Quote from: Vic in Chicago on November 28, 2013, 07:41:49 AM
With a horse like that, who needs a wife??   

With a comment like that, you may soon find out!   :chickendance:

Quote from: Islandgirl45 on November 29, 2013, 07:12:59 PM

Quote from: Dave in TJ Mex on November 29, 2013, 04:09:28 PMWTC is easily three year old champ.

Orb freaked on an off track, then ran so-so in his subsequent races.

A Ky Derby win is nice, but lots of so-so horses have won a Derby, then never won anything of significance afterwards.

WTC is likely a head short (in the BCC) of being HOY.

Will Game On Dude be HOY after being 0 for 2 against WTC?  I think today's result should give HOY to Wise Dan.

Yeah, I think Game On Dude had to win to be HOTY.
What will be interesting is if Goldencents wins the Cigar Mile. Given he also won a BC race, would they give the 3-year-old Eclipse to him or Will Take Charge?

To me, it is not close. 

WTC won the Travers and lost the BCC by a head, both at the "classic" race distance.

Then he ran down and beat presumptive HOY GOD in the Clark.

Yes, Goldencents won a BC race and the SA Derby, right?  But he lost a couple of sprints over the summer.

Assuming the usual bias in favor of classic race distance winners, I think WTC takes the 3 year old championship.

WTC is likely the best horse in the country right now, as a three year old.  Mucho Macho Man was fortunate to hold him off in the BCC.

Quote from: Islandgirl45 on November 29, 2013, 02:48:43 PM
Wow, the 2013 version of the Clark was just as thrilling as your race, G.O.!

The stretch drive by Will Take Charge was impressive. I bet he's going to be the 3-year-old Eclipse winner now.

Still, I really wanted the Dude to take this one. Wish he could have surged a little before the wire.

WTC is easily three year old champ.

Orb freaked on an off track, then ran so-so in his subsequent races.

A Ky Derby win is nice, but lots of so-so horses have won a Derby, then never won anything of significance afterwards.

WTC is likely a head short (in the BCC) of being HOY.

Will Game On Dude be HOY after being 0 for 2 against WTC?  I think today's result should give HOY to Wise Dan.

Quote from: Giant Oak on November 27, 2013, 07:09:50 PM
Hi Everybody...it's the old Oakster here!

As we look forward to Friday's renewal of the Clark Handicap, it might be fun to look back on the famous 2010 Clark, which virtually every knowledgeable racing fan agrees is the most exciting and significant Clark of all time.   Yes, on that fateful and historic day, 11 world-class thoroughbreds, winners of 63 races between them, crowded into the Churchill Downs gate.  And when they crossed under the wire, as always, only one horse could win.  And that horse was - drum roll please - ME!!   :chickendance:      

Legal disclaimer:  I didn't actually get to the finish line first.  The ironically-named Successful Dan played "bumper cars" down the stretch and was taken down.  But - hey - a win by DQ is still a win, right?  And the 2010 Clark holds a special place in my heart because it was the first of many (actually...2) Grade I wins in my long and illustrious career.  (But in the other one I really did get to the finish line first!)

For those of you who wish to relive the excitement of that day, catch the replay:

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/race/USA/CD/2010/11/26/11/clark-h-gr-i

Also, for further,evidence of that glorious day, below is a good picture of me (on the left) and Dan battling down to the wire!

Happy Thanksgiving and enjoy Friday's race!

Your Friend,

Giant Oak
Former Clark Winner and now Proud Daddy!

Wow, those were the glory days when horse racing was good, Oakster!

Quote from: Vic in Chicago on November 26, 2013, 08:07:34 PM

Quote from: Dave in TJ Mex on November 26, 2013, 10:38:46 AM
But how do we know that "Vic in Chicago" isn't Vic Stauffer, the BHP track announcer?

Maybe Vic Stauffer is just trying to throw us off by having a second "handle," and trying to trick us by alleging he is actually in Chicago.

Vic in Chicago, maybe you should post a photo of Chicago to prove you are there and not in SoCal.

Jeez!  I can't believe that I'm actually being asked to prove that I'm not Vic Stauffer (who is a great racecaller!) and that I actually live in  Chicago.  OK - here is a photo of the Chicago skyline I myself took last spring.

Now...give it a rest, will 'ya?

Yup, I've always thought the palm trees in Chicago look great in the spring!

Quote from: serenassong on November 26, 2013, 03:43:00 PM

Quote from: Dave in TJ Mex on November 26, 2013, 03:03:55 PM

Quote from: mchorseracecall on November 26, 2013, 01:09:05 PM

Quote from: Vic in Chicago on November 26, 2013, 11:48:16 AM
Wait a minute.  You guys are confusing this again.

I thought we had settled on three criteria for the Breeders' Cup:

1. Has a main course.
2. Has a turf course.
3. Is near a White Castle.

To my knowledge, that pretty much narrows it down to Hawthorne and Aqueduct.   


(Note to mchorseracecall...that yellow thing up there means it's a joke.)

No, Victor, the three criteria we want for the Breeders' Cup are:

I. It should be on different racetracks that have both the main track (dirt or synthetic) and a turf course.
II. It should be on different racetracks beside the Santa Anita Autumn Meet from 2015 thorough 2019.
III. It should be on different racetracks along with the Santa Anita Autumn Meet from 2020 thorough 2030.

Victor, please give me you list of different racetracks that you prefer to host the Breeders' Cup from 2015 thorough 2030.

Yeah, Victor, stop talking about White Castles and answer the question.   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLEpZm957jk

Hilarious!  Nice memory for movie lines you have!

Quote from: pointgivenfan on November 26, 2013, 04:35:53 PM

Quote from: Dave in TJ Mex on November 26, 2013, 03:15:11 PM

Quote from: pointgivenfan on November 26, 2013, 11:54:11 AM
Imagine.
The BC at Hawthorne.

*shudder*

Could it be worse than the BC at Monmouth seven years ago?

How sketchy is the neighborhood where Monmouth is at?
Because Hawthorne is in a super sketch area.

You're right.  More danger of getting mugged at the BC at Hawthorne than at Monmouth, because no self-respecting mugger would have gone outside into the downpour at Monmouth on BC Day!

Quote from: pointgivenfan on November 26, 2013, 11:54:11 AM
Imagine.
The BC at Hawthorne.

*shudder*

Could it be worse than the BC at Monmouth seven years ago?

Quote from: mchorseracecall on November 26, 2013, 01:09:05 PM

Quote from: Vic in Chicago on November 26, 2013, 11:48:16 AM
Wait a minute.  You guys are confusing this again.

I thought we had settled on three criteria for the Breeders' Cup:

1. Has a main course.
2. Has a turf course.
3. Is near a White Castle.

To my knowledge, that pretty much narrows it down to Hawthorne and Aqueduct.   


(Note to mchorseracecall...that yellow thing up there means it's a joke.)

No, Victor, the three criteria we want for the Breeders' Cup are:

I. It should be on different racetracks that have both the main track (dirt or synthetic) and a turf course.
II. It should be on different racetracks beside the Santa Anita Autumn Meet from 2015 thorough 2019.
III. It should be on different racetracks along with the Santa Anita Autumn Meet from 2020 thorough 2030.

Victor, please give me you list of different racetracks that you prefer to host the Breeders' Cup from 2015 thorough 2030.

Yeah, Victor, stop talking about White Castles and answer the question.   

Quote from: peeptoad on November 26, 2013, 12:08:33 PM

Quote from: Dave in TJ Mex on November 26, 2013, 10:33:33 AM
What racing needs is not one national private regulatory agency (or federal government oversight), but instead state racing commissions with guts, who would give trainers and vets the death penalty for repeated (i.e., 3) drug offenses.  Why are the same offenders (Rick Dutrow being the poster child) being allowed to have multiple violations for over a decade before any significant sanctions are issued?

This will never happen... I can almost guarantee you that. There are just way too many people involved. You're basically asking for some sort of utopian system that is structurally exactly the same as what we've currently got.

Quote from: Dave in TJ Mex on November 26, 2013, 10:33:33 AM
What good is a national regulatory agency going to do if it just mirrors the impotence of state racing commissions?

So, you know exactly how this figment of a national racing body is going to work even though it doesn't exist yet? That's a new one... can you tell me what tomorrow night's winning Powerball numbers are while you're at it?


...enough of the devil's advocate stance since we all care about racing (I assume) and want it to continue on. Bottom line is you cannot make anyone care or make them more ethical. What you can do is ban their ass and make it stick. That's really what needs to change, whether it's at the state or national level.

Peeptoad, you are right when you say:

"Bottom line is you cannot make anyone care or make them more ethical. What you can do is ban their ass and make it stick. That's really what needs to change, whether it's at the state or national level."


State racing commissions already have the power to do that, but don't.  So why should we assume a national racing board of some sort would be any different?

What racing needs is state racing commissions with the courage and determination to clean up racing.  They already have the power to do so, but they won't exercise it.  I presume that is so because the relevant interest groups --- race tracks, owners, and trainers --- don't want that to happen.

Quote from: mchorseracecall on November 26, 2013, 06:59:41 AM
Zen, the reason why I called Vic In Chicago, "Victor", is because when I was at TBC, I used to call Vic Stauffer, who is the announcer from Hollywood Park and a racing steward from Northern California, Vic. If I called Vic In Chicago, Vic, people might think Vic In Chicago is Vic Stauffer, but it's not, that's why I called Vic In Chicago, Victor. If Vic Stauffer was trying to be very helpful regarding on my announcing, he should let me go to Betfair Hollywood Park and practice announcing horse racing during the Spring/Summer Meet. I've already send him the email to accept his offer, and the Admin from TBC, Victoria and I both knew that I send the email to Vic Stauffer to accept the offer. But the problem is after I send him the email, he wasn't being very helpful, told me that I didn't send him the email, and pretend like I didn't accept his offer. After I gave evidence to proof that I did send the email to Vic Stauffer on March 16th, the offer that I accepted never worked, and I didn't get a chance to go there to practice announcing horse races from Hollywood Park instead I was practicing my race calls from that racetrack at my home. If Vic Stauffer was very helpful just like Trevor Denman, Vic Stauffer should let me go there and practice my race calls instead of pretending that I didn't send him the email. The following is my email that I gave to Vic Stauffer on March 16th 2013, when I accept his offer:

From: mchorseracecall
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 10:48 AM
Subject: mchorseracecall: arrangement with Hollywood Park



Dear Vic:
Thanks for your kind advice. Can you tell me more about the booth at the seventh floor in Hollywood Park, is there any similar set up as that of the real announcer's booth or is that just a room upstairs? Do I need to pay any fees to access the racetrack or booth? At this stage, I may not be able to go everyday to Hollywood Park because I have to attend my lessons in college and I have a final exam at the end of April. I know that it is a good opportunity and great experience for me taking the first step towards my future career, but can I possibly start off going to Hollywood Park once a week from May onwards during Sundays, then increase the number of visits later on? I understand I'll have a long way to go and much to improve on in order to become a successful professional announcer in the future, and I am so grateful for all your help. Hope to hear from you soon about the arrangement.

Sincerely
mchorseracecall

Everyone, Vic In Chicago is not Vic Stauffer, the announcer from Hollywood Park and a racing steward from Northern California, please understand that.

But how do we know that "Vic in Chicago" isn't Vic Stauffer, the BHP track announcer?

Maybe Vic Stauffer is just trying to throw us off by having a second "handle," and trying to trick us by alleging he is actually in Chicago.

Vic in Chicago, maybe you should post a photo of Chicago to prove you are there and not in SoCal.

What racing needs is not one national private regulatory agency (or federal government oversight), but instead state racing commissions with guts, who would give trainers and vets the death penalty for repeated (i.e., 3) drug offenses.  Why are the same offenders (Rick Dutrow being the poster child) being allowed to have multiple violations for over a decade before any significant sanctions are issued?

What good is a national regulatory agency going to do if it just mirrors the impotence of state racing commissions?

State regulatory commissions have the proper powers to enforce anti-drug rules; they just don't issue sanctions for violations that are punitive enough.

WTF?

As long as Trevor calls the BC races, I don't care!

Ask Zenyatta, she knows more than I do about this.

Quote from: Vic in Chicago on November 25, 2013, 05:26:51 PM
I believe one issue CD has in getting the BC is that there is another very large convention in Louisville every year the same week - the Future Farmers of America.  Believe it or not, it's as big or bigger than the BC in terms of economic impact, hotel rooms etc., and runs four days, not two.  Plus, they're willing to come every year, which of course the BC never will.  And Louisville is not big enough to accommodate both at the same time.  As big as horse racing is to Louisville, the city fathers are unwilling to risk losing the FFA by trying to muscle them out of their preferred dates.

I've never heard this.

But you would know, you are kind of a hayseed with special interests in corn and hogs, aren't you?

Quote from: peeptoad on November 25, 2013, 12:34:31 PM

Quote from: Vic in Chicago on November 25, 2013, 11:47:56 AM
The conduct outlined in the NY Times report is outrageous, but unfortunately not that surprising. 

And if it takes a federal government agency to police the sport adequately, what does that say about the so-called "leadership" of the industry...the state racing boards, major tracks, NTRA, BC, etc?

Sad.  And just one reason (of many) the sport is dying, as Dave and Ballerina say.

I am not big on government involvement in most things, but I do believe that, where non-human animals are involved (that are used as commodities of sorts) the feds should oversee things. I work in research and I can tell you that if the regulatory agencies were not around the animals would have a really tough time of it. And I'm not the one doing the experiments, but making sure that people are following protocol and treating the animals humanely (i.e. I am on the animals' "side", and I couldn't do it alone because the egos, I mean researchers, largely do not think of welfare issues first).

Yes, let's get the same people overseeing the Obamacare computer system to handle horse racing oversight!  :HT1:

But you make a valid point, Peeptoad.