andicap
08-23-2007, 04:17 AM
This whole debate is an excellent example of why horseplayers carry little political clout with the likes of the TrackNets and TVGs of the world. While we agree overwhelmingly on the goals to be achieved, we are incredibly fractious and bickering when it comes to how to carry them out.
Procott. Don't procott. Procott another track. Procott, but plan two months ahead. Yada yada yada.
The acerbic responses to Mr. Young's letter to Scott Daruty is a prime example of why we always lose. All we can do is criticize, kibbitz, nibble away at our leader's credibility. He is taking positive, aggressive action. Get behind him! Now. Don't undermine him. He started the petition. He is a man of action. Who else here is?
Why have we learned nothing from history? Examine many of the great movements of the world: Many have two things in common: a charismatic and dedicated leader who captures the media's attention; and a willingness to unite behind a common strategy that demonstrates a collective harmonic front.
You think everyone in the 1960s civil rights movement thought Martin Luther King Jr. was right all the time? You think all of the UAW workers agreed with Walter Ruether down the line? Of course not, but they stood behind them publicly. Same for Cesar Chevez, Gandhi, Reagan, Martin Luther (the original), Mao, Castro, etc.
It's the nature of horseplayers to argue, dissect, lament. And unfortunately, unlike other successful movements, we have to air our linen in the open for all to see our fragmented front.
That's why the petition was so successful. We had a leader -- Mr. Young -- and a took a solid, united stand. There was no, "Yes, but ..." It was as if we had suddenly channeled Norma Rae and Howard Beale. A perfect moment.
It is not, as some have suggested, the impromptu procott that threatens our newly won media momentum, but in giving an ironic twist to a time-honored racetrack tradition of redboarding we are setting ourselves up for a debacle. Instead of giving excuses of why we lost after the race, we're in essence pointing to a past performance line six races back BEFORE we put our money down.
Yet that's exactly what some members are doing here. Taking a defeatist attitude toward Mr. Young's imaginative attempt to maintain our media momentum will surely lead to loss of face and media attention. Arguing over whether we should have waited a few weeks to plan our next step is now moot. A dead issue. Don't waste energy and public unity by debating or criticizing the move. It's OUR move and we need to get behind it. NOW. At least Mr. Young has the guts and vision to get us lowly BDH (in the acronym of Chicago Sun-Times' Dave Feldman) notice.
A procott in New Mexico is a baby step. It is not meant, Mr. Scav, to do anything but scream to the world, "WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE. AND IF YOU DON"T FIND A QUICK SOLUTION TO THIS DISASTER WE WILL TARGET YOU NEXT!!!"
That it's apparent layup is exactly the point. Before Lexington and Concord came the Boston Tea Party.
Arguing over whether you should bet the through Brisbet, a Magna simulcast or your local bookie is akin to squabbling over printing a protest slogan on a square sign or a round one. It entirely misses the point.
The goal -- the only goal -- is to show the world that contrary to common belief -- we can change the world by working as one. (Although you can make a better point by wagering through Premier Turf Club because of how shabbily the powers that be have treated the horseplayer-friendly ADW.)
C'mon, get into the spirit. Channel your inner 60s Flower Child. Right on. Fight the power. The people united will be never be defeated. Don't trust anyone over 30 -- or alternatively, any racetrack/ADW heads who proclaim "they are on our side.'
We have a leader. Let's Follow him.
Now, CJ, do speed points hold up at Alb?
Procott. Don't procott. Procott another track. Procott, but plan two months ahead. Yada yada yada.
The acerbic responses to Mr. Young's letter to Scott Daruty is a prime example of why we always lose. All we can do is criticize, kibbitz, nibble away at our leader's credibility. He is taking positive, aggressive action. Get behind him! Now. Don't undermine him. He started the petition. He is a man of action. Who else here is?
Why have we learned nothing from history? Examine many of the great movements of the world: Many have two things in common: a charismatic and dedicated leader who captures the media's attention; and a willingness to unite behind a common strategy that demonstrates a collective harmonic front.
You think everyone in the 1960s civil rights movement thought Martin Luther King Jr. was right all the time? You think all of the UAW workers agreed with Walter Ruether down the line? Of course not, but they stood behind them publicly. Same for Cesar Chevez, Gandhi, Reagan, Martin Luther (the original), Mao, Castro, etc.
It's the nature of horseplayers to argue, dissect, lament. And unfortunately, unlike other successful movements, we have to air our linen in the open for all to see our fragmented front.
That's why the petition was so successful. We had a leader -- Mr. Young -- and a took a solid, united stand. There was no, "Yes, but ..." It was as if we had suddenly channeled Norma Rae and Howard Beale. A perfect moment.
It is not, as some have suggested, the impromptu procott that threatens our newly won media momentum, but in giving an ironic twist to a time-honored racetrack tradition of redboarding we are setting ourselves up for a debacle. Instead of giving excuses of why we lost after the race, we're in essence pointing to a past performance line six races back BEFORE we put our money down.
Yet that's exactly what some members are doing here. Taking a defeatist attitude toward Mr. Young's imaginative attempt to maintain our media momentum will surely lead to loss of face and media attention. Arguing over whether we should have waited a few weeks to plan our next step is now moot. A dead issue. Don't waste energy and public unity by debating or criticizing the move. It's OUR move and we need to get behind it. NOW. At least Mr. Young has the guts and vision to get us lowly BDH (in the acronym of Chicago Sun-Times' Dave Feldman) notice.
A procott in New Mexico is a baby step. It is not meant, Mr. Scav, to do anything but scream to the world, "WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE. AND IF YOU DON"T FIND A QUICK SOLUTION TO THIS DISASTER WE WILL TARGET YOU NEXT!!!"
That it's apparent layup is exactly the point. Before Lexington and Concord came the Boston Tea Party.
Arguing over whether you should bet the through Brisbet, a Magna simulcast or your local bookie is akin to squabbling over printing a protest slogan on a square sign or a round one. It entirely misses the point.
The goal -- the only goal -- is to show the world that contrary to common belief -- we can change the world by working as one. (Although you can make a better point by wagering through Premier Turf Club because of how shabbily the powers that be have treated the horseplayer-friendly ADW.)
C'mon, get into the spirit. Channel your inner 60s Flower Child. Right on. Fight the power. The people united will be never be defeated. Don't trust anyone over 30 -- or alternatively, any racetrack/ADW heads who proclaim "they are on our side.'
We have a leader. Let's Follow him.
Now, CJ, do speed points hold up at Alb?