Steve is not only one of the most knowledgeable and passionate horse racing writers in the game today, he has the largest following, by far, of any of the writers at Bloodhorse. He’s won numerous awards for his work, and I can tell you that no one puts more into his or her writing than Steve.

To badly paraphrase from Nathan Hale, “I regret that I had only one Steve Haskin to hire for my (then) publication.” I won’t go quite so far as Patrick Henry and say “Give me Haskin or give me death,” but he’s a good man who doesn’t deserve the kind of cheap and anonymous insult you have delivered.

By the way, I’m still awaiting those few pennies you promised you would send to support the Paulick Report. I guess you’re not a man of your word, “Tony.”

And, it is good that you invite open critiques & commentary.

Journalistically speaking, the attribution issue is a matter of ethics that certainly deserves discussion, but I believe it is something best left as a footnote to an author’s column, rather than be the central focus to a first person ’see-what-they-did-to-me’ column.

On the other hand, an author could get really deep into this issue if he or she decided to address this on behalf of other writers, not merely using the forum to criticize something tinged by one’s own disappointment or anger.

Like most who professionally write about racing (or anything for that matter), I have had a multitude of handicapping ideas, professional insights & outright scoops co-opted without attribution by others through the years.

Yet, never did it seem worthwhile to point out the specifics of these omissions in any first person column. (A personal comment directly made to the writer or publication seemed a better option.)

I believe that use of your column/newsletter to get out your own disappointment &/or anger towards publications for which you may have residual negative feelings, can corrupt the central point you are trying to make.

The issue is real of course, but best to make your points on behalf of someone else, not yourself, if you want such an indictment to stick.

Perhaps you could support the point additionally via some of your own anecdotal truths, but when you attack these publications for leaving you out of the attribution mix, I think you invite a small minded war & diminish the fair minded potential of a journalistically-sound-opinion report.

The small minded wars between such publications are counterproductive on many levels.
Some examples:

* Even very good books written by Blood Horse authors are rarely if ever, reviewed in Thoroughbred Times.

* Books written by DRF authors rarely get mentioned in Blood Horse & prominent Blood Horse writers are barred from mentioning these books in their own opinion columns!

* The mere mention of a ‘Beyer Speed Figure’ in a TrackMaster column is edted [edited] out & changed to ‘Speed Figure’ by Equibase paid editors, etc.. [delete 2nd period] All examples of these small minded wars; very silly stuff.

Your report covered the Congressional hearing superbly!
Your story on the Philly Park past posting was similarly first rate.

At the core of it, you seem bent on creating a strong, independent journal of record.
Good for you! I do hope you succeed.

The industry DOES have too much influence on the publications that cover it. That good point was imbedded in your report but muted somewhat by your personal ’see-what-they-did-to-me’ rant.

Consider this: Perhaps your central point & your own personal perspective on it might have been more powerfully conveyed had you cited instances when you were forced to spin specific pieces as Editor of the BloodHorse.

At the bottom line, there are many racing fans, racing writers & horse people who do wish you well & support your intentions in this endeavor.

Be assured that these comments were written with that in mind…

All the Best/Steve Davidowitz

p.s. The corrections suggested and implemented certainly prove the value of a good editor as well as the need to be more careful, even if a spell check is not available to contributors to this forum.

Bravo indeed.

(It did adjust the size of the words typed on a Microsoft Word blank screen, but only downwards. Another control + hit restored it to its previous size. Interesting, but not helpful.)

I’d be disposed to issue an apology to TT (as if they care), but they ignored my emails about the problem after they had revamped (trashed) their site.

As for the article that started all of this, I gotta agree with Steve D — more enlightening things could have been done with this post. Hope we see better down the road.

At the very onset of this incident, how could you possibly KNOW if you were, in fact, ripped off by The Thoroughbred Times (”TT”)?

They used to - not too long ago - have a great site that was lively, colorful, informative, and most importantly, LEGIBLE.

That’s right. At least one person at TT realized that their “type size” had to be large enough, so that people could actually read what their staff had written.

Even if you know nothing about horse racing and can’t tell the difference between a colt and a mare, I think you’ve already nailed what occurred next.

That’s correct. Management started thinking.

(See Napoleonic invasion of Russia, 1812.)

Presto, a new site-design was rolled out. And the type size was now microscopic, a (Freudian-slip) standard that has continued to this day.

“TT” now stands for “tiny type.”

Who persists in going to that site in 2008? Unless they have an exclusive scoop (Edna Krabappel, in the Simpsons: “HA!”), the idea of dialing up the T-Times is none other than Exhibit A in the psychiatric report recommending your one-way trip to Bellevue.

(Ray, if you can arrange it for your reader’s letters to adjustable type size, that would be great. If ESPN - the largest collection of dolts under one American roof - can swing this, it can’t be that difficult to install.)

Hey, enough. Del Mar opens on July 16th, and right now, it feels just like that wonderful anticipatory sensation I used to have when we’d get on the train at Penn Station (before NYRA wrecked Saratoga).

See you there on the 26th of July!

Now, let’s avoid more “crow” banquets - immediately stop relying on the following source:

“According to the Association of Racing Commissioners International database, [Steve] Asmussen has a total of 74 rulings involving him, including a number of medication violations, dating back to 1990.”

As seen with the ARCI figures involving Rich Dutrow, this organization employs illiterate incompetents who issue discipline and suspension reports that contain ridiculous multiple redundancies.

(I’m no fan of Rich Dutrow; I’ve publicly called for an immediate revocation of his training license for grossly slandering other trainers.) .

What’s more, I’ve never seen any report with their name in it that actually lists the authors of the report or the executive who will publicly stand behind the report. It’s always “ARCI” this and “ARCI” that - as if the public has no interest in who actually is responsible for reporting what they consider factual information - i.e., listing a trainer as having been fined twice - with two identical fines - on a given date.

Media reporters/editors who blindly rely on ARCI-provided information are courting inevitable embarrassment and the risk of destroying their own reputations for accuracy.

On another front, Ray, you’re gotten off to a splendid start. The Report’s content is solid. What’s more, you seem to be one of the few people out there who understand that legibility is indispensible. Your graphics are first-rate. I proudly count myself as one of many who have mailed in a contribution to keep your Report rolling.

Regards,

Also, Ray do I understand that the BH under your run ALWAYS credited other papers and trade mags (and blogs) with hat tips (i.e.: “as was first reported by X”)?