Fair enough. I cant say that I agree with you on this but I do get where you are coming from. Though I thought the 6th man analogy was accurate as if he was as talented he would be starting.

I just think that because turf and dirt are so distinctly different that to say a top turf sprinter is not talented enough to compete on dirt is like saying that a horse like GW is not talented enough to compete on the dirt. It wasn't that GW wasnt talented enough, it was he wasn't a dirt horse. There are a thousand Danehill stakes winners and not one of them is on the dirt. It would be hard to fathom that there isn't a horse by Danehill or another top turf sire that would not be a legit turf sprinter. The only reason that there isnt a tradition of top class turf sprinters in this country is that the tracks simply did not write the races. I believe that if you write enough quality stakes you will get a competitive division with talented horses. I have passed on horses at Tattersalles simply because there were no shorter races for them over here and I did not want to be screwed if they did not stretch out. The fact is that the dirt sprint division is been so weak in recent years that you might see some crossover from the turf sprint stakes to the dirt sprint.

If the BC and stakes committee are one in the same it is awfully interesting that they are denying the BC graded status.

It is hard to follow how the Breeders Cup is to blame for The Makers Mark, Just A Game or First Lady being upgraded. If any race deserves an upgrade it is the Makers MArk. Run in April, the last 3 year it was won by the future BC mile winner in Kip Deville, Miesques Approval and Artie Schiller. The First Lady gets a grade 1 field every year. The Just a Game is a race in June with little BC implications.

Which is kind of my point. If there were more opportunities than the talent level would rise proportionally. You would also see more imported sprinters though with the dollar as weak as it is only the mega wealthy could do it. It would also diversify the stallion ranks eventually which would be a positive for the sport in general.

That is absolutely untrue. The fact is that many of our top stallions like Mr. Greely are exactly that. You dont know it because there aren't any races here for them to show it. Mizzen Mast is another sire who has the ability to get a really good turf sprinter and himself was a grade 1 winner on the dirt despite being by Cozzene.

And horses like Midnight Lute can only sprint on the dirt but we dont call him limited or untalented

I hear you, it was the same point I was making about the Juvenile Turf when they first added it. If you make the race the preps will develop. I saw the Pilgrim and Miss Grillo already jumped to G3 as a result of the BC Juvy Turf. The combo of the BC Juvy Turf and synthetic surfaces has to give a lot more incentive to breed for the turf. I don't have a problem with the race, just don't see the need for $1 million unless they can become part of the international series and draw top foreign horses to it. The current top horses in that division are the ones that can't cut it anywhere else so I don't see them as needing a championship.

Yeah, but Mr Greeley is throwing runners in all divisions on all continents, he isn't just throwing turf sprinters out there. Maybe his horses would be best in turf sprints but the top ones don't run in them cause there is nothing to gain there.

I believe the Pilgrim and Miss Grillo used to be grade 3's

The Breeders Cup is not a real championship. Winning the race does not make you a champion or guarantee an eclipse.

He is a better turf sire and he can get a really good sprinter. There are a lot of horses that are bred to be turf sprinters but like you said there are no opportunities for them. There is no reason that turf horses should not have a sprinting division. There really isn't.

I'm pretty sure they were before dropping off to ungraded cause 2yo turf racing was considered irrelevant.

Don't let NTRA hear you say that.

I think it was becaue they cut the purses or moved them to Aquecuct or something.

Of course they are one in the same. Look at the names of the BC-BoD and the TOBA-GSC. Same people. They are going to do what is in their own interest. This year it was bumping up those turf races while maintaining G 1 status for EVERY existing G 1.

I have no problem with bumping races up. I do have a problem with not bumping races down. And they don't bump some of the deserving-to-be-bumped-down G1's because that takes $$ out of their pocket or the pocket of one of their friends.

Can you imagine the ill-mannered looks that would be shot around the room if Stamps, Dinnie or whoever just won a race or cut a stud deal for a horse that won a G 1 that just got cut down? The horror!!

And when it comes time to throw one of the children out of the boat and actually bump down a G 1, you can bet it will be a Cali or Gulfstream race that goes down.

I could not agree more.. A lot to do about absolutely nothing..

Look at it this way...perhaps people we race, breed, and train for the new races and designations. How is that bad? Is it a bit backward I guess ,but who really cares.

Which G1s do you think should have been dropped down?

That's easy. The Prioress has been the worst Grade 1 about 4 years running. I think this year was the first time in years a horse went into the race with a triple digit Beyer on their resume.

It is 3yo fillies sprinting in early July. How often do 3yo fillies ever break 100 Beyer by that point? The race brings together the best 3yo filly sprinters. Isn't bringing together the best what defines a G1?

Wild Gams, who was second in 2006, disproves that.

Did Wild Gams have a 100 Beyer going into the Prioress? I'd be surpised if she did.

As for the earlier comment above by Sniper, why do 3YO filly sprinters need a Grade 1? This race is a prep for the Test, which is a borderline Grade 1 at best; probably no more worthy of Grade 2. In 2006 an Illinois bred who was off the board in her previous race, an Illinois bred stake, ran 2nd in the Test. As for the Prioress, you see horses like Acey Deucey win and you know the race is a fraud. If there's a way to go back and check out pps from the race, go do it and you will be very underwhelmed. Take away the winner from the race this year and is a rich FNW2X. I've railed on this race for years and the graded stakes committee is stupid for not downgrading it.

Out of curiousity, which one of these two options would you be more inclined to bet $10K on......that I'm right or that I looked it up to make 100% sure I was right?