Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JerseyJ
And that one stat up there is more or less biased due to the orgasms that are had here because Hollywood Park track announcer Vic Stauffer posts here, or because many people here are too damn shortsighted to see the point of the original post that stonegossard made, or what the argument is for. Yeah 70 whatever percent of the people in this poll voted no, so I guess that just means 70 whatever percent of the people don't understand the meaning of a conflict of interest, that means over 70 percent of the people here are wrong. As for what the stat is unmistakenly clear about, I really don't know what your getting at, but you are certainly giving Fischer and others company atop the stupidity beyer figure board...Hell gossard, it may be time to let go of the superfecta you had and explore quintifectas and higher based on what I have seen in these threads.
|
I think that technically it may be a conflict of interest but I don't think it is a meaningful conflict of interest. I don't think it's any more of a conflict of interest than when a track announcer has a bet on a race. Many track announcers like to bet on the races. Should track announcers be banned from betting on the races since having a bet would give them a rooting interest in the race?
By the way, jockey agents get 25% of the money their jocks make, not 10%.