The best part of this 4 page thead is someone saying "handshake deal" and "horseracing" in the same sentence.

Personally Why not take the 2009 BC away from SA (it doesn't need to be there 2 years in a row) Give it to Belmont and have the 2010 at Churchill. TO me that makes a little sense But there doesn't seem to be alot of common sense used these days.

I didn't write that. Not close. If you read what I wrote, you'd have saved yourself some time as I mentioned there were four. Not ALL.

There's no thinly veiled inference. Only the obvious one I mentioned which is that there are NYRA, NON-PROFIT NYRA, directors that have FOR-PROFIT interests that could be in conflict.

You don't see that? Fine. You can't perceive that? Fine. Are you stupid, inane or naive for thinking that way? Who knows.

Suppose you run a non-profit entity. You need a board. You can choose from a wide range of qualified people. But you choose to fill some seats with members who, among them, have FOR-PROFIT interests with, oh yeah, one of your two biggest competitors.

And you call me stupid?

Isnt there a contractual obligation already in place for 2009?

Number one.. You did say it:
Number two.. You got the wrong Evans... The Evans on the NYRA board isn't the Bob Evans at Churchill.. So your head count is off. Your whole concept here is so misguided that's its' comical. "NYRA's bloated Board" you wrote? That's funny.. NYRA has less than 20 trustees for the biggest operation in racing (22 with the 4 officers), and the BCL has 14 Directors and 48 Member/Trustees for a two day event. But NYRA's board is bloated.


Your suggestion is that the three NYRA trustees, that happen to also be on the totally inconsequentioal 48 member BCL member/trustee board, have financial benefit to gain from the Cup backing out of the handshakes deal with NYRA... That's what you suggested, and it's so utterly preposterous as to be laughable. That those three need financial benefit off their BCL member/trustee positions is so outlandish that I must indeed be Gump-like in my myopia towards its' obviousness...


You're impossible to deal with on any topic NYRA-related.. Its' quite amazing.

I thought I was in bizzaro world

The Breeders cup isnt going bankrupt any time soon. They already have a rather large war chest and will be receiving another $1000 from me in a month...

are you giving them the $1000 or are they taking it?

they will take it willingly. Actually it is $1500 for foal nominations.

I do not know what the uproar is all about. Does it really matter where the Breeders Cup is contested (as long as it isn't at a Synthetic track every year)? Who cares if the Cup is at Churchill, Belmont, Arlington, Gulfstream, etc et. It is a day of racing that showcases some very good talent, has large pools, full fields, and some decent payoffs. It is what it is and nothing more and nothing less.

It is $500 if you register the foal by Oct 15th

Talk about ANCIENT HISTORY:zz: who cares now?
I've been to two BC at Belmont since then and they were A-OK.

I see you fail to mention the last BC at SA...100degree heat, fires everywhere, ashes covering LA. I'm sure the horses just loved runnung in that polluted air...:zz:

3 foals

Sorry I couldn't add

NP. One is going to be EBF too so there is another $500

Cold??

How about the all the rain in Monmouth last year?? They could have stolen delmar's slogan - where the surf meets the turf - that day!

What next??? ....an indoor arena where the entire environment is controlled?