Crist responds in regards to "Takeout-Gate"

[OTM Al]

Originally Posted by Dahoss9698

Starting now?

Sure looked like a response to me.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by OTM Al

Sure looked like a response to me.

Al. Don't you know nuthin? Ya gotta respond to tell someone you're not responding.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

Al. Don't you know nuthin? Ya gotta respond to tell someone you're not responding.

See...you DO have a sense of humor! I knew it!

[RXB]

Originally Posted by mountainman

I'm not sure if that distinction mitigates for or against Crist's image as player advocate. Either way, an unfortunate situation- and Crist's background with nyra has to muddy the waters a bit. And you're right, one such mistake shouldn't stick to a man or carry grievous consequences, but my hunch is Crist suffers from this.

My biggest problem with Crist stems from his claim within his drf.com statement that he "would love to have been the guy who who caught the error and reported it on the front page of Daily Racing Form."

Here's a guy smart enough to graduate from Harvard and eat his way far up a couple of corporate food chains, saying that he would've loved to have broken the story on this issue. And yet:

1. He didn't perform a most basic 2+2 with "outside the parameters of the law" and "This gentleman is correct."

2. He didn't do an ounce of research to follow up on a situation where red flags were not only brought directly to his attention, but were at least partially confirmed by an involved party!

3. Not only did he acquiesce readily and completely to Hayward's request for confidentiality regarding the backroom details, but of his own volition Crist went one step further by not even bothering to relay the on-the-record admission by Hayward.

Hardly the course of (in)action that would be taken by anyone with a keen interest in finding out what was really going on and reporting to the public. So for him to claim that he would've loved to have broken this story seems rather far-fetched.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by RXB

My biggest problem with Crist stems from his claim within his drf.com statement that he "would love to have been the guy who who caught the error and reported it on the front page of Daily Racing Form."

Here's a guy smart enough to graduate from Harvard and eat his way far up a couple of corporate food chains, saying that he would've loved to have broken the story on this issue. And yet:

1. He didn't perform a most basic 2+2 with "outside the parameters of the law" and "This gentleman is correct."

2. He didn't do an ounce of research to follow up on a situation where red flags were not only brought directly to his attention, but were at least partially confirmed by an involved party!

3. Not only did he acquiesce readily and completely to Hayward's request for confidentiality regarding the backroom details, but of his own volition Crist went one step further by not even bothering to relay the on-the-record admission by Hayward.

Hardly the course of (in)action that would be taken by anyone with a keen interest in finding out what was really going on and reporting to the public. So for him to claim that he would've loved to have broken this story seems rather far-fetched.

Another problem with Crist's statement explaining his actions, is the way he has chosen to describe what the email -- which was sent to him by a reader last August 1st -- really said.

Crist says at the very beginning of his statement, that, the way he understood the email, it was telling him that..."due to the expiration of the legislation, NYRA could now ask the SRWB for a takeout reduction if it wanted to."

Now...we have all seen that email...and it states no such thing.

The reader is informing Crist that the regislation has expired, tells him what the takeouts should now be...and specifically states that the current takeout rates are "outside the parameters of the law".

How could Crist claim to have reached such an erroneous conclusion concerning the content of the email...when the email speaks for itself?

Why couldn't he offer a more heart-felt explanation for his actions...instead of the obvious "song and dance" that he is giving us here?

[OTM Al]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

Al. Don't you know nuthin? Ya gotta respond to tell someone you're not responding.

I suppose an important guy like you needs to defend himself. I mean being the fifth best race caller in California is no mean feat, but hey who really could be better out there than Trevor, Michael, the fellow at Los Al and whoever is calling these days at Bay Meadows.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by OTM Al

I suppose an important guy like you needs to defend himself. I mean being the fifth best race caller in California is no mean feat, but hey who really could be better out there than Trevor, Michael, the fellow at Los Al and whoever is calling these days at Bay Meadows.

Good one OTM Al.
Surely Vic is better than the construction crew foreman who calls out orders at what was Bay Meadows.

(Vic - Keep up the good work. I luv your race calls. Greyfox )

[OTM Al]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Good one OTM Al.
Surely Vic is better than the construction crew foreman who calls out orders at what was Bay Meadows.

(Vic - Keep up the good work. I luv your race calls. Greyfox )

If I ever start a comedy act, I won't look to you to be my straight man. C'mon, you should know the proper response is "But, you idiot, don't you know they don't race at Bay Meadows anymore."

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by OTM Al

I suppose an important guy like you needs to defend himself. I mean being the fifth best race caller in California is no mean feat, but hey who really could be better out there than Trevor, Michael, the fellow at Los Al and whoever is calling these days at Bay Meadows.

That's it Al. I'm not responding to YOU anymore either.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by OTM Al

I suppose an important guy like you needs to defend himself. I mean being the fifth best race caller in California is no mean feat, but hey who really could be better out there than Trevor, Michael, the fellow at Los Al and whoever is calling these days at Bay Meadows.

Don't forget Frank M on the fairs and the great Scott Erlich at Cal-Expo.

You dolt. If I was responding to you. Which I'm not. I would say. Which I won't. That puts me at either 6th or 7th.

[OTM Al]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

Don't forget Frank M on the fairs and the great Scott Erlich at Cal-Expo.

You dolt. If I was responding to you. Which I'm not. I would say. Which I won't. That puts me at either 6th or 7th.

For the record you've now responded to me twice as well. I'd say 8th as I should have included the guy at Tanforan as well. I appologize to Frank and Scott, thanks for reminding me. At least I didn't call you Dic. Ooops I just did.