By: T.R. Slyder, TRSlyder@yahoo.com
I realize no one cares about this, but you'll have fun following along and calling out a liar. Jockey Robby Albarado is a very talented rider and was recently on one of my favorite television shows. But he just lied to America and I have to pull his card.
Please follow along and click here to watch an episode of the Animal Planet show called Jockeys. As you can assume, it's about horse racing jockeys. I was watching it tonight and noticed at the 7:13 mark, jockey Robby Albarado discussing him and his super-horse Curlin.
Now, Curlin is an outstanding horse, and one of my favorites. He's among the top 10 best horses of the last 25 years, maybe 30. The problem I have with the clip is that his jockey lies about him for some stupid reason. As I mentioned, it's at the 7:13 clip where his jockey says, "I'm Robby Albarado, I ride Curlin today in the Classic. We won the Preakness stakes, we just came off a win in the Kentucky Derby, we won the World Cup in Dubai, we won the Breeder's Cup Classic last year..." It's all right there at the link. I typed it out correctly. Curlin did win the Preakness, World Cup and Classic. But um, he did not win the 2007 Kentucky Derby.
Curlin and Robby Albarado came in third.
Robby's error cannot be confused with Robby himself winning the 2008 Derby, because he didn't not win that either. Kent Desormeaux did aboard Big Brown. This whole thing is just bizarre.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Wait...What? Robby Albarado Just Lied on National Television.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
I know that the majority of people that post information just do it for fun or laughs but it seems as if you are in the slightest way serious about your thoughts on Robby Albarado's comments. If you listen to the episode more than once you'll see that what was said by Robby Albarado was edited. He's never once stated that Curlin won the Kentucky Derby before so why would he do that now. The people who made the show jockey's edited the tape as can be seen by the blip in his statement before it was made. Its easy to see that was changed for some reason, i guess they thought that would add to the suspense of the race. But it was stupid for them to do so and even more ignorant for you to try to post something like this to apparently give indication that he lied. Apparently you dont realize that you could and might leave yourself open to litigation for such an absolutely stupid blog. I for one consider people like you to be immature and simple minded individuals that have no idea what the Sport of Kings really means.
Your arguments are decadent in their frailty. I literally do not know where to begin. I will go sentence-by-sentence. Your comment was 8 sentences long.
Sentence #1: I am serious about it. Also, you have no way of "knowing" anyone's motives for posting anything other than your own. Sure you may have assumptions or accusations but you incorrectly used the word "know".
#2: Are you asking me to deny a television show is edited? I will concede that I also believe television shows are edited. You also assert that if I "listen" more than once you will "see" it is edited. I will then ask you, if a blind person listens multiple times, would they also "see" that it is edited? Again, your word choice impugns your allegations. You'll be wise to watch that.
#3: You end a question with a sentence, not a big deal. What is a big deal is that you say that he never once said he won the derby. What he did say was, "we just came off a win in the Kentucky Derby". If you are correct, that he never said he and Curlin won the derby, then please tell us which Derby Robby Albarado won as a jockey? By "we just came off a win" did he mean he and some friends bet on the winner in 2008? Upon which ground could he honestly make that claim in the first person? Your argument depends upon that answer.
#4: The show is not called "jockey's" another grammatical error, but again, not crucial to the nuts and bolts of your complaint. Again, are you asking me to deny that a television show is edited? Secondly, editing is apparent, but Robby's assertion of "we just came off a win in the Kentucky Derby" appears to be uncut.
#5: I wish you would address how they maliciously coaxed Robby into telling such a fictitious fact. Did the director say, "Here, read Kent Desormeaux's comments from last week"? Even if Animal Planet editors are liars, and I am also a liar, why would Robby Albarado say something untrue? You need to explain that as well.
#6: This is perhaps your weakest point. It was ignorant of them, and more stupid of me? All I did was identify and report on someone's ignorance- be it Robby's or Animal Planet's. How can the identifier be more stupid than the perpetrator? If one witnesses a murder, is the witness more immoral than the murderer? Your logic would assert that the witness is. You would be wise to reconsider that. You allege that the mirror is uglier than the person before it.
#7: I "could and might" leave myself open for litigation. Really? Firstly, what is the difference between "could be open for litigation" and "might be open for litigation"? Secondly, no one knows who I am. Would you rather sue a possibly penniless blogger or a major television network? Noting further that the moneyed-television network did the alleged malignant sound byte editing, and the blogger asked "did anyone else notice this?". Most litigators I know would ignore the blogger. Thirdly, what law would you care to assert that I broke? Libel? I didn't slander him with malicious intent, nor did I knowingly publish false information. You cannot win a libel suit when that is the case. So what law did I break?
When you wear the big-boy pants of threatening litigation, you should do your homework better than you have done- like maybe mentioning a law someone broke. You'd also be wise to try to pick on someone that scares more easily than I do. When you jest about legal talk, you enter deep water. I don't get the impression you know how to swim.
#8: Oh wow. Come on now. Now you are being judgmental. I alleged that someone who said, "we just came off a win in the Kentucky Derby" claims that they won the Kentucky Derby. Is that really simple-minded? What you are doing is name-calling. You also had the pomp to refer to horse racing as "The Sport of Kings" using capital letters. No one in horse racing calls it that, you should know that. Much less with capital letters for initials. That comment was judgemental, and if I wanted to be judgemental I could be. And if chose to be, I'd ask why someone in Arkansas started popping off about anything involving royalty.
Conclusion: You must do far better to convince anyone. I thank you for reading my blog and I would love to continue this conversation over email. You know my email address.
I enjoyed your sophomoric rhetoric allegation against Robby Albarado. Either you are a very bored individual or you just look for things to pick at people about. Defamation of someone's character by means of implied or even factual information can lead to a number of issues that you or anyone else may face in the future.
Question 1. Before making a claim that Mr. Albarado lied, did you as someone who considers himself a professional (I would assume) do research, and request a copy of the transcript from the television show. If you have done this and you are able to see that the information provided by Mr. Albarado was untruthful, then my point is moot.
Question #2 Have you communicated with your attorney to find out what the repercussion are for making a false statement like: "Wait, What Robby Albarado just lied on national television"?
I will take a few more moments out of my busy schedule to repeat what was stated by Mr. Albarado thus clarifying that the taped information was edited.
His statement was: "I'm Robby Albarado, I ride Curlin today in the Classic, We won the Preakness Stakes, who just came off of winning the Kentucky Derby, we won the World Cup in Dubai, We won the Breeders’ Cup Classic last year, so we're looking forward to defending our title in the Classic."
That was his statement, and in listening to that statement I would assume that even a child would be able to understand that his statement was edited or modified by the people that produced the show. The normal assumption is that the majority of people don’t speak in broken English. Therefore filling the void for what was said after the words “Preakness Stakes”, we would most logically fill in: “Curlin or We defeated Street Sense, who just came off of winning the Kentucky Derby”. That’s where common sense would come in to most logical people. Maybe you don’t share that same type of logic though, well that would be apparent.
I realize that it makes for better reading material or can cause more visits to your blog or whatever void you are trying to fill. I would think though, that if you at some point want to become a credible writer, it would be best to do research and get the full story before just blogging something for the sake of blogging. Oh, and in the future, try to be more professional in how you handle your readers. It seems as if you don’t have anyone that visits your blog as of now, why run off the one person that did stumble upon your waste of space, time and effort. Keep trying though!!!
Post a Comment