Is Stacy behind the missing comments? Or was it just Dan?

21 thoughts on “Is Stacy behind the missing comments? Or was it just Dan?”

  1. I don’t think there’s any problem with them deleting “Just. Gag.” Nothing substantial to that post. The other two are legitimate posts. The only surprising thing is they allowed two other posts of equal harshness to stand,

  2. I’ve recently posted the following comment on Dan’s article. We’ll see if it makes it past the moderators…

    “A mission of The Blood-Horse has always been to inform and educate the industry, and useful statistical information fits that mission perfectly.”

    Ah, excellent. This coming from a publication which publishes sire lists based on earnings. So, let’s take a look at the current list. Amongst the top FIVE stallions, we currently have Silic and Northern Afleet, both ranked above the likes of Smart Strike, Unbridled’s Song, and El Prado (etc., etc., etc.).

    Silic’s leading earner, Gladiatorus, has earned $3,255,000, which represents 96% of his total offsprings’ 2009 earnings! Put another way, if your were to remove Gladiatorus from the sample (as anyone remotely familiar with statistical analysis would do), you’d be left with a sire who (correctly) wouldn’t crack the top 100 list, let alone the top five!

    Seen in this light, the absurdity of Dan’s claim couldn’t be more clear. And there’s no reason to even bother pointing out any of the deep flaws in the “TrueNick” system.

  3. hey larry, good to see you on here, and thanks for the comment. ditto tinky and bsd — i’ve had a ton of private email on the matter on FB, but a lot of people are uncomfortable posting on here for fear of retribution from stacy….tinky, let’s see if it makes the blood-horse

  4. I’m a journalism student in college right now, and unfortunately I’m learning that this is what all media, not just the Blood-Horse, are coming to. Advertising is the boss of journalism more than ever before. If any industry could stand some constructive criticism, it’s horse racing, but most groups just fight over their own piece of the pie as long as they can hold out.

  5. Liebman, or whoever, has deleted several of my comments. Each deletion questioned or opposed part of Liebman’s post.

  6. MH, back when I was an undergraduate there was plenty of idealism to go around, especially among journalism students. I’m so sorry that my generation so miserably failed to preserve some of that for you. Stick with it. Maybe you and your generation can turn it around.

  7. I had a comment deleted from Liebman’s advertorial and I’ve also had comments deleted from other Blood-Horse blogs, including a comment on Jason Shandler’s blog that challenged his amateurish attitude and horrific handicapping.

    I think they fired some of the wrong people over there!

  8. Yes Jason often deletes comments. He is not only an awful handicapper – he gets a lot wrong in his “stories.” They probably get what they pay for or he sucks up appropriately because they have certainly let go of more talented writers.

    I was amazed that the negative comments on Liebman’s advertorial went up at all. Guess they just wanted to limit the damage and then shut them down for future comment. They probably don’t even have anyone left at TBH to stage a nice comment;)

  9. Tinky – It will be interesting to see if the BH publishes your comment. But, I’m curious, what do your comments have to do with True Nicks?

  10. The internet is a fantastic tool that has undoubtedly changed our lives. As great as it is, it has also given a forum and voice for the disenfranchised, the bitter, and the discontent.

    Some would argue that the internet, blogs and comments on blogs also give the lunatic fringe a democratic forum but as much as you comment that you have received support from people who apparently join you in your view but fear publishing such support, I would contest that 10 times as many people who support Bearse, the Blood Horse and TrueNicks chose not to bother commenting on such infantile tripe as they have better things in their lives than to listed to someone who thinks that turning a Tupac Shakur song into a useless ditty and basically making an abortion of the English language is clever (it is not, it just shows that your brain has turned from a razor into mush).

    Sid, you used to write a “must read” article in the DRF but it seems in your self imposed absence from the thoroughbred world, you are struggling with the fact that you are now on the outside looking in. It seems that rather than posting clever and thought provoking articles you have chosen (or has Werk coerced you?) to go down the path of posting matters that are clearly generated by a desire to settle an old score with Bearse and in doing so hope that you can besmirch TrueNicks a product that is clearly “knee-capping” Enicks and presumably your own commercial entity Ematings.

    So let’s call it as it is. This post and the others that you have done are no better than Ray Paulick’s. They are motivated not by a desire to present interesting and thought provoking points of view, rather just help you both gain a profile which your now lack of discipline does not deserve and settle an old score.

    How about you write something worth reading.

  11. MH — hang in there in journalism school.
    ratherrapid — not surprised.
    roger — good advice to MH.

    cinco — not surprised, and I agree.

    barbara — i was surprised too, and impressed dan put the comments up, as i said.

    port stanley — i’ll be interested, too.
    ad abolendam — you think? by the way, i actually like true nicks, dedveloped by my friend alan porter; my gripe is not against true nicks….i hope you can find something in past posts that might suit your interest if tupac is not your cup of tea…and by the way, i appreciate your defense of stacy.

  12. Port Stanley –

    True Nicks, and all statistical approaches to understanding Thoroughbred racing and breeding, have varying degrees of value. Many of them, such as the classic “sire list” published by the BH, are so flawed as to have as serious chances of misleading users. The flaw that I outlined above is the current iteration of the one that first taught me how absurd such lists can be – when, years ago, Ole Bob Bowers was listed above the likes of Danzig and Nijinsky.

    Now give this some thought: of what value is a list that can (and often does) include such absurdities. Either a list means something, or it doesn’t. If a sire is, by all meaningful criteria, worse than 100 others (or more), yet appears in the top five of of the “Sire List”, what does that say about the value of the exercise? How can you take seriously the positions of ANY of the other sires?

    Liebman stated in that post that the BH provides “useful statistical information fits that mission perfectly.” Well, that may be true in some cases, but if one of their most basic and important statistical analyses is so warped, I find it laughable that he would be boasting about their stats.

    Now, to your specific question, True Nicks may have some value to some people. It is a flawed system, which, when over-emphasized, can lead to some very bad decisions. But I was reacting more to Leibman’s broad comments than specifically to the True Nicks issue. The connection between the two is that statistical analyses require careful interpretation, and too many users take them at face value. And that, as suggested above, is a very dangerous thing to do.

    Finally, Liebman did not post my critical comment. What a surprise.

  13. Chris Dawahare, Operations Manager, Digital Media, at Blood-Horse Publications, sent me an explanation about what happened with the posted comments on Dan’s column. He said neither Stacy nor Dan authorized the removal of the comments. Thanks for the explanation, Chris. Here’s his email to me:

    Sid,

    I wanted to provide a point of clarification to your recent blog post, “Stacy behind the missing comments?”. As you noted in your blog, all of our blogs are moderated and blog and all blog comments are reviewed prior to being published. Sometime last week, the setting in our blog software was changed to “comments do not require moderation”. The What’s Going On Here comments that you referenced were published without our knowledge. Once the problem was identified, a web production member went into the blog and cleaned it up. Other blogs were affected as well but most likely you did not see those comments. We were never told to delete any of the What’s Going On Here comments by Stacy or Dan.

    As a normal rule, the web production department monitors the blogs and decides which comments are appropriate to publish (there are a few exceptions, such as Jason Shandler and his blog). We try and use our best judgment when making this determination.

    If you have any questions for me, please do not hesitate to ask. Thank you.

    Best Regards,

    Chris Dawahare

  14. Ad Abolendam, a fitting pseudonym for one who so transparently expresses an interest in the suppression of speech–at least, that of others. There are many among us who think it’s a good thing that the internet provides a forum for “the disenfranchised, the bitter, and the discontent (sic).” Your sneering ridicule of that function is, frankly, quite at odds with the way most of us view the internet. Most of us think that the internet’s role as a “democratic forum” is its highest calling. Surely, you aren’t one of those people who sees it as just another way to make money. Is that what you think is so “great” about it? Didn’t you read what MH had to say?

    Sorry, in Sid’s speech I don’t see the motives you attribute to it. I find humor and good will, mostly, and, most of all, inclusiveness. The bitterness I’ve seen so far is all in your speech. You inhabit a strange world, Ad Abolendam–a world in which the choice to spend ten years involved in youth baseball is “a self-imposed absence.” Absence from what? Oh, yes, making money. You live in a sinister world in which actions are explainable only in terms of dark motives (“settle an old score”), coercion (Sid Fernando coerced; are you kidding?), and violence (TrueNicks knee-capping eNicks; that’s a strange take on the situation).

    As Stacy himself reminds us at every opportunity, The Blood-Horse is an industry-owned publication, and we all have a stake in it, whether it accepts our advertising or not. Anyone who picks up the June 6, 2009 issue, which consists largely of self-promotion, finds reason to be troubled. Here’s how absurd the situation is: if I want to find out what Tinky has to say to The Blood-Horse, I can only read it at Sid’s site. The Blood-Horse seems to think it owns the industry. Ad Abolendam, I deeply respect your right to express your views (and I’m glad you have), but I feel it my duty to tell you that I find them delusional.

  15. Lyons’ quote:
    Ad Abolendam, a fitting pseudonym for one who so transparently expresses an interest in the suppression of speech–at least, that of others. There are many among us who think it’s a good thing that the internet provides a forum for “the disenfranchised, the bitter, and the discontent (sic).” Your sneering ridicule of that function is, frankly, quite at odds with the way most of us view the internet. Most of us think that the internet’s role as a “democratic forum” is its highest calling. Surely, you aren’t one of those people who sees it as just another way to make money. Is that what you think is so “great” about it? Didn’t you read what MH had to say? Endquote.

    Actually, the internet, as a venue for the free exchange of opinions, whether those of the “bitter and disenfranchised,” or otherwise, is not really the issue, I believe.

    Some of the inane and blood-thirsty rants I have read on other forums serve as evidence to me of the sad result of the steady dumbing down of this country — and with it, the idea that “freedom of speech” means that you may incite one’s chosen tribe to violence as much as you damned well please. So that makes the venue a double-edged sword: It allows ignorant rabble rousers to exchange their peculiar ideas (whether coherent or not) freely with those whose shoes they are not fit to shine. And I don’t mean that in an elitist sense whatsoever — except that one’s IQ and education, and reading comprehension, make some people eminently (usually) more qualified than others to expound upon any given subject.

    Lyons’ quote:
    Sorry, in Sid’s speech I don’t see the motives you attribute to it. I find humor and good will, mostly, and, most of all, inclusiveness. The bitterness I’ve seen so far is all in your speech. You inhabit a strange world, Ad Abolendam–a world in which the choice to spend ten years involved in youth baseball is “a self-imposed absence.” Absence from what? Oh, yes, making money. You live in a sinister world in which actions are explainable only in terms of dark motives (”settle an old score”), coercion (Sid Fernando coerced; are you kidding?), and violence (TrueNicks knee-capping eNicks; that’s a strange take on the situation). End quote.

    Actually, the decision to spend 10 years involved in youth baseball, while possibly altruistic in nature, is still indisputably a “self-imposed absence,” and the result of that decision is the sole responsibility of the one choosing to absent oneself. Had this individual had a 10-year hiatus due to being in a coma, for instance, he still would have to deal with the same result, however. In my opinion, you and Mr. Fernandez are aligning yourselves with a system in which you have a financial and/or emotional stake. To accuse others who are trying to make a living of trying to sabotage another system, is merely a pot/kettle/black tactic.

    Lyons’ quote:
    As Stacy himself reminds us at every opportunity, The Blood-Horse is an industry-owned publication, and we all have a stake in it, whether it accepts our advertising or not. Anyone who picks up the June 6, 2009 issue, which consists largely of self-promotion, finds reason to be troubled. Here’s how absurd the situation is: if I want to find out what Tinky has to say to The Blood-Horse, I can only read it at Sid’s site. The Blood-Horse seems to think it owns the industry. Ad Abolendam, I deeply respect your right to express your views (and I’m glad you have), but I feel it my duty to tell you that I find them delusional.
    End quote.

    Why would the Blood Horse not endorse its own product? They need not accept the advertising of those that would denigrate their product publicly. I think that the real issue here is that that after many years of being the only game in town, the E-Nicks crew are become shrill in their desperation and are pointlessly lashing out. In the process, they are making themselves appear laughably vulnerable.

  16. Give Me Yeats — Er, it’s Fernando — not Fernandez….he was the pitcher for the NY Mets during the Dwight Gooden era….you really need to read carefully, because nowhere in my posts is there a criticism of TrueNicks the product. In fact, I speak to Alan Porter, the developer of the system, on a daily basis and am friends with him and have done business with him…..what you really need to do — instead of being so shrill yourself — is understand the issue of journalistic integrity as the issue on the boards. You write very well, but I wish you would listen, too.

  17. Oh Yeats — for the record, I do not have a financial stake in eNicks. thanks for the comments.

    Roger — you, too, thanks for the comments. I agree with your comment that BH (Stacy) thinks it owns the industry…in fact, you said Stacy reminds us it’s an industry-owned publication, but sometimes i think Stacy thinks it’s an “industry-OWED publication.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s