that not be newsworthy? or sensational enough?

She should man-up errr women-up and name the offical(s)...I bet it was one of the John Deere drivers...

There is a Grand Jury who says Curlin's owners are guilty and the evidence will be shown, true or not in court. Edwards will never name her source and is that guy who talks to dead people related to her? That's the situation that's comparable to me. "I'm getting a message from a clocker?" LMAO

private clocker...