For the morons (most of them) who write about horseracing...

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Go to Equidaily and get a taste...

of course many of them wont write about horseracing until next May

Horseracing is not the only sport where good writing is spread thin. People who actually know the sport and can write are hard to come by. You basically got a bunch of guys that can put things on the level of a casual fan and then move on to baseball and then keep up with college FB recruiting and then...

And really, how much need is there for good writers to cover horse racing? The real fan base is so small... The more people get into a sport, the more likely we are going to find writers who cant get away with not knowing the sport. These guys dont know history, dont know training, dont know betting, so many things... Racing is a fairly complex sport. Something like baseball. Its hard to pay attention full-time. I think this is where the internet can play a very large role.

So your next article on handicapping trainers is due Wed. I guess Belmont, Churchill, and Hollywood would cover it.

[Samarta]

Gotta love Tabor's comment about one of the reasons they ran her was because he thought that's what the public would want....don't know how sincere it was, but it sure sounded good....

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Samarta

Gotta love Tabor's comment about one of the reasons they ran her was because he thought that's what the public would want....don't know how sincere it was, but it sure sounded good....

I don't believe it. It's been reported for the longest that he's been saying this is a truly special filly and if he was running her where the public wanted, he would have run her in the Derby. Fact is that he was skipping the SA Derby with her because he was planning Ravel for that race. Then he skipped the Derby with her because they had CQ. He was only protecting his colts' interest, which I can understand, but the only reason he ran her here was because they finally realized that CQ is not up to beating the best of the division and if he wanted to win one, he needed to run her. That's how I see it. If he was convinced CQ could win the Belmont, Rags would not have been there.

[MisterB]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I don't believe it. It's been reported for the longest that he's been saying this is a truly special filly and if he was running her where the public wanted, he would have run her in the Derby. Fact is that he was skipping the SA Derby with her because he was planning Ravel for that race. Then he skipped the Derby with her because they had CQ. He was only protecting his colts' interest, which I can understand, but the only reason he ran her here was because they finally realized that CQ is not up to beating the best of the division and if he wanted to win one, he needed to run her. That's how I see it. If he was convinced CQ could win the Belmont, Rags would not have been there.

Agreed

[Riot]

Originally Posted by pgardn

And really, how much need is there for good writers to cover horse racing? The real fan base is so small... The more people get into a sport, the more likely we are going to find writers who cant get away with not knowing the sport.

I was thinking on this, however, and thought that if one put a novice racing or gambling fan onto ATRAB ... they will end up a fan for life. The names in the sport will have faces, personalities. When I was younger, that is why I drifted away for a few years, all the info I could find was fairly coldly statistical about races, horses, trainers.

Put a face, a story, a personality on the athletes, the trainers. Good writers nowadays feed you the "being there" emotions as the writers and newsreels of old did. It sweeps you up and captures your imagination.