Eight Belles to this post

In the Sports Illustrated that came out on May 26, 2008, the Point After department on the last page was written by Selena Roberts and was an argument for abolishing the whip in horse racing.

From the article:

• Fair or not, someone had to be to blame for the chilling end at Churchill Downs on May 3, when Eight Belles broke her two front legs after finishing second in the Kentucky Derby and had to be euthanized on the track. So PETA fixed on [jockey Gabriel] Saez, accusing him of whipping the filly mercilessly – he struck her at least eight times down the stretch – and calling for his suspension.
• But just when my inner Mister Ed started to go sweet on Saez, he defended himself with loopy logic. "The whip is half a pound, and the horse is 1,200 pounds," he explained. "It doesn't do anything to the horse."
• Who knows the pain tolerance of a horse? And why beat its hide at all?
• Take the whip away and vanquish a symbol of cruelty. This wouldn't merely be a sop to PETA - it's a move industry types from legendary jockey Jerry Bailey to race caller Trevor Denman support if it can help restore credibility to every owner and trainer who proclaims that the horse's health is a priority.
• "I keep getting told the jockey needs the whip for control," says Dr. Wayne McIlwraith, an equine orthopedic researcher at Colorado State. "I think we've got reins to do that."
• [Trainer Larry] Jones counters with the New Coke approach: "If they want to go to a lighter whip, where the horse would still hear the popping sound, I'd be great with that." But lighter is still visible. It's public perception that empowers the PETA point of view[...]"
• Perception?" Jones said with a smile [...] "I know it's about perception. But I also know some people who say they use whips in the bedroom. Now to me that wouldn't be good. But hey, it's what they like."
• Eight Belles didn't have a choice.

Three weeks later, in SI's June 16, 2008 issue, the Letters page featured this letter:

If Selena Roberts feels that horse racing is cruel because jockeys often resort to a half-pound whip, perhaps she should turn on mixed martial arts and see humans beating the snot out of each other.

Did the letter writer not read the last six words of the piece? Eight Belles didn't have a choice. Humans - when engaging in mixed martial arts - have chosen to give and take abuse.

TSN Doubleheaders

Further down in this post is a full transcript of communication between TSN and me, but first the backstory. Last week TSN - Toronto Sports Network - attempted to broadcast an NHL doubleheader. At 4:30pm PST they began airing the Montreal Canadiens versus the Toronto Maple Leafs. At 7pm PST they were supposed to begin airing the Vancouver Canucks versus the Anaheim Ducks, which featured Todd Bertuzzi playing his first game in Vancouver as a non-Canuck. However, the Habs/Leafs game went into overtime, and then into a shootout; and before the shootout could begin, there was repeat zamboni-ing due to careless zamboni-ing. At 7:21pm PST, with TSN still not showing the 'Nucks/Ducks, I felt compelled to send them a comment via their website. And so it begins...

My comment to TSN via their website's contact us:

Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 10:21 PM

the canucks/ducks game on november 27th has started and i'm watching a zamboni driving nonstop around the ice in toronto... COME ON!!! SHOW THE CANUCKS!!! BERTUZZI!!!

TSN's email to me:

Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:44:57 -0500

Hi Rob,

Thank you for emailing TSN regarding Tuesday night's NHL game featuring the Vancouver Canucks vs. the Anaheim Ducks. I understand your frustration and would like to take this opportunity to explain why TSN joined-in-progress the Canucks game.

It is TSN policy to always broadcast a live event until its completion, and Tuesday's NHL game featuring the Toronto Maple Leafs vs. the Montreal Canadiens was no exception. The Leafs/Canadiens game went to a shootout and ran longer than anticipated. Subsequently, TSN was forced to stay with this game until its conclusion. Following the shootout, TSN did not televise any post-game interviews or analysis from the Leafs/Canadiens game and immediately switched to live coverage of the Canucks/Ducks game.

Understanding that coverage of the Leafs/Canadiens game would overlap the start of the Canucks/Ducks game, TSN commentators mentioned numerous times that TSN would go to the Vancouver game immediately following the completion of the game in Toronto. TSN also showed live coverage of the Vancouver puck-drop at the start of the game in a split-screen. At 10:21 p.m. ET, TSN joined the Canucks/Ducks game in the first period with the score still 0-0.

I hope that this letter conveys how seriously we take our programming responsibilities. Thank you for taking the time to write to us.

Regards,
Chobi
Audience Relations

My email to TSN in response to their email to me:

Sent: November 29, 2007 5:06:47 PM

Chobi,

Thanks for writing back. I understand why the start of the Canucks/Ducks game wasn't aired, but seeing as how the games involved were regular season and not playoffs - where games can have indefinite lengths - it was preventable. Here's a solution: Don't buy the broadcasting rights to two regular season games that start two and a half hours apart. Games that end in regulation time take the full two and a half hours to play, so there wouldn't be time for much postgame analysis or interviews anyway. Plus, there is a fairly good chance that any given regular season game will go into overtime then into a shootout (as we saw on Tuesday). Regardless of what happens, we can be very sure that any given regular season game will end in under three hours. So for doubleheaders, how about choosing to only broadcast games that start three hours apart, eg. 4pm and 7pm PT. Between games there would then be time for postgame analysis and/or interviews, whether the first game ends in regulation or requires extra time.

Rob

Lauding Local Letters

In this week's Georgia Straight [November 8-15, 2007] (which has an online story about "Cyprus" Mountain):

I didn't bother to respond to your article "Gas prices affect TransLink" [Oct. 25–Nov. 1], as I expected others to jump on the rich irony. As this has been neglected, I wish to point it out in an alternate headline: "TransLink dependent on cars". Is there no conflict of interest to having the body responsible for promoting mass transit receiving a quarter of its funding from people ignoring mass transit? Is it not at least ironic that TransLink would be disappointed that less people are driving due to high gas prices? All this is further highlighted by this week's report of senior TransLink officials unabashedly charging the taxpayer up to $15,000 in one year for their car allowance. I mean, c'mon.
> Mike Soret / Vancouver

In Wednesday's Vancouver Courier [November 7, 2007]:

Re: "Mayor disappoints the disabled," Nov, 2.
Oh I get it! Just like the executives at TransLink, who promote bus travel to the masses while soaking the taxpayer for their car travel expenses (the bus is too inconvenient and time consuming for these fat cats) the mayor, all comfy with his six-figure income, adapted vehicle, and staff-recommended parking meter exemption decal, has one set of standards for himself and another for everybody else! Let those on disability incomes feed their grocery money to the meters, limp to food banks for Kraft Dinner, and generally stay out of your way. Mr. Sullivan, NPA, as you sit pretty with your parking perks, callously distancing yourself from the realities of people needing help, consider yourself on notice: come election time, the disabled will not be ignored. We will spend the hours needed to book the HandyFART albatross ride (four days in advance) and God-willing, if they show up, you will not be twirling the Olympic flag for the world in 2010! Count on it!
Lynne McDonald, Vancouver