[DaTruth]

Originally Posted by Kasept

It's a fact in its' entirety. All she did was regurgitate stats or minutia about what level a horse last raced, etc. She was supposed to be offering insight about physical appearance of runners based on whatever horsemanship knowledge she had. But she didn't do so nearly enough.

She never went out to observe workouts personally to be able to say with authority how a horse was coming into a race. It was all cosmetic. She was a pleasant, pretty face. A powder puff that added a softness to telecasts. Don't misunderstand me. I like Jan Rushton as much as anyone. She became an institution in New York. But she only was being tolerated in terms of her contributions to the raceday information.

Look, you think that Jan Rushton 'should' be on a racing telecast, and you're entitled to that opinion. But no one that seeks valuable information from raceday productions which will help them make money would get that from her.

Horseplayers say they want real customer service and tools delivered to them by the tracks that will enhance their wagering experience and MAKE THEM MONEY. Hard, cold facts regarding race shapes/pace, track trends, bad trips/good rides, declining/improving form, odds anomalies, trainer pattern/intent, et al, delivered authoritatively by people whose opinion has gravitas and WHO REALLY BET, is what paddock show telecasts demand now.

Her "Closer Look" segments on Inside Racing weren't too great either.