Thursday, July 23, 2026

NYRA

(The above photo was taken by the Eclipse award winning DRF photographer Barbara Livingston)

I have a new punching bag. Any long-term reader of these postings knows I sometimes find enough of my own bile to confront Maureen Dowd's bile, who is most snarky about Donald Trump and Republicans. If they didn't exist Maureen might need her own new punching bags.

I've realized that lately my dislike of NYRA, The New York Racing Association, which has been festering for years, comes to a roaring boil when we get to the Saratoga meetings. And not because I find myself paying an arm and a leg to go there and get a seat. No plans to go there in the near future.  I'm already spending less.

My longtime racing companion Johnny M. passed away on Belmont Day in 2025 at 82. I had Sovereignty, and he would have too. I miss him a lot.

We went there every year for over 20 years, initially buying three reserved seats for the two of us—which years ago weren't very much—because the seats are too close together. We kept the third seat between us for binoculars and the Racing Forms.

I don't remember the year, but at some point, perhaps under Christopher Kay's leadership, (eventually disgraced and fired for having NYRA stable staff  be his landscapers for his home.), prime location picnic tables became reserved seats, and the prices went up sky high. The joke became NYRA was looking to plant more trees to create shade for tables they can charge more for. I reduced the seat purchase to two, and suffered with the cramped discomfort.

The size of those seats remains, but the prices are now insane, $25 and up for one seat. Okay, $7 General Admission included, but really?

You can see from the telecasts that the seats are mostly empty. If NYRA wants to make the place more appealing to sit in—and likely just as expensive—then they should rip out the old seats, create more room for patrons that are not naked anorexic shells of themselves. Cup holders, anyone?

Eventually, Johnny M. and myself migrated to buying a table for two in the Fourstardave sports bar. More room to sit in, a table to write on, and food and beverage service if we wanted it. A win.

I don't remember what we paid in 2024, our last year at Saratoga, for the two Fourstardave seats, but I'm seeing now they go for over $30 a piece, and hit $40+ depending on the day of the week. Insane. Does anyone have any money left to bet with?

There's a $135 buffet! in the Easy Goer room (for one), the most unappealing venue to eat in. Only Joey Chestnut of Nathan's Hot Dog eating fame could make a $135 buffet pay on 9-race card and not get sick. There are all sorts of Tiffany prices everywhere. You'd think NYRA was selling tickets to New York Yankee games behind home plate. or horseshoe seats at the Metropolitan Opera..

From telecasts, it seems the crowd that does comes in, snags a free picnic table, or piles onto the apron to watch the races. Ground level is the worst possible way to see the races, but for $7 you can be a railbird.

Everyone is wringing their hands and bemoaning the decline of racing interest. The prices aren't what contributes to it, but hey do make it cost prohibitive to go to the races and view them in a little style—like having a seat that you can sit in all day. What a concept. If I buy an expensive ticket to a Broadway show I get a seat, not something separately priced.

There's nothing wrong with the racing "product" provided by NYRA. Purses are the best compared to any track. DelMar makes a big deal of being the Saratoga of the West Coast. The stands and building look great, but the purses pale to New York.

Today's NYRA Saratoga card is 9 races, with a $200,000 Black Type feature and other races for purses that total $803,000. Delmar, is only presenting 8 races whose purses total $414,000. No Black Type features.

NYRA has a first class online betting app that shows an ongoing, probable payout for exacta wagering, a must have feature for people like myself who only bet win and exactas. However, I've yet to sign up for NYRA bets. I no longer that often.

NYRA bets also provided AI selections based on so-called value found in the odds. This is called their Waigr feature. Get it? Wager spelled with an ai. Cute, right? If you like taking advice from something whose logic is unknown to you, go ahead. There is never anything, or anyone who doesn't have an opinion on the winner at the track. In short, information is never lacking. Lacking is people who bet.

Much was made of the youthful crowd at Monmouth's Haskell the other weekend. Despite the rain and the delays, everyone hung in there drinking beer and having a good time. But they weren't necessarily betting. Per capita betting was way down.

Racing is driven by handle, the amount of money bet. The latest, and most controversial of the wagering is the proliferation of so-called CAWs, Computer Assisted Wagering, by a nameless force that pumps significant dollars into a pool that can result in sudden, post time odds drops and truncated payoffs.

CAWs, if they do it right, can't lose. They get a 10% rebate on their betting handle. If they bet $100,000 and break even on bets, they still get a 10% rebate, $10,000. Found money. 

I'm going to think, as well as hope, that the CAWs are not influencing the results, but only the payouts when they're right. I'm not naive enough to think there can't be shenanigans, but I'm of the belief that the game is scandal free when it comes to who wins a race.

Of course, who the CAWs are is a mystery. Bettors are always anonymous, like the people who own the land and buildings in Manhattan. No household names there.

The image to the left is telling in several ways. CAWs are thought to be pariahs. But NYRA bathrooms are clean. They are one of the few places you can find a free seat.

Handle funds the game. And the handle is a function of how much is bet, and NYRA doesn't care where that handle comes from. David O'Rourke explains that they have slowed down the CAW intake by lowering the volume of CAW bets that can be made per second, and supposedly kept out of certain pools. To the bettors, CAW activity is only apparent when the odds drop like an elevator with a cut cable.

The "newly imagined" Belmont is set to open September 18. I remember when a newly imagined Belmont was the one they rebuilt in 1968, the year I took to racing.

The promotional material for the "newly imagined place" is stunning. Suites, box seats, concierge betting. Never will so many amenities have been created and used by so few, on days other than the Belmont Stakes.

Amenities is what the place needed. All recently built ballparks have boxes, suites, and high priced seating packages. To attract the Breeders' Cup NYRA needed a new infrastructure.

On a few occasions I was treated to a meal in the Trustees Room at Belmont. A nice enough place to eat, but very dated in how it allowed you to view the races.

It is interesting that in a "Cart Talk" with Jonathon Kichen, CEO David O' Rourke remarked that they had the money to rebuild the track surfaces. Getting the nearly half billion dollar loan from New York State from governor Kathy Hocul made the full "newly imagined" place became possible.

If you're unfamiliar with "Cart Talk", it is a delightful segment on Fox sports telecasts with Jonathon in a golf cart buzzing around the backstretch with a jockey, trainer, or a race track executive for a round of is basically softball questions.

Jonathon is a past winner of one of those high-end handicapping contests that has propelled him into a racing analyst at the desk with the other Fox/NYRA presenters.

He is informative and not afraid to pick the favorite. His X handle is "@UTBIGHAIR" which is understandable when you know that if he's not in New York he is based in Texas, and sports a head full of wiry hair.

My criticism of all those people who tell you about "value" and present overloaded horizontal tickets, that you likely have little chance of winning, is that they do not design a bet with what is lively and creative. They offer no Exacta advice, almost zero Trifecta advice, and certainly no rolling Daily Double advice. Everything is a Pick 4,5,6 ticket, with enough permutations, even with so-called singles in a race, and even at 50¢ bets, that can work its way up to significant change. Add to the likelihood you're going to get blown out on one of your legs early in your selections, and there are still races to bet. What do you do now? Only a few will ever go to the race track and leave early when they're losing.

NYRA is rightly proud of being the site of the 2027 Breeders' Cup races. But the Breeders' Cup people rent out the track. Any pricing for attendance and food is controlled by them.

So the Belmont Stakes is a guaranteed "marquee day." But NYRA knows that's not enough snob appeal. They need more "marquee days" and will designate them when they fill a card with Grade 1 races. Opening Day will certainly be a "marquee day."

And then? Belmont sits in Nassau County, just over the Queens, NYC border. It is not accessible by subway, like the now closed Aqueduct. Belmont will carry the load year round when they are not at Saratoga. Nuclear winter will be at Belmont.

How many people will come? Yet to be seen. But I know that when Belmont was open if they got 5,000 people on a regular weekend, and 2-3,000 on a weekday, they were getting a crowd. Will that continue? You betcha.

Saratoga is a vacation destination for downstaters, and a day trip for area residents. The track draws from New York, up and downstate, and people from Connecticut and New England. The demographic is decidedly white. If you hear Spanish you're overhearing the jockeys.

NYRA Bets is promoting its app with a commercial occasionally seen during the racing telecasts of three Gen-A's doing what we know they do best—scroll a smart phone. The female in the middle gets excited because her bet wins, and NYRA Bets is then giving her a free bet. At least NYRA is promoting what makes the place go round: betting.

I'm keen to get to the "newly imagined" Belmont and see what they imagined. My plan is to go soon after the opening, hopefully when I can get a seat "with a back" for free, and only have to pay whatever general admission they might be charging.

I want to give myself a self-guided tour ahead of descending on the place with the remaining friends from what was once the four of us—The Assembled—but is now only three of us.

I've yet to get a handle on pricing, and what kind of seating might be available for "non-marquee" days. I live in Nassau County, so getting there is not a problem.

Gone are the days when I went to the races over 30 times a year. But hopefully, NYRA will price themselves attractively, and I can go more than twice a year. I'd love to be there more often.

The remaining three of us are all Senior Citizens. Discount, NYRA? Cup holders? Come on guys.

http://www.onofframp.blogspot.com


Tuesday, July 21, 2026

Obituary Research

Ever wonder where the obit writers from the New York Times find so many facts about the subject, who, let's face it, is not a household name? I do. These are the tribute obits. The newsworthy obits that the Times bestows on the noted who have passed away.

The Times favors the creative types, film directors, artists and authors, and scientists when it come tribute time. The artists, who again, unless you're a gallery rat or majored in art somewhere, are generally completely unknown to you. Their works however do provide a lot of color and serve to fill out the six columns they generally get.

Scientists usually are of the Nobel winning type, and again, unless you did post graduate work in a research lab, you probably never heard of them. Writers, literary types, seem most favored amongst he tribute obit subjects. I have no hard statistics, but it always seems I get the chance to read about a writer who has passed away. (I'll admit, I'm not always interested.)

There's a new obits editor at the paper, Jason Stallman, succeeding long-time editor William McDonald. I'm sure there will be no change in applying the Gold Standard to tribute obits. Today's paper, predictably features a Nobel winning chemist, Rudolph Marcus, 102, who has passed away.

There is a lot of news about the prediction markets. Some insiders, like military people and  presidential teleprompter operators, have been snagged on making bets with decided inside information. That Kalshi and Polymarket even take these bets is beyond me, but there is money to be made. Lots of it.

Being a horse player and a person who has made bets over the years, I'm wondering if these platforms will entertain bets on whose obituary will show up, and what will be their occupation? Can I get action on saying that there will be three or more dead writers who get the tribute obit during a certain week? I don't make prediction bets. But I'm interested in finding out if there is such a thing as obit action. A new world beckons. Any alert readers out there?

Will we soon be reading about someone in the Times obit pool who has cashed in on "predicting" the subjects and their occupations that we will soon be reading about? It's a delicious possibility. Watch out. The Commodities Futures Trade Commission (CFTC) is appointed to monitor the activity is watching. The house doesn't like to be gamed.

But getting back to research, how did Clay Risen, one of the new obit writers who is extremely prolific, get enough goods on Shahrnush Parsipur, 80, Iranian Writer Who Persisted Despite Imprisonment to fill out six columns, with photos? (Mr Risen files two obits yesterday, taking up an entire page.) If you want to see your byline, head for the obits desk.)

Unless you're one of the Mensa crowd readers, of which I'm sure The Times has many, in all reasonable likelihood, you never heard of Shahrnush Parispur. That doesn't make her less interesting.

Her  best known work, "Women Without Men" was written in the late 1970s, but was not published until 1989. Her works had to be translated, and she was imprisoned on trumped up charges for four years. Her life goes back to injustices suffered under the Shah, and kept on going with the new Islamic regime's strict moral code. 

Shahrnush left Iran and returned multiple times. She lived out her life in California, apparently losing her literary anger because California didn't give her so many things to rail against, other than maybe traffic and taxes.

Aside form being a journalist and obituary writer, Mr. Risen has written  a well-received biography of Theodore Roosevelt. I gifted his book to my daughter, who is a HUGE Roosevelt fan having visited Sagamore Hill, Roosevelt's Oyster Bay Cove home many times.

The pièce de résistance in the Parsipur obit is Mr. Risen's quote of Ms. Parsipur's:

"The role of literature is quite clear." she said in a 2019 interview for the Louisiana Museum of Modern Art in Denmark,  "We must address these realities and write about how to solve them."

I'll leave it to your curiosity to read about how a  museum named Louisiana came to be in Denmark. Yes, Denmark the country, in Humblebæk . (I've provided a link. The NYT editor didn't think to use  one in the online version of the obit. Rules, I guess)

Turns out Louisiana refers to Louise, the name of the three wives of the original 1855 owner of the villa the museum is housed in. Johnny Carson's first three of his four wives, were named: Jody, Joanne, and Joanna. He used to joke he didn't have to change the monogram "J" on the bathroom towels.

What force of nature brought Mr. Risen to that quote? Did he learn Farsi and find it in an Iranian newspaper? Mr. Risen, by virtue of being a biographer of TR, would certainly know how to conduct research. But a quote from a speech at a Louisiana Museum in Denmark? The mind boggles.

Obit writers get their information from sources way beyond Google and ChatGpt. I know one obituary writer who was invited to give a talk at the C.I.A. at Langley. I'm not going to tell you who. 

The Gold Standard continues.

--------------------------------------------------
Bonus text:

Jeopardy needs a clue writer to replace one who has retired after more than 30 years. It would seem longevity might go with the job.

I like to think a Jeopardy clue writer applicant might score bonus points if they somehow craft a Final  round panel stumper about a museum of modern art named Louisiana that is in which foreign country?

Applications for the rare clue writer opening on Jeopardy! officially closed in mid-July 2026. The show's executive producer, Michael Davies, announced they received nearly 1,000 applications to replace a longtime writer who retired after 30 years. [1, 2, 3, 4]
The highly competitive, full-time position—which is based in Culver City, California—offered a lucrative salary of up to $172,000 a year. Because this is the first time in the show's 60-year history that the position was opened to the general public, the recruitment process was incredibly rigorous: [1, 2]
  • The Test: Candidates first had to pass the "Jeopardy! Anytime Test". [1]
  • The Samples: Applicants submitted 12 written samples of potential Jeopardy! and Double Jeopardy! clues, along with three Final Jeopardy! clues. [1]
  • The Ban: Writers are prohibited from using Wikipedia or AI, and the show's famously strict rules will immediately reject any application that uses the forbidden word "trivia". [1, 2]

http://www.onofframp.blogspot.com

Sunday, July 19, 2026

Regina v Dudley and Stephens

Because of the prior posting on cannibalism and an English court ruling, inquiring minds wanted to know who "Regina" was. Turns out it's "Regina" if there is a Queen on the throne; "Rex" if there is a king. Latin words, of course

Since Queen Victoria was sitting on the throne in 1884, it's "Regina." So, where Perry Mason might say "the people," in England in 1884 it's the Regina symbolically bringing the charges against the defendants.

The lawyers who I thought might render answer to to the question I posed at the end of the prior posting, did not respond to my query about any similarities between Regina v. Dudley and Stephens to "stand your ground" laws here in the U.S. The short answer is no, entirely different situations according to the other lawyer you can consult, AI ChatGpt. I must say, artificial or not, ChatGpt is proving very useful in getting answers.

All of this proves you can get answer to a lot of questions using whatever AI actually is.

ChatGpt

In English law, "Regina" (or "Rex" when a king is on the throne) refers to the reigning monarch—in this case, Queen Victoria—who represents the Crown and the state. In the context of criminal cases, "the prosecutor" is not a specific person, but rather the sovereign acting on behalf of the public to bring criminal charges against the defendants, Thomas Dudley and Edwin Stephens. [1, 2, 3]

Because the ship (Mignonette) was registered as an English vessel, the surviving crew members were tried in England under British jurisdiction. The actual legal arguments on behalf of the Crown were led by the Attorney General at the time, Sir Henry James, alongside Solicitor General Sir Farrer Herschell. [1, 2, 3, 4]
If you are interested, I can also provide information on:
  • The specific details of the court's landmark ruling on the defense of necessity
  • How Queen Victoria ultimately intervened in Dudley and Stephens' sentence
he tragedy began in May 1884 when the Australian yacht Mignonette departed England for Sydney with a four-man crew: Captain Thomas Dudley, Edwin Stephens, Edmund Brooks, and the 17-year-old cabin boy, Richard Parker. [1]
The Shipwreck and Survival
  • The storm: On July 5, a massive wave struck and crippled the vessel in the South Atlantic, forcing the crew into a 13-foot open lifeboat.
  • No provisions: The crew escaped with only two tins of turnips and no fresh water.
  • Desperation: They survived for two weeks on the turnips, a caught turtle, and their own urine. [1]
The Sacrifice
  • Parker falls ill: By day 19, Richard Parker drifted into a coma after drinking seawater.
  • The decision: Dudley suggested drawing lots to sacrifice someone, but Brooks refused. Dudley and Stephens later decided to kill Parker before he died naturally so they could preserve his blood for drinking.
  • The act: On July 25 (day 20), Dudley offered a prayer and cut Parker’s throat with a penknife.
  • The aftermath: The three remaining crew members fed on Parker’s body for four days. [1, 2]
Rescue and Arrest
  • The pickup: On July 29, a passing German bark named the Montezuma rescued the three emaciated survivors.
  • Honest confession: Upon arriving in Falmouth, England, the men openly recounted the ordeal to customs officials, believing the custom of the sea protected them.
  • The arrest: Local authorities disagreed and promptly arrested Dudley and Stephens for murder, while Brooks was granted immunity to act as a witness.
The Landmark Ruling on Necessity
In Regina v Dudley and Stephens (1884), the High Court of Justice ruled that necessity is not a defense to a charge of murder.
The court established several enduring legal principles:
  • No absolute duty to preserve one's own life: The judges ruled that self-preservation does not justify taking an innocent life.
  • Morality and law: Chief Justice Lord Coleridge stated that law and morality must stay aligned, and allowing murder out of hunger would create a dangerous legal precedent.
  • Prohibition of choosing who dies: The court declared that humans cannot legally choose to sacrifice another person to save themselves.
Queen Victoria's Royal Intervention
The court strictly applied the law and sentenced Thomas Dudley and Edwin Stephens to the statutory penalty of death by hanging. However, both the judges and the public recognized the extreme, horrifying circumstances of their survival at sea.
The Crown used the royal prerogative of mercy to alter the punishment:
  • Commutation of sentence: Queen Victoria, acting on the advice of the Home Secretary, commuted the death sentence.
  • Final punishment: The defendants served six months in prison without hard labor instead of being executed.
If you want to continue researching this case, I can provide:
  • The full backstory of what happened aboard the Mignonette yacht
  • How this ruling impacts modern legal definitions of self-defense
----------------------------------------------------------

Does the 1884 British law ruling of Regina v Dudley and Stephens play in U.S cases of stand your ground rulings.

Short answer: not directly, and generally no.

The 1884 English case Regina v Dudley and Stephens is one of the most famous common law decisions holding that necessity is not a defense to murder. The case involved shipwrecked sailors who killed and ate a cabin boy to survive. The court convicted them, rejecting the argument that killing an innocent person was justified by necessity.

Stand your ground laws in the United States address a different legal issue.

Stand your ground laws concern:

  • Whether a person has a duty to retreat before using deadly force.
  • Whether deadly force is justified when facing an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.
  • The law of self-defense, not necessity.

By contrast, Dudley and Stephens concerns:

  • The defense of necessity.
  • Killing an innocent person to avoid one's own death.
  • Situations where the victim is not threatening the defendant.

Does the case influence U.S. law?

It has influenced American legal thinking in a broad historical sense because many U.S. criminal law doctrines developed from English common law. U.S. law schools frequently teach Dudley and Stephens, and courts occasionally cite it when discussing the limits of the necessity defense.

However, U.S. courts deciding stand your ground cases rarely rely on Dudley and Stephens because the legal questions are fundamentally different.

Where might it be cited?

You are more likely to see Dudley and Stephens cited in U.S. cases involving:

  • Necessity as a criminal defense.
  • Prison escape due to emergency.
  • Medical necessity.
  • Whether necessity can ever justify homicide.

Stand your ground cases instead rely primarily on:

  • The state's self-defense statute.
  • State supreme court precedent interpreting self-defense.
  • The defendant's reasonable belief of an imminent threat.

Could the reasoning overlap?

Only indirectly. Both bodies of law reflect the principle that not every life-threatening situation legally justifies killing another person. But they ask different questions:

Regina v. Dudley & StephensStand Your Ground
Was killing an innocent person justified by necessity?Was deadly force justified against an unlawful aggressor?
Victim posed no threat.Victim must be perceived as posing an imminent threat.
Necessity defense.Self-defense doctrine.

So while Regina v. Dudley and Stephens is an important common law precedent that has shaped discussions of necessity in the U.S., it is not a foundational authority for American stand your ground rulings, which arise from a separate branch of criminal law.

http://www.onofframp.blogspot.com