New Joe Drape column in NY Times

[blackthroatedwind]

I don't always agree with what Joe writes, but I thought this was a fair article, and actually pretty interesting. I'm not sure what people are finding so objectionable about it.

Steve says he should write about Pat Reynolds? Now, I like Pat a lot, but did you really think that one through Steve?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I don't always agree with what Joe writes, but I thought this was a fair article, and actually pretty interesting. I'm not sure what people are finding so objectionable about it.

Steve says he should write about Pat Reynolds? Now, I like Pat a lot, but did you really think that one through Steve?

I just think that the timing of the article is unusual considering that the sports championship day is a week later. As bigs pointed out public interest in horse racing peaks right before the Derby and to a lesser extent before the BC and it always seems that Drape finds the most negative angle at those points. Put it this way the week before the Super Bowl football writers arent writing features about the draft.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I just think that the timing of the article is unusual considering that the sports championship day is a week later. As bigs pointed out public interest in horse racing peaks right before the Derby and to a lesser extent before the BC and it always seems that Drape finds the most negative angle at those points. Put it this way the week before the Super Bowl football writers arent writing features about the draft.

I didn't think it was such a negative article. Didn't it more or less say, hey I know Big Brown had some negativity around him, but his foals and legacy may be on the upswing?

I get that the stuff about Dutrow and steroids was nonsense, and perhaps misleading, but that stuff is old hat, and it's not as though the uninformed weren't already confused by that. I also get that there might be other, more recent, stories to cover. But, overall, I didn't find this a negative piece.

Maybe I am willing to cut him some slack because he wrote a ton of great stuff from Saratoga this Summer. However, I think if you really look at this piece, it's not a negative article.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I didn't think it was such a negative article. Didn't it more or less say, hey I know Big Brown had some negativity around him, but his foals and legacy may be on the upswing?

I get that the stuff about Dutrow and steroids was nonsense, and perhaps misleading, but that stuff is old hat, and it's not as though the uninformed weren't already confused by that. I also get that there might be other, more recent, stories to cover. But, overall, I didn't find this a negative piece.

Maybe I am willing to cut him some slack because he wrote a ton of great stuff from Saratoga this Summer. However, I think if you really look at this piece, it's not a negative article.

It isn't as bad as it could be but of course we are reading from the context of a person who is knowledgeable about the topic. A person who isn't might take this a bit more negatively. I guess I was hoping that the horse racing writer of one of the biggest papers in the country would be writing about the "championship" event that is looming less than a week away.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

It isn't as bad as it could be but of course we are reading from the context of a person who is knowledgeable about the topic. A person who isn't might take this a bit more negatively. I guess I was hoping that the horse racing writer of one of the biggest papers in the country would be writing about the "championship" event that is looming less than a week away.

At least they're talking about horse racing, and let's be honest, this isn't the most compelling of years.

[asudevil]

He's a yutz! He throws us a few "nice" pieces now and then, but the complete body of work is generally shitty.