When I started my blog a year and a half ago, my “goal” was to get noticed for my handicapping and writing ability and ultimately get picked up by a handicapping service or a publication, or maybe have advertisers begging me to put their ads up on my site. At the very least I was hoping to find a web designer who would take pity on me and help me develop a slicker site.

As Burns said, the best laid schemes of mice and men go often askew.

Somewhere along the way I thought it would be a good thing to write opinions. My first thought was to write about two topics: the parts of racing that needed fixing, and informational articles on how to bet and handicap. If you check my blog you’ll see plenty of articles on both, and they are as good as anything you’ll read.

One day I was on Twitter and news of Doug O’Neill’s suspension for Oxazepam was posted. The tweets were immediately harsh – O’Neill was seen as a serial cheater who continued to operate as a trainer in spite of his convictions. I’m embarrassed to admit there was a moment when I wanted to join with the crowd. After all, O’Neill was as easy target and piling on has become a national pastime.

For whatever reason, I started looking into the case and came across O’Neill’s letter explaining his side of the story. I also looked at the report Dr. Steven Barker prepared on the sample analysis. It struck me, just because O’Neill had this unsavory reputation, it didn’t mean he was automatically guilty every time he was charged. I wrote a blog suggesting maybe the New York authorities were unfair in this case, that O’Neill had some valid points. To this day I am convinced that authorities have not caught up with the science on environmental contaminations. The absolute trainer rule may make a trainer automatically guilty, but that doesn’t mean he did anything wrong.

After that for me,  Alea iacta est.

Most of you probably remember what happened next. I talked to O’Neill on the phone for quite a while, went out to meet him when I attended the Breeder’s Cup and that March got to spend three full days shadowing him all over the track. I had unrestricted and often unaccompanied access to the stables. I had the opportunity to question him extensively about any topic I wanted. I talked with his assistants, his exercise riders, some of his regular jockeys, his vet, his farrier, and even the state vet who examined the horses pre-race.

I wrote about my trip and made it absolutely clear that O’Neill had been a bad actor in the past, but that I believed he had turned a corner and rehabilitated. That remains my opinion, and I can only cite as proof the fact that he is winning a lot of races and big races and he hasn’t had a bad test since 2013. What more do you want from the guy? He made his mistakes, he admitted them, he paid his penalties, and he says he wants to be the right kind of trainer. Still, the response was about the same as if I’d said I was in favor of toradol for horses with breakfast, lunch and dinner.

I’ve freely admitted my current bias about O’Neill. He is an infectiously likable person, and we connected immediately. I root for him to succeed and he actually taught me an important lesson. When he was at his lowest, his real friends were there for him, and I realized that having friends and family support you is greater than having all the money in the world. I also believe Doug works every day to repay the faith of family and friends by being an exemplary trainer. There is such a thing as learning your lesson.

But I would staunchly maintain my objectivity was never compromised. I stand by what I wrote as the untainted facts.

And that, as Cantinflas used to say, is the rub. Once I decided to write about trainers whom I believed had been treated unfairly by racing commissions, I believe I became radioactive, although it would be fair to also point out I can be argumentative and very direct in my critiques. I took ARCI, the racing commissions in New York, Colorado, West Virginia, Maryland, and Kentucky, and especially Joe Gorajec to task for sloppy investigations and unfair treatment, and that didn’t make me popular in some quarters. I’ve been critical of the RMTC regarding its research for medication standards and I’ve been critical in general about the inability of all the stakeholders to come together to work on compromise solutions to racing’s problems. Like my fellow Amsterdamian, Nick Kling, I generally start off thinking I am right (perhaps it is the water, which has always been horrendous. When my grandparents visited from Brooklyn, they brought their own water) and it sometimes takes more work than most people probably think it is worth to dissuade me. I know it isn’t my handicapping or writing ability that is lacking. I shouldn’t be shocked that it’s hard to achieve success as the guy who unabashedly defends “drug-cheat” trainers (although I’ve never defended anyone I didn’t sincerely believe was treated unfairly). I’m not Ray Paulick or the DRF, mainly reporting the news. For whatever reason, I decided it was important for me to be a provocateur in a way that would make some of the people in charge uncomfortable enough to fix some of the obvious problems. Maybe that wasn’t the best way to go about being an agent of change, but building a platform for change is never easy. In the world of horseracing, it doesn’t seem as if I am one of the majority when it comes to some drug/medications issues, although I’ve said over and over that trainers who knowingly use illegal performance enhancing substances should be dealt with harshly.

I apologize for nothing I did. I wrote what I believed and I tried very hard to stick to the facts. I’ve heard often that my pieces can be lauded for the amount of research I do and my willingness to get it right. If I missed and someone pointed it out, I made a correction. As my father once told me, everybody makes mistakes. What’s important is that you know how to fix them when you do. If someone disagreed with me, I printed their responses in total and unedited. If you think that is enough to stop detractors from taking pot-shots, it’s not the case. I think I’ve got a pretty thick skin, and most of the time I recognized that if you stick your nose out, you can’t act surprised when someone takes a swing at it.

Still, sometimes things get to you. I remember asking O’Neill how he dealt with the vitriol on public media, and he basically said you just have to not look at it. Keep your head down and do your job as best as you can. Easier for him than for me.

One person on Twitter remarked that I was a laughingstock because I defended O’Neill, even though that’s not exactly what I did, suggesting I was the subject of regular behind the scenes derision. That might have been the most intelligent thing he said in a slurry of ridiculous tweets. I’ll just mention one advantage I’ve had. I looked O’Neill in the eye and asked him if we’d ever see his name associated with a drug/medication overage. He was looking dead at me when he told me he would do everything in his power to make sure he didn’t. Another person went into what seemed to be an uncontrollable rage because I had the temerity to suggest the RMTC wasn’t doing a great job, a position I still hold with what I believe is good reason. The lesson from that was, I will have a mature, intellectually honest discussion with anyone, but if you want to act like a complete ass I’ll have no more to do with you. Perhaps I am a laughingstock in some quarters, but I’d like to think most people realize I’m trying to fill a niche not many have the guts to take on, and I’m trying to do it sincerely and with no ulterior motive. I make no money from my blog, and nobody pays me to write what I write. If you agree with me great, and if you don’t agree with me but I make you think, good enough. If you don’t agree with me and can’t stand what I write, I have an easy fix – don’t read it. But never assume I have any higher motivation than to make racing better for horseplayers. If in some small way I am a part of that, it is all worth it. Believe me, as most people who lay it on the line publicly find out, the amount of shit they have flung at them publicly far exceeds the public praise, even if there is a silent majority who favors them. Believe it or not I don’t perversely enjoy having shit flung at me. Perhaps the Irish part of me avoids ducking sometimes.

I had a really good 2015 by most measures and I have a lot to be thankful for. I get to do a lot of the things I love doing, including playing the horses and writing. I have family and friends who support me. I published a book, I shot a 77 (not quite my age) at a really tough golf course, I can still referee high school basketball, and I made a lot of great friends on and off the track. I’m not sure I’d trade my life with anyone.

I’d still like to think I’m one of the elite handicappers (for NYRA) and one of the elite handicapping writers. I’m not bragging – I posted every racing day through the Aqueduct main season and anyone can check any claims I make. Besides, as Dizzy Dean said, if you can do it, it ain’t braggin’. I’ve got plans to write two more books, one on horseracing tentatively titled, Betting Horses to Make Profit, and another fictional novel. 

I’m not sure why I haven’t been “rediscovered” (I use that term because I have a lot of articles that were printed in American Turf Monthly and Horseplayer Magazine – not like I’m new at this – that have drawn wide praise) but like O’Neill said, keep your head down and do your job as best as you can. Expect that from me in 2016.