So... I’m watching the 9th race of the Indiana Derby Day card just now. Ken McPeek has GRAN BABY, a foreign shipper from Chile entered. Thus, the letters C-H-I can be read multiple times up and down the mare’s past performances. In the pre-race television analysis, the Indiana Grande hometown handicapper remarks that GRAN BABY has come here... “all the way from China!â€
And you want to travel with him, and you want to travel blind
And then you think maybe you\'ll trust him
For he\'s touched your perfect body with his mind
As we all know, there has been an extraordinarily high number of insipid lyrics written in the past fifty years and beyond.
These rank towards the top.
Wrong. Especially if you know the whole song.
What does rank near the top is “if there’s a bustle in your hedge row, it’s just a spring clean for the May Queenâ€.
The solutions are not Baffert specific.
This is probably a subjective thing. For me the topper goes:
\"Wo wo wo wo, Wo wo wo wo. My Love does it good.\"
The same guy penned \"Yesterday\".
Strong contender.
> And you want to travel with him, and you want to travel blind
> And then you think maybe you\'ll trust him
> For he\'s touched your perfect body with his mind
Change “him†to “her†above re: Indiana Downs’ host and I think you’ve nailed it. [One of the fascinating characteristics of this board over the years is how an expressed idea digresses with each post, to the extent that it can warp into… song lyrics and their merits! Hmmph.]
And now, pardon me for a digression of my own involving another tv analyst I put in my doghouse. This one has a happy ending though:
A few years ago, when she first started participating as a NYRA host, I developed a disliking for Gabby Gaudet. Why? One day while analyzing a race, provoked in no uncertain terms by her loud and aggressive NYRA co-host Andy Serling, Gaudet said she discounted a certain horse’s chances because she’d viewed the replay of his last race at Monmouth and didn’t like the way he zig-zagged his way in the stretch. Having seen the same replay, I felt her take was way wrong. Jockey Joe Bravo tried to rally on the rail, but got squeezed in traffic and stopped, necessitating Bravo to cut back, swing out and rally on in a wider path. By no means was the horse bearing zig-out/in like a short punch drunk horse she’d implied. The horse had a traffic issue. What she told her audience was bullsh*t seemingly just to counter Serling. Just to fill and say SOMETHING. Anyway, with that, her stock dropped with me and I put her on double-secret probation. Hey, it happens. However…
Fast forward to last year, I think it was. Ms. Gaudet did something that totally redeemed herself with me: Now on TVG, she told her audience that HER HUSBAND’S (Norm Casse’s) horse was going to run much better than in his previous start. She gave her reasons and perhaps she even picked the horse to finish first (something I couldn’t care less about). The important thing was she had inside information as to how the horse was training and slam-dunk warned her viewers about it. I think the horse won. Suffice it to say that now, Ms. Gaudet is someone I don’t ignore. I really liked what she did. Compare that to Nancy Holthus analyzing a horse her husband has in at Oaklawn, or compare that to paddock comments made by Maggie Wolfendale about her husband’s horses. They both say little or nothing.
Tonight’s case and point. Here. In the Twilight Zone.
I could not disagree more agree Maggie.
I had not heard her much until recently, as I tuned in to TVG for race coverage and she is not featured there. At Fox Sports 1 & 2 Americas Day At the Races she is a regular contributor.
She has an eye for a horse better than anyone I have heard. Not only does she notice fitness levels of an animal on that day, she keeps notes and compares how the performer looks versus its past. She comments on body types and gives her opinion if a change in distance or surface is merited. Not many analysts are willing to put themselves on the line that way.
She will get on her pony and watch the warmups. Last week she was on the fence about a runner until she saw the way she prepared on the track. Maggie discounted the runner, who finished off the board.
Her words are chosen carefully. I don\'t understand your dislike, you should try her again. She is without peer in my book.
Maggie knows horses. So does Gabby.
This is my first post to this board - EVER - and I have to echo the praise for Maggie. She often shares her perspectives on a variety of variables, and she does what sports commentators are paid to do - teach the viewer something. She is good at finding real favorites and false favorites, and at uncovering middle-odds horses that have a real chance to run well. She\'s intelligent and articulate and good. We need more like her.
1 million % respectfully disagree. glad we bet against each other. nothing personal against her just think she is the opposite of valuable.
Chas04 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1 million % respectfully disagree. glad we bet
> against each other. nothing personal against her
> just think she is the opposite of valuable.
Maggie gave a positive comment on that 26/1 #5 that completed the exacta in race 2.
Nobody is perfect, but I don\'t think she\'s bad at all and I always pay attention to her observations.
Completely agree.
Agree that the inside scoop is a nice bonus, but can’t fault wives of trainers who are on TV from keeping quite about how their husbands horses are doing. Feels a bit like insider training. I would think they need to walk a fine line of evaluating the horses in front of them while showing some impartiality to the trainers. I’m a fan.
Last year I posted a comment about Gabby singling a 15-1 at GP on this board. She had information from her connections on the horse. This happens regularly, I get it, but how would you feel if you got beat because you didn’t have information? This has always been a problem with the sport. You bet back a horse because they had a bad trip or they have a great pattern and a horse that looks like crap on the graph wins and someone always has info as to why.