Horses have feelings, too
 

A Ship in trainer complained (vociferously) last night that my comments concerning his horse were "unfair and too critical."

Silly me for forgetting that horses have feelings and prefer to be praised.

Over the years, I have learned to somewhat temper my critique of trainers, while still being candid. And because of covid, I decided at the outset to give jockeys a pass-no criticism at all this year. But I AM PAID to dispense blunt, opinionated commentary on the horses. That's sort of the whole point, isn't it??????

Once during a paddock show I was giving, I said that I couldn't bet a horse that the trainer was 1 for 35 or something, he went crazy on me after the horses left the paddock. He said that his owners watch the feed, I told him they also look at the Form and can see your record. Love trainers!

Not only are you insensitive to the feelings of horses.



You are also a systemic racist to the horses.


In race 5 your top two selections were

White Drill and White Russian


How dare you leave Bronze Medal off your top selections.



You really need to do some serious soul searching my friend! :)

Yeah, you have to do your job. No doubt.

That said, on Saturday I got a tiny taste of what that ship-in trainer was talking about (but shouldn't have jumped you for what you said).

I own a small share of a 2-year-old filly (Bold Article) that was in Race 4 at Kentucky Downs on Saturday. I knew she was out of her depth. It was a tough field. Two Mike Maker horses (one owned by Ken and Sarah Ramsey), a Pharoah filly owned by Calumet, an Orb filly with two place finishes on turf...

Bold Article finished 7th out of 10, which was pretty much what I expected.

A few hours later, I read the race chart and saw this in the Footnotes: "BOLD ARTICLE was never a threat."

Ouch. It's true, but ouch! However, it never occurred to me to track down the person who wrote the Footnotes of the race so I could give them a call to berate them. They simply did their job and reported the facts.

i understand your perspective. And I should clarify that I don't waste time taking cheap, risk-free shots at obvious non-contenders. It requires no knowledge or guts to attack those kind of horses.

But the when a runner I HATE is taking SUPPORT, I'm duty bound to express my opinion.

As a novice handicapper, I'd say that falls into the category of public service. :ThmbUp:

The horse ran second, btw, and I think they just wanted to gloat. Welcome to my world.

Mountainman,

It is only fitting in this age of "I'm offended," we should alter the chart comments so that the owners don't feel bad.

Also, since there are no winners or losers, perhaps we should just give out participation trophies to the entrants. In fact, perhaps we could just socialize the purse money across all horses.

I am sure that you agree. LOL

Seriously, way to stick to your guns.

It's not really about "this age" though, is it? Do you think these are kids expecting participation trophies? While obviously Mark should do his job, the trainer obviously thinks the horse not being a threat reflects on his ability to have the horse ready.

It's not anything to do with socialism, participation trophies, or any of the other ridiculous comparisons you were trying to make. Do you think participants in sports being mad at those criticizing them just started in 2020? It's the same crap announcers in literally every sport have dealt with as long as there have been media covering games. If you say something negative and have to face that guy in a locker room (or these days, Twitter), you'll hear it.

Dave's comments were toungue in cheek.



A far as saying a horse has no shot, that is not a refection on a trainers ability at all but a position that the horse cannot likely compete due to the class and capabilities of other horses.


Bringing that to our attention is Mark's job and that is a good thing.

I understand them taking offense. As I said in my TRIPLE CLOWNS interview on youtube, horsemen work hard and naturally bond with their stock. But that can't be my concern. I have to critique the creatures they love. And objectively.

Boy, does your locker-room analogy hit home. As mnr's ast racing sec, i interact daily with the same trainers i critique on the show. And that can be touchy.

hi, dave..tx for lending your gravitas to my cause..

tx, boom..hope all is well

I guess I don’t see the point in saying the horse was never a threat, you should be able to discern that from the lengths back at any given point in the race per the form, provided that the lengths back are somewhat correct. Without seeing the race or reading the form, there are more valuable insights that can be written in a line like how the break went, traffic, etc

All that is part of handicapping for sure.


But there are two things I get from Mountainman and the little guy, and I am not even sure they know well they do this is


1. The Peter Principle, which is the most important part of intuitive handicapping IMO. Like people, horses will rise in class until they reach a position of complete incompetence. Mark's comments on that horse were based on the horse looking good on paper but coming out of a race that was deemed a "negative key" race. Unless you follow a particular track religously, we all need help with that determination. It is not in the form or a replay.


2. The concept of a horse being "dressed up" by a positive trip in a race or benefiting by a track bias and "dirtied up" which can be more larcenous ( matter of opinion) cannot be determined by the form but a professional follower of a given racetrack who is willing to be opinionated.


Nothing against Jason Blewett at Gulfstream for instance. He seems like a real good guy, but one does not get this kind of insight from him. As an example, sort of a bubble gum handicapper for beginners which many of us do not look to.