Harness: Crossing the line with derogatory comments

As a person without a Facebook account, I only get second- or third-hand information when it comes to the site. The reason I have shunned the site is not because I don’t have an opinion, but more so that I am not personally interested in whether someone likes or doesn’t like what I say. My opinion has remained exactly the same from the first time I wrote a column for Sports Eye somewhere in the 1980’s.

That being that, when I write something it comes from my head and no other.

As the former editor of Sports Eye, I often received “informative” calls from people in the business looking to advance their own agenda and hoping that I would take the sum of their conversation and convert it into a column.

There were times I found myself needing to criticize drivers for the action or lack thereof in particular races. One of the first issues I knew I would have to deal with was the speculation that my criticisms were based on the writer being a sore loser who was angry and lashing out at drivers for a failed wager.

It is for that reason that I never once was critical of any driver, trainer or even presiding judge based on the results of races I wagered on.

There is always a price to pay when your opinion hits a nerve. Some drivers and trainers accepted the criticism as part of my job while others were more than vocal with their criticism. There were drivers that threatened to sue and some that actually did. Fortunately, along the way none were successful in winning judgments.

There were drivers who called the office and started a conversation by cursing me out. There were drivers who were even less civilized.

Ironically, some of those who I criticized in print eventually got over the specific subjects and became quite friendly.

In today’s world with criticism rampant on a daily basis, you generally have to turn the page or pursue endless arguments. While Facebook and other social media have afforded more people with the opportunity to take a stand, the views tend to become popularity contests with some getting the misguided belief that if more people agree they must be correct in their judgments.

I speak of my opinion and its sole author only because I take personal offense at comments recently run in Harness Racing Update by Ron Gurfein. While I was responsible for Gurfein’s “Guru” moniker, I used the term only based on his uncanny ability with trotters during the prime of his training career and had no knowledge of a second venture.

For the most part, I find Gurfein entertaining in his current position but took exception to comments he made concerning the U.S. Harness Writers. In calling them out as “corrupt” In HRU’s December 27 edition, Gurfein used his broad brush to attack an organization made up of a wide array of members associated with the media. While his main gripe was an “omission” from the group’s Owner of the Year nominees, Gurfein went way out of his way to cast aspersions on a group he is not a member of and has never been associated with in his career.

In suggesting that “insiders” have an agenda, Gurfein proved incredibly hypocritical, as he has routinely used those of his own fan base to accentuate his own theoretical opinion.

Yet, I’ll give Gurfein a pass on his comments if he would be so kind to go back in time to a group he was actually a part of. Essentially when Gurfein was an active horseman, I don’t recall him ever calling out other trainers or drivers who were breaking the rules of racing. I can’t recall any time Gurfein was so concerned with the sport that he insisted upon integrity from all others in his profession.

Yet somehow now as a so-called columnist he has wrestled with his conscience and believes it’s time for all of those corrupt journalists to be outed because they fail to nominate an owner?

Talk about whistleblowers?

Gurfein’s concerns about Hall of Fame nominees rings hollow as well when you consider that some that have passed through into Goshen may not have gotten a vote had bettors been given ballots instead of the writers who were willing to look the other way at some transgressions and reward them instead from an historical perspective.

I haven’t always been a member of the U.S. Harness Writers for various reasons but I can say none of the participants fit the mold of being part of a corrupt entity. On the contrary, it has always had a base that cares about racing’s existence and future, and a group that is passionate about horses.

That corruption is ever mentioned about a group that is non-profit is insulting. That the word comes from an outsider that hardly cared about any corruption whether it was a driver stiffing a horse or a trainer drugging a horse is laughable.

I’m sure there have been trainers in this business that have profited excessively off of owners by inflating the prices actually paid for horses. I’ve known a couple of instances where a 10 percent commission turned into 50 percent. Perhaps the Harness Writers could come up with a new category, say for the most fleeced owners?

Finally, if Gurfein’s opinion of the Harness Writers as a group is to be taken seriously, it feels a tad disingenuous that he singled out “good” writers who he was not criticizing.

How nice?

It reminded me in some ways of my late colleague Clyde Hirt, a member of the Hall of Fame who managed to straddle the fence of opinion so often that he once actually predicted a dead-heat for win when asked to give his selections. Clyde wasn’t much of a handicapper but in the case of this prediction, it was more about not offending owners, drivers and trainers than it was predicting an unlikely result.

As usual this is just my opinion.