Mallpractice

[Mall]

The idea that one cannot offer an opinion on the judgment of a woman jockey without 1st, or at the same time, also condemning male jockeys makes even less sense than the implication that I am a sexist. Nothing could be further from the truth, something you would know if you were familiar with my longstanding & well-documented efforts on behalf of the downtrodden and oppressed, not that a woman who is already in the hall of fame & who is making a riding comeback fits into either category. And while we\'re on the subject of sexism, which has nothing to do with the question on the table, isn\'t one of the basic tenets of feminist ideology that men demean women when they are presented as passive objects in male fantasies?

Again, the question you still haven\'t addressed has nothing to do with what someone else did or didn\'t do, let alone me or my ideology. And I am not in a position to address your comment that I am \"skipping history as tragedy and heading straight to history as farce\" because I have no idea what you are talking about.

This started out with me expressing my disapproval, for safety reasons, of Miss Krone\'s decision to continue riding, without telling anyone, after she was diagnosed as clinincally depressed and after she started taking powerful presciption drugs. There has never been any suggestion of prosecution, never any suggestion that her decision was a crime, & never any suggestion that what she did violated the Rules of Racing.  The discussion raises a straightforward question which calls for a straightforward answer, so stop beating around the bush and disclose your position on the merits: In light of the circumstances, do you agree or disagree with her decision to continue riding?

[Two Bucks]

I\'m less concerned about jockeys riding stoned on various drugs than I am about jockeys hallucinating and seeing spots during the race or so weak they\'re about to fall off because they heave and purge, and skip breakfast and lunch and eat a single pea for dinner so they can make weight.

[Mall]

Point well taken. Although I have never seen any stats on the question, my assumption would be that there are many more jockeys engaged in the practice which concerns you than there are taking illegal drugs, in which case the problem is of a much greater magnitude. My guess is that condemnation in this forum is not going to change that, and that unless the reg authorities decide to do something, which seems highly unlikely, it\'s going to continue to be a matter between the individual jockey and his or her conscience. Jockeys claim to be and want to be treated as professionals, but the hallmark of a professional is someone who is able to put the interests of others ahead of his or her personal interests. Nor is there anything that I know of which is preventing the Jockey Guild and/or similar orgs from addressing the problem.

[TGJB]

The Jockey Guild wants to deal with that like the tracks wanted to deal with past posting, and continue to want to deal with EPO etc., and for the same reasons. They won\'t deal with it until it blows up in their faces.

[Alydar in California]

Mall wrote:

 \"The idea that one cannot offer an opinion on the judgment of a woman jockey without 1st, or at the same time, also condemning male jockeys makes even less sense...\"

The idea that you would bash a depressed girl while refusing to criticize the countless riders who did essentially the same thing, and in effect established the precedent for keeping quiet about such things, strikes me as odd. Since we lack statutes, think of this as common law. Julie\'s conduct can\'t be judged properly without examining the precedents.

\"makes even less sense than the implication that I am a sexist.\"

   To conclude this, you would have to put emphasis on a word I avoided emphasizing. Read the sentence again, this time putting the emphasis on \"find.\" I do NOT think you are a sexist, but I can understand how you read it that way.

\"And while we\'re on the subject of sexism, which has nothing to do with the question on the table, isn\'t one of the basic tenets of feminist ideology that men demean women when they are presented as passive objects in male fantasies?\"

This is such a preposterous joke that I can only respond in kind. In my best fantasy, Halle Berry is not even remotely passive. (Be sure to see the cover of \"Cosmopolitan\" before it gets yanked.)
 
\"Again, the question you still haven\'t addressed\"

Bob Barry handled this beautifully. I would like to associate myself with his remarks. Be fair, Mall.

\"I am not in a position to address your comment that I am \"skipping history as tragedy and heading straight to history as farce\" because I have no idea what you are talking about.\"

That\'s a famous line from Karl Marx. History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce. You are skipping over all the precedents and attacking only Julie, and it\'s farcical.

\"This started out with me expressing my disapproval, for safety reasons, of Miss Krone\'s decision to continue riding, without telling anyone, after she was diagnosed as clinincally depressed and after she started taking powerful presciption drugs.\"

    You did more than that, Mall. You didn\'t care for her Hall of Fame speech, either. Don\'t pretend this is only about safety.

\"There has never been any suggestion of prosecution, never any suggestion that her decision was a crime\"

It\'s pretty obvious that we\'re not in court. \"Selective prosecution\" was a metaphor. I have a hard time believing that you didn\'t know that.

\"In light of the circumstances, do you agree or disagree with her decision to continue riding?\"

If riding makes Julie feel better, I want her to ride. Now give me your lengthy condemnations of the other sinners, starting at the top.

[Alydar in California]

Mall wrote:

\"Everyone is tripping over themselves gushing about her grit, determination,
 and courage, pretty much the way they did when she went public with her
 battle against depression. What I don\'t understand is why no one was or is
 concerned about her admission that she spent the last 3 yrs before she
 retired riding under the influence of powerful psychotropic drugs. Forget if
 you can about the bettors who didn\'t know, and even the owners and trainers
 whose work and property were placed at risk. What about the safety of the
 other jockeys?  I\'m happy she\'s back doing what she wants to do, but her
 willingness to risk the property and safety of others, as well as her
 disgraceful acceptance speech when she was inducted into the Hall of Fame,
 has me thinking that most of the current praise is a bit overdone, to put it
 mildly.\"

[BB]

I would if I could but the old memory bank is not downloadable. I didn\'t hear it live. They played it on the weekly dark-day recap show.

It was a hoot mainly because Julie showed just how difficult it is to call a race, even when it\'s a three-horse slopfest with lengths between each one. But she was game. She was also cute and horses ran for her. What\'s not to like?

You did show me yours, but why didn\'t they show us Debby lacing up her skates?

[Alydar in California]

Bob Barry wrote: \"why didn\'t they show us Debby lacing up her skates?\"

I\'m not going to sugarcoat it. The photographer is an incompetent bastard who deserves to rot in hell. He was surely the inspiration for Gore Vidal\'s line about photography being \"art for the untalented.\"

JB wrote: \"Speaking of the 98 Belmont, Bob Barry wrote a terrific piece for the Observer before that race,\"

I read it. This qualifies as an understatement.

[Mall]

This started when you invited me to express my views, which you thought you could change. I understand that I am in the minority, but the only substantive arguments I have heard from anyone all deal with how things looked from Ms Krone\'s perspective. The fact that the sacrifice would have been a major one has not convinced me that it shouldn\'t have been made.

Ironically, your comments re Ms Barry illustrate the debating tactic I was using quite nicely, as what feminists mean by \"passive\" is very different than whatever it is you are imagining doing with Ms Barry. Allow me to illustrate with an example from everyday life. Suppose someone accused me of violating the Tower of Death ritual of Zoroastrianism. Is that person not holding himself out as an expert on the subject? And if it turns out that the person in question is not familiar with the principles contained in the Avesta, does that not reflect on the credibility of the charge in the 1st place?

As for Julie\'s acceptance speech, I did say & do believe it was disgraceful, but am not convinced that it is matter which can be debated. What most people think she said is based on reports in the racing press, which did not include her bizarre disclosure of  sexual fanatsies involving Steve Cauthen. The looks on the faces of a number of those in attendance convinced me that I was not the only one who did not think that it was the time or place to make such comments, especially in light of the fact that Mrs Cauthen was in attendance. One person did \"defend\" what she did on the ground that it was nothing more than Julie being Julie. Perhaps he has a point.

[Alydar in California]

Mall wrote: \"This started when you invited me to express my views, which you thought you could change.\"

Wrong. This started when you invited yourself to express your views somewhere else. Since I\'m not signed up at the Derby List, I wanted you to express them here.

\"the only substantive arguments I have heard from anyone all deal with how things looked from Ms Krone\'s perspective.\"

Wrong. I have been begging you to give me your lengthy condemnations of the other riders and trainers who have withheld information from owners, riders, and trainers. From the perspective of these owners, riders, and trainers, they deserve this, don\'t they?

\"The fact that the sacrifice would have been a major one has not convinced me that it shouldn\'t have been made.\"

That JULIE\'S sacrifice would have been a major one has not convinced you that JULIE shouldn\'t have made it. Thus spake Mall, prescribing sacrifices to Julie, and ignoring everyone else.

\"your comments re Ms Barry illustrate the debating tactic I was using quite nicely, as what feminists mean by \"passive\" is very different than whatever it is you are imagining doing with Ms Barry.\"

  Wrong. Laughably wrong. Wrong in two ways. 1: You have misjudged me. I consider 99 percent of identity politics to be BS that distracts attention from more important matters. Give me chivalry any day. 2: In feminist ideology, inactive or submissive roles apply to sex, too. Feminists have been known to complain mightily that men like women to be aggressive in one place and one place only.

\"Allow me to illustrate with an example from everyday life. Suppose someone accused me of violating the Tower of Death ritual of Zoroastrianism. Is that person not holding himself out as an expert on the subject? And if it turns out that the person in question is not familiar with the principles contained in the Avesta, does that not reflect on the credibility of the charge in the 1st place?\"

Wrong and silly, unless you would prefer an insane, Malladroit country in which cops make arrests, prosecute cases, issue verdicts, and issue sentences.

\"As for Julie\'s acceptance speech, I did say & do believe it was disgraceful, but am not convinced that it is matter which can be debated.\"

This is what some people say before they go on to debate something. Please tell me you\'re not one of those people.

\"What most people think she said is based on reports in the racing press, which did not include her bizarre disclosure of sexual fanatsies involving Steve Cauthen.\"

I guess you are. Anyway, I thought Cauthen was kind of cute once he adopted that English accent.

\"One person did \"defend\" what she did on the ground that it was nothing more than Julie being Julie. Perhaps he has a point.\"

How do you know it was a he? That was an anonymous post. Are you assuming that since that person obviously knew a lot about racing, that person had to be a man? Le traçage, il s\'épaissit (je badine seulement).

Here are two paragraphs about Julie that I read in an article in Salon:

 \"In 1982, Yves Turcotte smacked her horse with his whip during a race and, when the race was over, Krone shoved him off the weigh-out scales. Jockey Jake Nied wrestled with her after a match until others pulled them apart. In 1986, Miguel Rujano hit her in the ear with his whip and she punched him in the face. He pushed her into the jockeys\' swimming pool and she hit him with a lawn chair. In 1989, she exchanged blows with jockey Joe Bravo and left him with fewer teeth.\"

  \"Previously, she had resisted any type of therapy. \"I\'m a jock,\" she has said. \"I can do anything on my own. I thought it was humiliating to get help. Meanwhile, the only real relief I felt was planning my suicide. I saved sleeping pills, but I was going to drink alcohol, slit my wrists and maybe hang myself, too. I wanted to do one thing right.\"

[Mall]

Which is to say following a recipe which calls for two or three parts invective for every one part discussion. Hence, on what Scott V convincingly pointed out is a relatively minor part of the equation, my arguments have been labeled \"inane\", \"preposterous\", \"farcical\",\"laughably wrong\", and \"wrong and silly.\" It is interesting that your motive was never to convince anyone of the merits of your position, which may explain why the thing I am most convinced of at this point is that civil discourse is not your strongest suit.

I know how you like to have the last word, which I\'m more than willing to give you, although I do have a suggestion or two about possible topics. One is to avoid  feminism. Not even the great Daniel Webster could enter a debate in support of a \"girl\" who he described as \"kind of cute\", who used to bounce around, \"short dress flying every which way\", and convince anyone that his motivation for entering the fray was to advance women\'s right to be treated equally.

Since you brought it up, my second suggestion has to do with the Derby List. As you know, my reason for becoming a member was to obtain information relating to the fix six scandal, which those who seem to be in charge were more than willing to provide. The information in question was passed on to reporters, who were advised to also read this Bd for insights into the thinking of serious fans. The impression I was left with when I contacted the individuals you put me in touch with, however, is that instead of saying that you are not a member of the List, it might be more accurate to say that you are no longer a member. If this is true, why wouldn\'t you take it as a sign that it just might be possible that some of the debating tactics you favor are, shall we say, a mite bit out of bounds?

[MO]

Couldn\'t help but put my two cents worth in here:
Consider this: If men had treated women with respect from the beginning, we wouldn\'t have so many feminst bitches running around today
trying to be like men.

For the feminists: two wrongs don\'t make a right.

MO

[TGJB]

Batten the hatches. Incoming...

[Alydar in California]

Mall wrote:

  \"which may explain why the thing I am most convinced of at this point is that civil discourse is not your strongest suit.\"

  On a good day, on a really good day, I might be as competent at civil discourse as you are. In general, subtlety and irony do not work on racing message boards, but even if they did work, I\'m not sure I\'d bother using them against someone who deploys \"civil discourse\" against a depressed little girl while refusing to criticize any other riders.

\"my arguments have been labeled \"inane\",\"

Wrong. \"Inane\" is too weak. I called your argument \"insane.\"

\"Not even the great Daniel Webster could enter a debate in support of a \"girl\" who he described as \"kind of cute\", who used to bounce around, \"short dress flying every which way\", and convince anyone that his motivation for entering the fray was to advance women\'s right to be treated equally.\"

You persist in trying to kick me out of a feminist sorority that I was never asked to join. My models for ideal female behavior, as far as attitude is concerned, are Sharon Stone in \"Basic Instinct\" and the Italian girl in \"The Last Seduction.\" Like Camille Paglia, I\'d like to see them go back to naming hurricanes exclusively after women.

\"my second suggestion has to do with the Derby List...The impression I was left with when I contacted the individuals you put me in touch with, however, is that instead of saying that you are not a member of the List, it might be more accurate to say that you are no longer a member. If this is true, why wouldn\'t you take it as a sign that it just might be possible that some of the debating tactics you favor are, shall we say, a mite bit out of bounds?\"

Here your discourse is much closer to libelous than civil. I got those email addresses for you because I wanted to help you. I had never seen a message board used better than the way you were using this one. As I told a mutual friend of ours, \"We need more Malls.\" I have NEVER been a member of the Derby List. I have NEVER exchanged a word with any of those three men. I got those email addresses by going to the Derby List archives (escribe.com) and reading countless posts until I found ones in which those men revealed their email addresses. Now you\'re trying to make me wonder which of those three men (whom I have never spoken to) knows me and dislikes me. Apparently, you consider this sort of BS to be civil discourse. Nice work, Mall.

Mark O\'Keeffe wrote:

  \"If men had treated women with respect from the beginning, we wouldn\'t have so many feminst bitches running around today
trying to be like men.\"

  Since you aren\'t the type to make wild allegations, there must be some truth in this. Perhaps these women really aren\'t that scary once you get to know them. Put your fear aside and engage them in civil discourse.

[MO]

I kind of fancy Clair Huxtable from the Cosby show.