MCCARRON CLAIMS THERE WAS NO BIAS

[delayjf]

Interesting that Chris McCarron who raced at Pimlico in the 70's doesn't feel that the track ever had an inside bias!

[Tom]

That might explain this stack of losing tickets from his mounts I have on my desk here! LOL

[cj]

As someone who grew up in Baltimore and learned racing there, Pimlico route races were severly biased towards inside speed. You could go a week of 25 routes and see maybe 2 horses win outside the 3 hole.

[Valuist]

Did you hear the interview w/him? The woman asked him why he thought Pimlico had the reputation as a speed track. "Must be the gamblers," said McCarron. The woman interviewing him then said, "yes we know a lot of misconceptions come from gamblers," or something like that. It was a very rude condescending comment directed at a reasonable portion of the viewing audience. And this was coming from a network who is clueless on camera work covering horse races.

[PaceAdvantage]

Valuist, I TOTALLY AGREE. I remember that comment....I had a few choice comments myself for Mr. McCarron and Ms. Edwards after that segment!

[delayjf]

CJ,

How much of the route bias was due to the close proximity of the starting gate to the first turn, was the bias as pronounced in sprints?

[kenwoodallpromos]

Bias is always subjective until proven. I like Chris but someone should tell him gamblers are always 100% correct, minus the takeout.

[cj]

Originally posted by delayjf
CJ,

How much of the route bias was due to the close proximity of the starting gate to the first turn, was the bias as pronounced in sprints?

It was definitely more pronounced in route races, it was pretty much like 1/2 mile harness, you could just fold your program in half. Sprints were still more beneficial to the inside, but horses had a longer run to get over without being caught wide. I'm sure the close proximity to the turn in routes enhanced the rail bias, but that hasn't changed and the bias just isn't there anymore. There was a major overhaul done to the track surface in the 80s, and that took care of the bias. Probably had more to do with drainage.

The short run to the turn bias is in full effect at Laurel in 1 1/16 mile races. Back when the Pimlico bias was in effect, Laurel ran 1 1/2 turn miles from a chute, sort of like Ellis Park, and 1 1/8. No 1 1/16 races back then.

[cj]

Originally posted by Valuist
Did you hear the interview w/him? The woman asked him why he thought Pimlico had the reputation as a speed track. "Must be the gamblers," said McCarron. The woman interviewing him then said, "yes we know a lot of misconceptions come from gamblers," or something like that. It was a very rude condescending comment directed at a reasonable portion of the viewing audience. And this was coming from a network who is clueless on camera work covering horse races.

I'm so used to this, I don't really pay it much attention. Guys like him are the reason I have ZERO sympathy for the horsemen when they start whining and crying about how rough they have it. They know nothing about gambling!

Why don't they have real gamblers on these telecasts? (And I don't mean "Hammerin' Hank Goldberg!) I'd love to see Andy Beyer or Jerry Brown or Mike Pizzola rather than Charlsie "I'm an idiot" Cantsey or Mike Battaglia. If I couldn't do a better interview than that clown I'd go ahead and cut my tongue out.

[kingfin66]

Originally posted by cjmilkowski
Why don't they have real gamblers on these telecasts? (And I don't mean "Hammerin' Hank Goldberg!) I'd love to see Andy Beyer or Jerry Brown or Mike Pizzola rather than Charlsie "I'm an idiot" Cantsey or Mike Battaglia. If I couldn't do a better interview than that clown I'd go ahead and cut my tongue out.

Beyer has a face made for radio. They put him on ESPN once in a while (Breeders Cup, etc.). Pizzolla would be great, but most people wouldn't know what he's talking about.

Battaglia is something else. I guess it's good to be John Battaglia's son. Worst case of nepotism I've ever seen.

[Exactaman]

Originally posted by Valuist
Did you hear the interview w/him? The woman asked him why he thought Pimlico had the reputation as a speed track. "Must be the gamblers," said McCarron. The woman interviewing him then said, "yes we know a lot of misconceptions come from gamblers," or something like that. It was a very rude condescending comment directed at a reasonable portion of the viewing audience. And this was coming from a network who is clueless on camera work covering horse races.

That's hilarious. why didn't she just say, "yes you the fans of this sport and viewers of this telecast, are stupid morons."

[PaceAdvantage]

I must correct my earlier post. I said I had a few choice comments for Mr. McCarron and Ms. Edwards. I was way off there. Jeanine Edwards did NOT do the interview with McCarron (she is on ESPN)....It was Donna Barton. My apologies to Ms. Edwards....

[Tom]

Originally posted by cjmilkowski
I'm so used to this, I don't really pay it much attention. Guys like him are the reason I have ZERO sympathy for the horsemen when they start whining and crying about how rough they have it. They know nothing about gambling!


They are under the assumption that they are great sportsmen and are the focus of the whole industry. Take away the gambleres and you have a bunch of hay-hackers racing their plow horses. CJ, you and I have contribuited more to the sport of kings in the last month ($$$) than Chris M did in his entire career( through riding).
Bottom line-the "sport" is gambling and nothing more. All this tradition stuff, and talk about gret horses, yadda yadda, is nothing more than something gir us to yak about in between bets.

[penguinfan]

Originally posted by cjmilkowski
I'd love to see Andy Beyer or Jerry Brown or Mike Pizzola rather than Charlsie "I'm an idiot" Cantsey or Mike Battaglia. If I couldn't do a better interview than that clown I'd go ahead and cut my tongue out.

LOL

[Dan Montilion]

Ex-riders McCarron and Barton piss of "gamblers". Any wonder their called pin-heads. Small bodies, small minds.

Dan Montilion

[Exactaman]

Originally posted by Tom

Bottom line-the "sport" is gambling and nothing more. All this tradition stuff, and talk about gret horses, yadda yadda, is nothing more than something gir us to yak about in between bets.

Exactly Tom. Take away the gambling, and the bucks with it, and how many people would you hear talking about their true love for the game?

[Latin Qtr]

The anti-player attitude = NO PAYOFFS & ODDS BOARD --- just
endless talking and then, with 2 mins to post, they show the odds. I don't see why the TV can't show the odds maybe just
on the side, vertically.

[Jeff P]

I think ABC did a really poor job with their coverage. Specifically, here are the things that just really pissed me off:

1. I was watching ESPN's Preakness coverage. Kenny Mayne is FUNNY. ESPN showed the undercard races along with the odds and payoffs. Then by contract, ESPN had to go off the air so that ABC could do their thing.

2. The switch over occurred with about 4 minutes to go before post time for the 11th race. ABC didn't even bother to show this race. It was a graded stakes race. What were they thinking? If you are going to do live race coverage from a race track wouldn't you think it might be a good idea to show the races? It's not like they were pressed for time or anything. After all they had about an hour after the 11th race before the actual running of the Preakness to show the world just how incompetent they can be.

3. The talking heads and their stupid comments. On President's Day in 1984 Chris McCarron came to Turf Paradise and rode Al Mamoon to a new track record on our turf course. After getting his picture taken in the winner's circle I asked Chris to autograph my program on his way back to the jock's room. He didn't even acknowledge me and kept right on walking. I was a young race fan and didn't like being snubbed. This coupled with Chris's disdainful comments about gamblers just cements my own dislike for him as a person. By the way, Trevor Denman was more than happy to autograph my program when Turf Paradise brought him in as a guest announcer one day and Joy Scott seemed absolutely delighted to do the same for me one day after winning a race on a $4000 claimer.

4. During the running of the Preakness why do they switch camera angles? Horseplayers univerally hate this. Or am I the only one?

[PaceAdvantage]

Actually, ABC hasn't covered horse racing in 2 years....it was NBC.

[Jeff P]

My Bad. Still didn't like it.

[Buckeye]

How about the attitude they put on while making their selections before the race? It's like they're holding thier noses: "I'll take so and so, but then again, anything can happen, right?" They make it seem like it's complete luck to correctly bet a horse race.

[Buckeye]

Someone needs to tell them: betting is the linchpin of this sport. Since you're covering it, you are required to bet a sizable amount of your own money on this race. That might help. :)

[foregoforever]

Originally posted by Buckeye
They make it seem like it's complete luck to correctly bet a horse race.

Given their record with picking winners, this is perhaps their best face-saving strategy.

This is one of my major complaints about the coverage of horse racing. The novice viewer learns little or nothing about how to handicap a race. A few buzzwords are tossed around and a few conclusions are drawn, but nowhere do they tell you how a novice would come to those conclusions.

The typical racing telecast lasts an hour and shows perhaps two races totalling four minutes. Somewhere in the remaining 56, you'd think they could fit in a segment on "Handicapping Basics" that could pique the interest of casual fans. But instead the networks treat it as an "event" with celebrity interviews and other silliness, followed by a quick "who's your pick" from all concerned. As a result, the percentage of casual tuners-in who get converted to horseplayers has to be extremely low.

[Valuist]

I agree completely. What the novice or casual viewer wants is INSIGHT, not selections. As a bettor for over 20 years, I'm more interested in hearing some insight I may not have been aware of. 90% of the time when they do make a selection, they never say why they did it. The same with newspaper handicappers. I think they'd be better off to write a paragraph or two analyzing each race rather than just ranking horses 1st to last.

[PaceAdvantage]

foregoforever, nice post! I agree.

I also must commend the new NTRA ad I saw during the Preakness telecast. At least they are TRYING to promote the cerebral aspects of handicapping the horses.....

[andicap]

Originally posted by foregoforever
Given their record with picking winners, this is perhaps their best face-saving strategy.

This is one of my major complaints about the coverage of horse racing. The novice viewer learns little or nothing about how to handicap a race. A few buzzwords are tossed around and a few conclusions are drawn, but nowhere do they tell you how a novice would come to those conclusions.

The typical racing telecast lasts an hour and shows perhaps two races totalling four minutes. Somewhere in the remaining 56, you'd think they could fit in a segment on "Handicapping Basics" that could pique the interest of casual fans. But instead the networks treat it as an "event" with celebrity interviews and other silliness, followed by a quick "who's your pick" from all concerned. As a result, the percentage of casual tuners-in who get converted to horseplayers has to be extremely low.

Great post!!!! I agree 100%. The networks, tho, don't like to touch the "seamy" side of the sport. And they fervantly believe people want to see features and warm and fuzzy stories rather than learn about handicapping. I know this because I know these people and they have told me this.

ESPN and NBC have a vested interest in seeing more people bet the horses, so why not teach time how to enjoy themselves at the track or betting at home or a nice OTB restaurant.

They don't have to get into Sartin terms or anything,but some basics so people can pick by more than just names.