Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ArlJim78
Nothing but sour grapes and a smear. This article was a crappy hitpiece filled with innuendo.
“Curlin's owners are a large and controversial lot, a glossy group of multimillionaires with the green to chase their equine dreams”.
Really? What makes these millionaires “glossy”, and different from all other millionaires in the sport? Isn’t that what every owner in the sport does, use their green to chase equine dreams? And what is wrong with the ownership being a large group?
Jess Jackson – “could be a sorehead that doesn’t know his place”. Wow, what a stinging indictment.
Satish Sanan – “spent millions in the racing game”, OMG! How outrageous. Of all the nerve.
the original owners were lawyers who are being sued. Apparently not found guilty of anything yet but certainly since they're being sued the author feels its okay to claim they're part of some "dark cloud" hanging over Curlin.
Also Assmussen looked agitated on HBO. Well that's the last straw. How dare he look agitated while being filmed on HBO's hit-piece, oops, documentary on drugs in racing. At least he went on camera.
BS journalism if you ask me, better suited for the Enquirer. Try only to lurk around and pick holes in people that have a success.
|
I would like to set aside the Steve Assmusen element for a moment. This article speaks to Curlin's connections -- and a major component of that, and the article, are the owners. This right here is one of the major problems we have in this industry and this sport -- and that is the mainstream media.
Jess Jackson has put forth a great deal of efforts to bring to this industry something that we have never had before -- integrity! It is not only needed in the sales/auction/bloodstock arena, but other arenas as well; vis a vis the drugs in horse racing arena. For the author to trivialize, critisize, cast aspersions, and mock the efforts of Jess Jackson, he is gulity of showing no class and being nothing more than ignorant to the real issues. I don't care how many Pulitzer Prize awards he may have won or what is accomplishments are. His ignorance to this sport and industry stands alone with this article.
Satish Sanan also has been involved in bringing integrity to our industry. If men such as these are not successful, this will be, and has been to an extent, a major contributory factor in the decline of our industry and sport. Integrity, as a vision and destination, knows no borders. It may start in one area, but you could be assured that these efforts will continue with success. Nothing breeds success like success!
"Street Sense owned a cleaner story line. There was the sage 65-year-old trainer in Carl Nafzger, the trusted single owner in James Tafel and the local jockey as national hero that became Calvin Borel. Rooting for Street Sense was as easy as his running style.
With Curlin, it's much less so."
Thank you for the aspersion of setting the stage for what is to come.
Why is Curlin's owners a large and controversial lot? Because the author said so? Because they chose Steve Assmusen as a trainer? If they are to be condemned for this and this alone, then this industry is in such trouble. People who would critisize these owners as controversial are not looking beyond a trainer selection, when in fact there is so much more than that going on.
There are far too many hecklers in the stands. At least people like Sanan and Jackson don't sit in the stands and heckle like this author. They got in the game and played all out.
"Curlin's owners are a large and controversial lot, a glossy group of multimillionaires with the green to chase their equine dreams. We're not exactly talking Sackatoga Stables here, those lovable high school chums who owned 2003 Derby winner Funny Cide."
Is this the standard for owners to be measured by? I am sure we will soon see Jess Jackson and Satish Sanan selling beer, posters, books, and everything else. I am not condemning Sackatoga -- great story -- however, let's not make owning a Classic winning horse and not being the "wealthy owner" who paid a high price as one's automatic nomination to sainthood.
"Instead, we have Jess Jackson, the white-haired Kendall-Jackson winery and Stonestreet Farms proprietor who, depending on your view, is either a courageous reformer in the area of horse sales or a sorehead of a newcomer who doesn't know his place."
Doesn't know his place? The author is casting a net of foolishness and is mocking the efforts of someone who has a vision to make our sport and industry better. I would like to know what the author has done in this regard -- other than heckle.
I guess it's OK for Nafzger to compliment and acknowledge Curlin, but not for this author.
He closes his article by saying:
"Our job is to reconcile our questions about the connections with our appreciation for the horse. That might be the tougher of the two."
Really? Who gave him this job? And why is this "our" job?
We have a potentially great rivalry here -- 1-2-3 finishers in the Derby and Preakness, and now maybe all 3 heading to NY for the Belmont. Why aren't we hearing about that from this so called author. I say it's because he doesn't have the level of sophistication and knowledge to write such an article -- but can only write a "National Inquirer" type of piece.
This author has insulted every horse owner, fan, bettor and everyone involved in this great sport and industry.
Eric