CCP: Let's Go 'Hang Out at the Track'

August 08, 2006 | Comments (0) | by T.R.

In one of his must insufferable rants, Colin today skewered Mets catcher Paul Lo Duca for what Cowherd assumes is a gross gambling problem. Yes, Lo Duca is in the process of a divorce, in which his wife has apparently submitted a petition to freeze some of their joint assets, presumably to avoid having Lo Duca blow the money at the horse track. "Hanging out at the track", according to Cowherd, is not the harmless good time it would imply, but is in fact the essence of moral decline in America. Admittedly speaking in "generalities", Colin proceeded to lecture his audience against those who "hang out at the track", equating them to the scourge of society, only one step above those who go to the dog track, and two steps above those who enjoy cockfighting.

Why am I getting picked on?

There are a bevy of flaws in this monologue, and we will detail three. Saying "I know I'm speaking in generalities here, but it's true" makes me want to stick a screwdriver in my temple. Webster's defines "generalizations" as "vague or inadequate statements". According to Cowherd then, vague and inadequate statements are true. Sigh....

Guys that "hang out at the track" are seedy individuals. Moises Alou and Michael Jordan must then be reprehensible people. Colin uses the example of Pete Rose and how "hanging out at the track" tainted his moral character. No, "hanging out at the track" was fine for Pete Rose, it was the whole "betting on baseball while playing and managing" that nailed him to the wall.

There's a big difference between guys who "hang out at the track" and those that bet on football and online. Really? Can you really generalize that? The contradictions to that statement are numerous, just ask this kid, or refer to the infamous Tocchet gambling ring, or note the rise in gambling addict hotline calls during March Madness. Note: No horses were harmed in bringing you these links. Now for the breakdown:

Was his topic/view informative?
Only if you're curious as to the happenings in Paul Lo Duca's personal life. -1
Did he dig a little deeper than just re-hashing the top story?

Probably, but it was certainly none of our business. Unless we're "hanging out at the track". -1
Did he give credence to the other side of the story?

No, and I'm sure he's not welcome to sit in on any Lo Duca marriage counseling sessions. -1
Did he use a fake voice?

12 minutes of the Pompous Ass voice. Does that count? -1
Did he repeat one thought/idea/analogy incessantly?
"Hanging out at the track". Upwards of 25 times. -1
Did he make an assumption or exaggerate to help prove his point?

The entire argument was based on generalizations and assumptions. -1
Did he contradict an earlier stance without saying he changed his mind?

Gambling is fine, but "hanging out at the track" apparently is not. -1
Did he alienate a good portion of his listening audience (like presumably over 30%)?

I'm not sure what percentage of his audience "hangs out at the track", but you can rest assured that they were offended. I'll dock him. -1

Final Score: 0 (out of 8) Astounding. At this point, I long for the days of his Pistons and Steelers bashing. At least those topics were timely and relevant.