1. As a fan of the sport what are the personal ramifications of another Grade 1 race? How can 3 or 4 more Grade 1 winners take away from your enjoyment? Who is to say that a grade 1 winner will not participate in the new race or go on to become a multiple grade 1 winner?
2. 2year old turf races, a filly sprint and turf sprint would hardly cannibilize any existing races. If Hard Spun had not run in the Classic would would be different today? Nothing of substance. The fact that a guy can make an additional $15 million for winning any race on the Breeders Cup card is a good thing.
3. That logic is flawed. If there was a $1million dollar turf sprint it could be the US leg of the International turf sprint series which would certainly draw foreigners especially considering the bonus structure of that series. Spreading out $750000 out among the year long events would add far too little to these races to make any impact.

1) More terrible G1 winners like Flashy Bull cheapens the sport to me and in turn makes it tougher to stay a fan of the sport. It is like expanding the MLB All Star rosters to 40 and then telling me a player is great because he made the All Star Game. It just cheapens the whole system. I like it that you can judge horses by what grade stakes they have won and want it to stay that way.

2) I don't have a problem with those races if they draw quality fields. I said earlier I think the FM Sprint should absolutely be a G1. It is the tweener races like the Dirt Mile or a 10f turf race that I would like to see designated as a lower grade to prevent stealing horses from other races. Put them on equal footing and it cheapens the whole event.

3) I'd love it if the race were going to be the first leg of that series and would absolutely believe that would warrant the $1 million purse and G1 status. However, I think it is more likely it would draw a field like the previously mentioned Hollywood Turf Express which you could draw for $250,000 and have $750,000 to spread to the rest of the racing calendar.

The Canadians assign there own grades.

The issue I have with your 1st argument is that though I agree that Flashy Bull does not belong on a list of greats of the game he won a legit grade 1 race and he won it pretty easily. Sure the entire older horse division was crap this year but that does not mean we need to downgrade all the races. Determining the merits of a horse based upon his/her winning an single graded event and using the subsquent grade as evidence of those merits is a poor way of measuring ability. To say Horse A is a better horse than Horse B because he has a grade 1 win and horse B has a grade 2 win is an extremely simplistic and flawed way of looking at things. The fact is and remains that the grading system was meant as a tool for breeders and is flawed and arbitrary system. I guess the whole point is if it brings together a diverse group of horses from different areas of the country and world then why does any one care what the purse or grade is? And the truth is that the extra $750k would probably stay in the coffers of the BC where it does noone any good.

It may become the 1st leg of that series if it existed. How would that be a bad thing? It is like the all star snub argument. It seems like it is a story for a few days but in the end it blows over and only those directly affected remember. Only a few months ago the majority of people here were adamantly against a filly and mare sprint and I would say that the numbers on that have probably flipped. I agree with StS that the BC has ruined the fall racing season especially in NY but that is now something that is not going to change.

If the only thing stopping it from becoming the first leg of that series is getting G1 status then go ahead and announce it tomorrow as a G1 race. Until it becomes part of that series though it doesn't deserve anything more than G3 status and really has no need for a million dollar purse since the foreign horses won't come until it is in the series.

I was totally in favor of the FM Sprint from the beginning. I was in favor of all three from the beginning actually but now have soured at the prospect of the Dirt Mile going G1. I think there are even a few more races they could add (if they must add more) but a 10f turf race should definitely not be one of them.

I also dont understand why we necessaily are looking for more European competitors. Outside this year I dont remember the lack of Euros being an issue. I also think a 1 1/4 turf race would be overkill. The worst race and the worst idea is the idea of a dirt marathon. What kind of field would this race attract? The thought that that sort of race would keep horses in training or change breeding patterns is ludicrious.

If we aren't looking for foreign horses in a turf sprint then there is no reason for a purse over $250,000. The exact same American horses will show up either way. Spread that money elsewhere.

You mean there shouldn't be a million dollar race for Malibu Moonshine?

Dont even joke about that....

I actually think that a dirt race at 12f would be a good thing. I know that for the first few years, it's going to be very hard to watch because we simply don't have that many horses that can run well at that distance anymore. But I think that if there is a BC race for them and if there were to be a series in place throughout the year, say 6-8 12f races with purses of $500k or more in each and a points bonus attatched to it, in a few years, there would be horses to fill these races. Today, there is no incentive to breed these kinds of horses because the races for them don't exist. But create a market for them and I think that more breeders would look to fill it.

And I think there should be world peace.

I'll take my hope happens before yours.

Despite the negativity to the contrary, turf sprints are a staple of European , Australian and Asian racing. I find it hard to believe that a few of them wouldn't venture over. Personally I believe that the first couple races would draw alot of foreign interest as our turf sprinters are considered 2nd rate internationally chiefly because there are only a few graded races for them. There is no reason why we dont have a stronger turf sprint division. Everybody wrings their hands about so much overlapping of the same type of races drawing short fields but when we talk about creating a new division of races, pretty much from scratch, which can be properly placed throughout the calander with the BC as the final, legit championship race, all I hear is that turf spinters are too inferior to have their own race.

If the shoe fits.....

You dont create a market with 6 to 8 races regardless of the distance or purse. That kind of thinking shows little understanding of modern breeding practices. And the scary thing is that a lot of people are actually behind this idea. WHich is another reason why the sport rarely does anything right.

Too simplistic of an argument. There is no reason that we dont have a series of turf sprints ending with a BC race. No one said that the winner would be assigned to the Hall of Fame.

Apparantly you don't read all the threads.

How so?

It was joke about some of the crazy suggestions people make.

Chuck, the same horses will show up for $250K. The money is better spent elsewhere ( or nowhere ). Look at the Juvenile turf races this year. The Filly race, for $250K, was exactly the same as the Colt BC for $1 Million. European and foreign participation? You're kidding....right? We get very little and frankly the BC doesn't seem to want any. With many horses not nominated and thus forced to pay exorbitant supplemental fees along with no perks offered by the BC ( as opposed to enormous perks from Japan and Hong Kong ) the best we could hope for were European mediocrities who happened to be nominated. Boy, is that exciting....and really what championship racing should be all about.

Why should racetracks around the country begin to construct a program of races to lead up to the BC? The BC has done the opposite to major races all around the country. They have drained, minimized, and even eliminated major races in just twenty short years. What obligation does the racing community have to work with a group that doesn't work in their better ( not even best ) interests? And, quite frankly, just pumping up purses, and/or creating races, doesn't alter the fact that many, if not most, of these supposed races would be extraordinarily weak fields. And furthermore, if the industry is going to work together on something, a great idea, they shouldn't waste it on the superfluous BC.

Frankly, considering the greed displayed by the BC I am beginning to wonder what major venue will be even interested in hosting it in the future. One can dream, I suppose, that the whole thing just goes away.

This just in. No Grade I status for the "new" BC races in 2008:

http://news.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=42237

While generally of the view that there are too many Grade Is, I think the committee got it right with the three stakes (Maker's Mark Mile, First Lady and Just a Game), all at a mile on turf ironically, that were elevated to Grade I status for 2008.

Looks like the Breeders' Cup guys actually got this one right, too, by asking that the Committee table to recommendation. Sounds like they might have taken a good, hard look at their request...

Oh my! They downgraded the illustrious Washington Park Handicap from a Grade II to a Grade III -- and dropped the grade altogether from the Arlington Classic.

East Coast bias.

What difference does it make to Andy Serling or Chuck Simon if the race purse is $250 or 1 million? That is what I am try to convey? So what if they will attract the same field? Do you think the BC will use that extra money for good use?

There have been plenty of Euros that come when the races are at a location that they feel is suitable for them. This year obviously was an exception but I dont believe that it was a great year for top horses over there either. Hell just last year there were at least a dozen or more euros at CD. Many if not most Euros are eligible to the BC through the EBF. The South Americans are the ones who are not eligible and there probably should be a program where a horse can be nominated once they are imported for a pretty good fee ($25000?)

If you are that pessimistic that you believe tracks should not try to implement a series of races that would have possible benefits with little to no downside then this may be falling on deaf ears. But it would not be difficult or costly to do.

As for the greed displayed by the BC, why would they be any different than the tracks, trainers, owners, jockeys, breeders, sales companies, etc.?

None of it matters to me Chuck. Hell, why should any of this crap matter to any of us? Does Daafur matter? What matters?

That doesn't mean it isn't a stupid and indefensible idea to denote a supposed championship race for a division that doesn't exist at anything close to a high level and is populated by also rans.

I think the problem is that you are accepting these races as "championship" races. By changing the name that still doesn't make them championships. Was the Distaff a championship race this year?

No, but it was at least contested by a bunch of reasonable horses with decent accomplishments.

Let me add, the BC is supposed to be, by it's very conception, a series of championship races. Whether I accept them as such is besides the point. They are saying so.....and thus by creating a BC Turf Sprint they would be denoting a race, that by its very nature is likely to be at least mostly contested by marginal race horses, as a " Championship " event. It lessens the rest of their program if nothing else.

When the NBA started giving out the 6th man of the year it didn't lessen the value of the MVP award.
I just dont see how a turf sprint or 2 year old filly grass race effects the quality or reputation of the Distaff or Classic. Adding the Texas Bowl wont have any effect on the Rose or Orange Bowls. No one in their right mind would equate the winners as equals. I dont think that anyone would believe the winner of the FM Sprint the equal of the winner of the Classic.
But in the end it really doesn't matter what we think or what they do...

They asked them to table the request because they are going to add another race.

The NBA's Sixth Man awards a player of talent who helps his team. The BC Turf Sprint would award a horse too slow to compete against even mildly talented horses in other races that was the fastest turtle of his group. I don't see the analogy.

I believe in standards, Chuck, and if the BC denotes races for marginal contingents, so marginal in fact that there are a mere smattering of races for that group even contested annually, then they are suggesting, at least to me, that they have no standards. To me it marginalizes their entire product.

I do see a distinction between making $250K supporting races and making these same races $1 Million BC races. I am all for supporting stakes for divisions below championship caliber. I think if the BC is unable to make this distinction they are further marginalizing themselves and their product. I'm all for improving something, but to alter it to its detriment does the opposite, it diminishes itself.

First off, its a new type of race. Ten years ago, how many turf sprints did you see, other than maybe the downhill races at SA? This is a recent phenomenon, that seems to be inspired most strongly by the NYRA racing secretary(ies).

I guess I shouldn't have used the word "phenomenon" when describing turf sprints since there is absolutely nothing phenomenal about them. Hopefully, like new Coke, this fad will fade away.

Speaking of turf sprints and new fads, can an Optional Claiming Breeders Cup race be far behind?

I better watch what I say....

I find it funny that the BC people asked the TOBA Graded Stakes Committee people to "table" their request.

It's the same people.

How the Graded Committe found their way to deciding there would be 3 more G 1's in 2008 than in 2007 -- with no races losing Grade 1 status -- just shows how incestuous and self-serving the BC is.

I suppose I don't blame them for doing what is in their own interest. But not everyone is stupid enough to believe that we need three more Grade 1's when the entire fall racing season already serves as a prep for the interests of the Breeders Cup.

Eventually, the TOBA-GSC will be forced to downgrade races like the Cigar and the JCGC. And no one will care.

I just don't get all the disparagement concerning turf sprints. I think it takes a special kind of sprinter to be able to handle the turf, one that's a better athlete than it's dirt counterpart, as there's much more involved in terms of footwork on the turf than on the dirt. And, like all turf races, turf sprints are much more challenging in terms of race strategy and, in turn, handicapping. And I don't buy into the notion that only horses that can't run on the dirt turn to the turf, as if it were their last recourse. Two examples, off the top of my head, of turf sprinters that are at least as good, if not better, on the dirt: Gold Trippi and Giant Deputy.

I realize they're not top of the line runners but they're certainly not crows.

Can only hope that PJ Campo keeps 'em coming next year at BEL and SAR.

Not " only " but probably the majority.

I'm not disparaging turf sprints ( though I believe there are too many at the cheaper levels run in NY ). I'm all for a daily mix of races. If I don't like a kind of race I will work around it. If the turf sprints work for you, great, as I'm sure there are other kinds of races some favor that you don't.

That, however, is not the discussion at least I'm having here.

talking of euros attempting the classic, on dirt. not euro horses in all races.

Turf sprints are a last resort for any intact horse and any filly/mare simply becase there are so few graded stakes in that "division" and the whole game is about getting black type. I can guarantee there are no horses running in turf sprints that could be out competing in other more lucrative divisions.

That is poor breeding if anyone is that unblessed. People do everything possible to not breed a horse to be a turf sprinter.

yet, there are horses that are very talented turf sprinters; even excel at it. in fact, they're able to run faster on the turf than their dirt counterparts do on dirt (this is obviously because of the surface, right?). and, would probably beat those competing in 'more lucrative divisions' on the turf. once again, if we are to assume that these horses are the bottom feeders of racing, we need to have established that their dirt counterparts are better than they are on the turf. and, since, running on the turf is clearly beneath them, we'll never know for sure, will we? it goes round and round.

I also find it a bit ironic, that the very expensive, the very well bred, Green Monkey, was every bit the flop on turf that he is on dirt. then again, he was routing; there's still the sprint turf option left for him.

Yeah, and notice it is the last option. How many horses can you find me that established themselves as turf sprinters and didn't try and become a turf miler or a dirt sprinter? You won't find any, any that have the talent to get out of that division do so cause there is no black type to be earned there. The ones that stay are the ones that can't do anything else.