Derby Aftermath

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

The look is awful. These media members have an opinion on everything in a sport built on opinions. However, when issues like these arise, they get tongue tied. Is it that hard to say that Bob Baffert and his ilk are bad for the sport?

This is an extremely dopey narrative that gets repeated constantly on the Internet. The VAST majority of members of the media are NOT opinion writers, and thus should NOT be voicing opinions in their articles.

It's not about me ( obviously ), though I am comfortable in the positions I have taken on these and related issues in the past. However, some rush to judgement, just because maybe it makes you feel better or helps you pander to the masses, isn't going to help in the long run.

Bottom line, blaming others that are completely innocent is nonsensical and only works to obfuscate the real issues.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

This is an extremely dopey narrative that gets repeated constantly on the Internet. The VAST majority of members of the media are NOT opinion writers, and thus should NOT be voicing opinions in their articles.

It's not about me ( obviously ), though I am comfortable in the positions I have taken on these and related issues in the past. However, some rush to judgement, just because maybe it makes you feel better or helps you pander to the masses, isn't going to help in the long run.

Bottom line, blaming others that are completely innocent is nonsensical and only works to obfuscate the real issues.

You're correct that I was not directing this comment towards you. If you think Baffert deserves more due process, that's a reasonable position. As far as I am concerned, he's already had plenty of process and, after having numerous horses die in his care back in 2013 (he's lucky it wasn't 2019 when Hollendorfer was given the boot for that reason), and then had repeated and adjudicated medication positives over the past two years, it is long past time to show him the door.

One of the problems that modern journalism has as a whole is that the lines between news and opinion have been completely blurred, with reporters appearing on networks as "contributors" and voicing their opinions on the events of the day. I am not suggesting that writers should be voicing their opinions in their news articles. Matt Hegarty's article in DRF yesterday, for example, was fair news reporting.

That said, other beat writers for that publication are rather generous with their opinions on a whole host of racing-related topics, whether it be on social media or on shows such as "At the Races." When these sort of issues arise, they are far less open about their views.

[moses]

Is Churchill’s ban on Baffert going to be honored by other tracks or is it not a true suspension where reciprocity would apply since the case has not been fully adjudicated? Anyone know?

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by moses

Is Churchill’s ban on Baffert going to be honored by other tracks or is it not a true suspension where reciprocity would apply since the case has not been fully adjudicated? Anyone know?

We will see, it was dealt with on Steve's show earlier by Alan Foreman.

[LITF]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

This is an extremely dopey narrative that gets repeated constantly on the Internet. The VAST majority of members of the media are NOT opinion writers, and thus should NOT be voicing opinions in their articles.

It's not about me ( obviously ), though I am comfortable in the positions I have taken on these and related issues in the past. However, some rush to judgement, just because maybe it makes you feel better or helps you pander to the masses, isn't going to help in the long run.

Bottom line, blaming others that are completely innocent is nonsensical and only works to obfuscate the real issues.

Perception is the consumers reality. This is not just about opinions. And it goes beyond drug violations.

For example, something as simple as asking the losing jock aboard the race favorite why he made decisions that were made would be a major benefit to the vast majority of people that consume horse racing on a day to day basis. But those questions are rarely asked, thus, giving the impression that the horse racing media is trying to protect their reputation with the horse racing community over reporting on their sport. Other sports journalist routinely interview losing sides, why doesn't horse racing do the same?

When something like this happens and little to no substantial questions are being asked it just feeds into the perceived reality of the consumers. The frustration with the majority of the media will grow and they will take a portion of the blame for something they clearly had no involvement in.