Gulfstream Simulcast Host - Page 2

chucklestheclown · #21 12-10-2009, 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kasept

Oh good... My first reaction was right. The thread-start was indeed simply a smokescreen to insult Serling/Donovan/Blewitt.

Rushton was one of the best racing interviewers ever

chucklestheclown · #22 12-10-2009, 01:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kasept

She 'should' be back... Why? To reiterate information that was apparant to any reader of the PP's? Or to tell players that a trainer told her they liked their chances? Jan Rushton is a wonderful person who had a nice career around racing. And she is selfless doing what she is for her brother who has ALS. But she was a mannequin on broadcasts and even failed to truly deliver off her experience as a gallop rider. If that's what you want in your handicapping/paddock hosts, fine, but I think the players are demanding more.

What would you want her to do? If Bailey and everybody else "can't deliver" off their experience what standard are you holding her to?

Monarchos1 · #23 12-10-2009, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kasept

Oh good... My first reaction was right. The thread-start was indeed simply a smokescreen to insult Serling/Donovan/Blewitt.

The thread was started to see if anyone knows who will be doing the GP show. Evidently no one on the forum has anything to contribute in that regard. I guess we'll find out January 3rd.

#24 12-10-2009, 08:59 AM

Who is hosting the Daytime Emmy's?

Kasept · #25 12-10-2009, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monarchos1

The thread was started to see if anyone knows who will be doing the GP show..

I doubt that, but I put a call in to get the answer just for you.

Travis Stone · #26 12-10-2009, 09:37 AM

The simulcast host concept is a wild frontier in many respects. There are a lot of things racetracks could be doing beyond two peeps sitting and talking about the race. Unfortunately, budgets and contracts with the video company are often limiting factors.

I agree with anyone who says the hosts have to provide insight... give me a potential pace scenario over reading the PPs all day long.

Monarchos1 · #27 12-10-2009, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kasept

I doubt that, but I put a call in to get the answer just for you.

Your post was the first in this thread that started with the hating (on Rushton), so you can blame yourself for the direction it took.

Immanuel Kant · #28 12-10-2009, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Jan Rushton?

I think this thread was started to insult the Beulah twins.

Ahem......My avatar USED to resemble that remark!

Kasept · #29 12-10-2009, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monarchos1

Your post was the first in this thread that started with the hating (on Rushton), so you can blame yourself for the direction it took.

Got it... Factual presentations are 'hating on Rushton'.

Monarchos1 · #30 12-10-2009, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kasept

Got it... Factual presentations are 'hating on Rushton'.

What's factual about this?

"But she was a mannequin on broadcasts and even failed to truly deliver off her experience as a gallop rider."

hoovesupsideyourhead · #31 12-10-2009, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

I don't know ... but I think they might have become the first and second people in history who ever ate their way out of an on-air handicapping job.

I think they went on the Chris Lincoln and Tom Durkin diet.

Kasept · #32 12-10-2009, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monarchos1

What's factual about this?

"But she was a mannequin on broadcasts and even failed to truly deliver off her experience as a gallop rider."

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.

hoovesupsideyourhead · #33 12-10-2009, 03:05 PM

her 'hats' made me a ton of cash..

#34 12-10-2009, 08:19 PM

A few years before I was named the announcer I got to work as the intertrack host just once at Gulfstream. Just happened to be a day that Cigar was running. Big fun!

freddymo · #35 12-10-2009, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

A few years before I was named the announcer I got to work as the intertrack host just once at Gulfstream. Just happened to be a day that Cigar was running. Big fun!

Should be BIG FUN calling races Saturday with 4 and 5 horses in them.. Vic you and your talented jock most be thrilled racing for 50% of the purses that Philly Park offer?

DaTruth · #36 12-10-2009, 08:38 PM

Quote:

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.

#37 12-10-2009, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freddymo

Should be BIG FUN calling races Saturday with 4 and 5 horses in them.. Vic you and your talented jock most be thrilled racing for 50% of the purses that Philly Park offer?

Huh?

Monarchos1 · #38 12-11-2009, 07:08 AM

Quote:

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.

Fact: Jan Rushton worked for NYRA.

Opinion: "But she was a mannequin on broadcasts and even failed to truly deliver off her experience as a gallop rider."

Here's a link so you can understand the difference between facts and opinions: www.dictionary.com.

If you don't like Rushton's work, fine. But don't try to pass off your personal opinions as facts.

#39 12-11-2009, 07:59 AM

Look...

if you miss her big hats you can always rent I'm Gonna Git You Sucka.

hoovesupsideyourhead · #40 12-11-2009, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monarchos1

Fact: Jan Rushton worked for NYRA.

Opinion: "But she was a mannequin on broadcasts and even failed to truly deliver off her experience as a gallop rider."

Here's a link so you can understand the difference between facts and opinions: www.dictionary.com.

If you don't like Rushton's work, fine. But don't try to pass off your personal opinions as facts.

she never broke down a race in the way the new crew has done..she may have worked for nyra but as i stated she did not put the time into the handicapping aspects of her segment, the reason she was there.nyra has made a huge leap forward in this pre -race segment imo