Where’s Meyer Lansky when you need him? [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

andymays

11-29-2011, 04:55 PM

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/11/28/2522527/wheres-meyer-lansky-when-you-need.html

Excerpt:

At least when Meyer Lansky ran the show someone was in charge.

Gambling had a boss, albeit one whose enforcement techniques may have been a bit harsher than those employed by the Florida Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering. But with Meyer, we didn’t suffer this pervasive sense of anarchy, with one new gambling proposal piled atop of another, with no coherent state policy. You might say Lansky had a “strategic vision.”

Meyer ran some 50 illegal gambling operations in South Florida, the Miami Herald reported in 1948 (on the way to its first Pulitzer Prize). He ran casinos and provided a central clearing house for South Florida bookmakers.

And he was famously strict about stuff like the integrity of the games.

bigmack

11-29-2011, 05:09 PM

And "Lansky" (Suchowljansky) fled to Israel to escape federal tax evasion charges. Perfect model for this game.

So much for integrity.

Cholly

11-29-2011, 05:37 PM

Gone but not forgotten...

In R3 at AQU on Saturday, Myrlanski came home first in a NY state-bred maiden claiming race.

FenceBored

11-29-2011, 05:50 PM

Mount Nebo Miami Memorial Gardens

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=2794

Spiderman

11-29-2011, 05:50 PM

OTM Al

11-30-2011, 09:06 AM

andymays

11-30-2011, 09:16 AM

Waxing poetic about mafioso. Great. These guys had no integrity. None. I would hope this is not the model for what you think is good for racing as these were the same sort of guys who were threatening jocks and fixing races not so long ago.

Not taking a position. I put it up because it is a provocative article. Email the Author if you don't like it.

OTM Al

11-30-2011, 09:23 AM

Not taking a position. I put it up because it is a provocative article. Email the Author if you don't like it.

Pretty much figured that was the case, again.

andymays

11-30-2011, 10:14 AM

Pretty much figured that was the case, again.

Kind of the same principle as the 85% of Trainers cheat thread. The Author uses an extreme example to get people to read it.

For the record I was never friends with Meyer Lansky. ;)

By the way I got it off Equidaily. He thought it was interesting enough to link it.

andymays

11-30-2011, 10:34 AM

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/11/29/2523733/judge-refuses-to-halt-fla-barrel.html

Excerpt:

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. -- A judge on Tuesday refused to halt an administrative challenge to a new form of betting - quarter horse barrel racing - in a complex case that could affect efforts to expand gaming at pari-mutuel facilities across Florida.

It was a preliminary round victory for two groups representing quarter horse owners, breeders and trainers. They contend barrel racing is a cheap way for tracks to bypass state racing regulations to get approval for more lucrative card rooms and possibly slot machines.

The issue, though, is far from settled.

OTM Al

11-30-2011, 11:58 AM

By the way I got it off Equidaily. He thought it was interesting enough to link it.

That is the purpose of Seth's site. This a forum. In a forum opinions are given and discussed. By posting drivel like that article in a forum atmosphere, you are implicitly saying "I agree with this" if you don't say anything else.

andymays

11-30-2011, 12:33 PM

That is the purpose of Seth's site. This a forum. In a forum opinions are given and discussed. By posting drivel like that article in a forum atmosphere, you are implicitly saying "I agree with this" if you don't say anything else.

That's new to me. Is that a new rule or an old one?

OTM Al

11-30-2011, 12:44 PM

That's new to me. Is that a new rule or an old one?

Rule? Don't see where any rule was cited. I gave a thing known as a definition, showing you the difference between a forum and a site that links to news articles as you seem to be confusing the two. People come here to discuss, and go to Seth's site to click on links. Maybe you should ask PA to set up a newsroom section for you.

There isn't a prize for whoever has the most posts. Or maybe Tom is holding out on me.....

FenceBored

11-30-2011, 12:59 PM

Rule? Don't see where any rule was cited. I gave a thing known as a definition, showing you the difference between a forum and a site that links to news articles as you seem to be confusing the two. People come here to discuss, and go to Seth's site to click on links. Maybe you should ask PA to set up a newsroom section for you.

There isn't a prize for whoever has the most posts. Or maybe Tom is holding out on me.....

No, you gave a thing known as an 'opinion,' which is different from a 'definition.'

OTM Al

11-30-2011, 01:08 PM

No, you gave a thing known as an 'opinion,' which is different from a 'definition.'

Actually it isn't an opinion. It's a definition. Ever look at the little tags that go on each section here? Here's the one for this section.

"Is that hyped 2-year-old the real deal? Discuss all on and off track action here!"

See the word "Discuss"? Don't see the words "Post Links" do you? Or perhaps you are refering to the opinion I actually did post that I think the glorification of mobsters is drivel? If that is so, I certainly didn't get it form your post because then it would make even less sense than it does at first reading.

andymays

11-30-2011, 01:11 PM

Actually it isn't an opinion. It's a definition. Ever look at the little tags that go on each section here? Here's the one for this section.

"Is that hyped 2-year-old the real deal? Discuss all on and off track action here!"

See the word "Discuss"? Don't see the words "Post Links" do you? Or perhaps you are refering to the opinion I actually did post that I think the glorification of mobsters is drivel? If that is so, I certainly didn't get it form your post because then it would make even less sense than it does at first reading.

I've posted plenty of articles with opinions I disagree with especially about the situation in California. This is a big issue in Florida and people in that State might be interested in it.

I don't have a position on it because I don't live in Florida. So why are you posting in this thread and how do I characterize what your point is here. Do you agree, disagree, or have no opinion?

bigmack

11-30-2011, 01:21 PM

Pretty much figured that was the case, again.
Al, from all of what I've heard of you, you are the aces. However, your accusation that posting an article clearly states the poster is in full agreement with the posted article is preposterous. You know that, right?

'Threads of interest' are often contentious and nuanced. I don't agree with the premise of using Lansky as role model for integrity as well but I don't feel the need to attack Andy.

Don't you think you're taking this a bit too serious?

andymays

11-30-2011, 01:24 PM

Bottom line is that if nobody is interested in a thread as a general rule it disappears quickly.

Beachbabe

11-30-2011, 02:34 PM

"Michael, we're bigger than General Motors."

FenceBored

11-30-2011, 02:36 PM

Actually it isn't an opinion. It's a definition. Ever look at the little tags that go on each section here? Here's the one for this section.

"Is that hyped 2-year-old the real deal? Discuss all on and off track action here!"

See the word "Discuss"? Don't see the words "Post Links" do you? Or perhaps you are refering to the opinion I actually did post that I think the glorification of mobsters is drivel? If that is so, I certainly didn't get it form your post because then it would make even less sense than it does at first reading.

If someone around here posted without comment a snippet from an article announcing a takeout hike at some track I'm hard pressed to imagine the circumstances under which I would assume the poster was in favor of it.

If anyone posts without comment a snippet of an article in order to foster discussion of that article, I don't immediately jump to any particular conclusion about that poster's opinion. Experience with particular posters and particular topics may guide my reasoned judgement if I choose to make a guess, but I'm certainly not going to make some asinine blanket assumption that anything posted without comment means approval.

OTM Al

11-30-2011, 05:12 PM

Al, from all of what I've heard of you, you are the aces. However, your accusation that posting an article clearly states the poster is in full agreement with the posted article is preposterous. You know that, right?

'Threads of interest' are often contentious and nuanced. I don't agree with the premise of using Lansky as role model for integrity as well but I don't feel the need to attack Andy.

Don't you think you're taking this a bit too serious?

Well, tell me what I'm supposed to think then, especially when the poster takes it on himself to bold certain lines? My original comment was that I hoped he didn't really think that way. He responded

"Not taking a position. I put it up because it is a provocative article."

So what's the point then? Like I said, this isn't a news site like Equidaily. To me what was done here is completely lame. This is a forum where we discuss things. What is the point of the OP making a post AND HAVING NO OPINION? Or at the very least saying "I'm torn on this issue, what do you think?" His excuse being because he doesn't live in Florida? Meanwhile he continually asks us to care about California. Well I don't live there so I guess by this logic, I shouldn't care about that? Like I said, all I can figure is it's some effort to have the largest number of posts on the board because there is no other point to this I can discern.

I want to click on a link, I'll go to a news site. I start a thread, I state an opinion.

OTM Al

11-30-2011, 05:13 PM

If someone around here posted without comment a snippet from an article announcing a takeout hike at some track I'm hard pressed to imagine the circumstances under which I would assume the poster was in favor of it.

If anyone posts without comment a snippet of an article in order to foster discussion of that article, I don't immediately jump to any particular conclusion about that poster's opinion. Experience with particular posters and particular topics may guide my reasoned judgement if I choose to make a guess, but I'm certainly not going to make some asinine blanket assumption that anything posted without comment means approval.

Guys like you make me miss the Fatman.....almost

GameTheory

11-30-2011, 05:26 PM

Well, tell me what I'm supposed to think then, especially when the poster takes it on himself to bold certain lines? Why do you have to think anything? (About what his opinion might be.) Seems like he was just posting something that might be of interest to members of this forum. That's not allowed because this isn't a "news site"? I see a forum like this a being more inclusive than a strictly news site, not less so. In any case, it is common practice to post links to articles of potential interest (with and without comment) on just about every internet forum in existence. And I for one like it that way so I don't have to go trolling the news sites to find out what it is going on -- if it is important I know it will be brought up here by somebody.

OTM Al

12-01-2011, 07:33 AM

Why do you have to think anything? (About what his opinion might be.) Seems like he was just posting something that might be of interest to members of this forum. That's not allowed because this isn't a "news site"? I see a forum like this a being more inclusive than a strictly news site, not less so. In any case, it is common practice to post links to articles of potential interest (with and without comment) on just about every internet forum in existence. And I for one like it that way so I don't have to go trolling the news sites to find out what it is going on -- if it is important I know it will be brought up here by somebody.

Like I said, where's the opinion? Got no problem with posting a link and then saying even something as minor as "I don't understand" or "I'm not sure what to think" but what is the point of essentially JUST posting a link? Especially when it is clearly stated by the OP that he claims to have NO opinion even though he edited a piece of the article for display.

And why do I have to think anything? Well, I'm alive for one and two, I come here for discussion, not to have topics assigned to me. I encourage the OP to start his own blog, because that's essentially wht he's doing here, or if he wants to do it here, do it like I do for Saratoga, label the SINGLE thread as to what it is and go. Those that are interested in what he has to say then clearly know what they are getting.

FenceBored

12-01-2011, 07:53 AM

Like I said, where's the opinion? Got no problem with posting a link and then saying even something as minor as "I don't understand" or "I'm not sure what to think" but what is the point of essentially JUST posting a link? Especially when it is clearly stated by the OP that he claims to have NO opinion even though he edited a piece of the article for display.

And why do I have to think anything? Well, I'm alive for one and two, I come here for discussion, not to have topics assigned to me. I encourage the OP to start his own blog, because that's essentially wht he's doing here, or if he wants to do it here, do it like I do for Saratoga, label the SINGLE thread as to what it is and go. Those that are interested in what he has to say then clearly know what they are getting.

You've never been in a group of people when another guy walks up and says: "Did any of you see that column by Crist in today's DRF?" I guess that guy's just trying to start his own talk radio show.

OTM Al

12-01-2011, 09:21 AM

You've never been in a group of people when another guy walks up and says: "Did any of you see that column by Crist in today's DRF?" I guess that guy's just trying to start his own talk radio show.

Yes I have and you still seem to have some confusion on communication issues as that isn't what happened here and elsewhere.

Let's use your example. An individual saying that is actually asking one of two things. Which of the two English does not allow us to determine based on that phrase alone. He is asking either:

"Did any of you see that column by Crist in today's DRF? (Because I did not and want to know what he said)"

or

"Did any of you see that column by Crist in today's DRF? (Because I did and here's what I think....)"

Both very legitimate questions in public and on forums such as this. But that isn't what happened here. It can't be #1 because the OP posted a quote and link to the column. It's also not #2 as the OP said he had no opinion. So what actually happened, to again use your example, is a guy came up to you and said:

"I saw that column by Crist in today's DRF."

and then walked away. Not sure about you but my first response to something like that is that there is something wrong with that guy. It is most definitely not normal or accepted social behavior in that setting and I am saying it isn't in a forum environment either. If you are going to say something at least have an opinion. Otherwise you are just posting to post.

12-01-2011, 09:22 AM

FenceBored

12-01-2011, 09:45 AM

Sure, but if someone brings it up they usually have something else to say about it.

Not always, sometimes they just want to hear what other people think about it. Sometimes I read an article at Bloodhorse, or DRF, or whereever, and think "I wonder what the guys at PA will make of this?" Is it wrong to think that, or try to initiate a discussion by thowing something out on the table without expressing an opinion about it? I certainly don't think so.

Say a thread had been started on BC Saturday that read:
"Non-DQ in BC Mile - discuss."
Would that have been so awful?

FenceBored

12-01-2011, 09:55 AM

Yes I have and you still seem to have some confusion on communication issues as that isn't what happened here and elsewhere.

Let's use your example. An individual saying that is actually asking one of two things. Which of the two English does not allow us to determine based on that phrase alone. He is asking either:

"Did any of you see that column by Crist in today's DRF? (Because I did not and want to know what he said)"

or

"Did any of you see that column by Crist in today's DRF? (Because I did and here's what I think....)"

Both very legitimate questions in public and on forums such as this. But that isn't what happened here. It can't be #1 because the OP posted a quote and link to the column. It's also not #2 as the OP said he had no opinion. So what actually happened, to again use your example, is a guy came up to you and said:

"I saw that column by Crist in today's DRF."

and then walked away. Not sure about you but my first response to something like that is that there is something wrong with that guy. It is most definitely not normal or accepted social behavior in that setting and I am saying it isn't in a forum environment either. If you are going to say something at least have an opinion. Otherwise you are just posting to post.

Gee, ever think that it's #3: "Did any of you see that column by Crist in today's DRF? (Because I want to know what you think about it)"

A perfectly acceptable conversation starter here or anywhere.

GameTheory

12-01-2011, 02:06 PM

Like I said, where's the opinion? Got no problem with posting a link and then saying even something as minor as "I don't understand" or "I'm not sure what to think" but what is the point of essentially JUST posting a link? Just what I said. "Here is something that might be of interest to you guys." What's wrong with that? I know I've posted ONLY links to stuff before, mainly because I know there would be some people here who would want to see it -- to be made aware, that's the point. And even when I had an opinion I didn't put it in the original post because I wanted others to read and react first without me telling them what I thought about something they hadn't even read yet. You act as if this is some weird behavior.

If you aren't interested in the links, don't click on them. If you want the thread to be full of opinions, add yours. If the OP isn't included in that, so what?

OTM Al

12-01-2011, 03:39 PM

Gee, ever think that it's #3: "Did any of you see that column by Crist in today's DRF? (Because I want to know what you think about it)"

A perfectly acceptable conversation starter here or anywhere.

That's the same as my #2 where "here's what I think..." is followed by something to the effect that "it confuses me and I need more info".

Forget it. News bites and talking points have replaced any real dialogue and debate in this world. Why should it be any different here?

OTM Al

12-01-2011, 03:45 PM

Just what I said. "Here is something that might be of interest to you guys." What's wrong with that? I know I've posted ONLY links to stuff before, mainly because I know there would be some people here who would want to see it -- to be made aware, that's the point. And even when I had an opinion I didn't put it in the original post because I wanted others to read and react first without me telling them what I thought about something they hadn't even read yet. You act as if this is some weird behavior.

If you aren't interested in the links, don't click on them. If you want the thread to be full of opinions, add yours. If the OP isn't included in that, so what?

I would assume that you would have at least something in there that said. "I have an opinion but I want to see what others think and then I'll get back to you". That is discussion. This was copying someone else's words and walking away. No thought, and no opinion proclaimed, though there had to be a reason to bold certain words.

I'll quit and leave my feelings about it as I said in the above post. All more of the great descent to mediocrity.

bigmack

12-01-2011, 03:53 PM

I would assume that you would have at least something in there that said. "I have an opinion but I want to see what others think and then I'll get back to you". That is discussion. This was copying someone else's words and walking away. No thought, and no opinion proclaimed, though there had to be a reason to bold certain words.
How does this thread differ from how this one started?: http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=77072&highlight=beyer

If you'd like, there are about 400 other examples. All of which have NOTHING to do with the paucity of debate as a result of someone 'throwing up' an op-ed piece.

OTM Al

12-01-2011, 03:58 PM

How does this thread differ from how this one started?: http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=77072&highlight=beyer

If you'd like, there are about 400 other examples. All of which have NOTHING to do with the paucity of debate as a result of someone 'throwing up' an op-ed piece.

cj stated an opinion. It's on the the header for the frame, not in the title, but it's there. That's how it's different. Now officially done.

bigmack

12-01-2011, 04:05 PM

cj stated an opinion. It's on the the header for the frame, not in the title, but it's there. That's how it's different. Now officially done.
"Beyer does it again." :lol: So if he typed Grimm does it again, you wouldn't be engaged in this inane point you're trying to make?

I rather doubt that.

FenceBored

12-01-2011, 06:37 PM

That's the same as my #2 where "here's what I think..." is followed by something to the effect that "it confuses me and I need more info".

Forget it. News bites and talking points have replaced any real dialogue and debate in this world. Why should it be any different here?

No, it's not the same.

But, maybe our disagreement a cultural thing. You see, in many parts of the country a person who never asks someone else's opinion on a subject without expressing their own first is not well thought of, nor on the other hand is someone who always defers. Give and take. Sometimes I want you to know my opinion first, sometimes I want to hear yours first.

FenceBored

12-01-2011, 06:42 PM

I don't know about the rest of you, but I never thought I'd see the day that the man who gave us the poll with "In my opinion Frank Stronach is a complete Wackadoo!" (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=67243) as a choice would ever be accused of being unwilling to express his opinion forcefully enough when starting a thread.

andymays

12-01-2011, 06:47 PM

GameTheory

12-01-2011, 09:25 PM

You know sometimes my mom emails me something and says "thought you might be interested in this". I'm gonna have to get after her for not giving HER opinion on those.

And the next time someone gives me a book as a gift on a subject they know I'm interested in, they damn well better have read it first so they can review it for me. I mean, otherwise, what is the POINT?

Pace Cap'n

12-01-2011, 11:06 PM

I would assume that you would have at least something in there that said. "I have an opinion but I want to see what others think and then I'll get back to you". That is discussion. This was copying someone else's words and walking away. No thought, and no opinion proclaimed, though there had to be a reason to bold certain words.

I'll quit and leave my feelings about it as I said in the above post. All more of the great descent to mediocrity.

Perhaps the "bolding" could be construed as an "opinion".

Getting harder to get anything past the board cops anymore.