With the advent of all these BC-sponsored races, BC Preview Days, and various "preps" designed to give individual stars an easy race heading into the big day, isn't the BC (directly or not) at least partially responsible for diluting all the big horses so that they can avoid each other throughout the year?

Not to mention a big reason why trainers campaign their horses the way they do nowadays is because they have the BC as the ultimate goal. That's why you got guys like Ron Ellis and Bobby Frankel telling you about how they're gonna get such and such a horse to the BC after it wins a Grade 2 at Santa Anita in February.

AP Indy passes on undesirable racetrack characteristics? Is winning a shtload of stakes now considered bad? He has something like 12% stakes winners in an era where 6% is considered good. Not to mention he is a very good broodmare sire.

That part was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek. Betsy kept mentioning that she wouldn't address all the flaws in his offspring that I was pointing out.

I figured the testicle thing would be the coup d'grace...

For what its worth, I always thought that a lot of his horses never realize the promise they show in their maiden and allowance races, even if they do go on to become stakes winners.

If the BC is the reason for trainers designing schedules the way they do now, why wasn't that the case from it's inception? People used to train horses and run in the big races and still make the BC. Somewhere along the line, that's changed. Back in 1987, Alysheba, Bet Twice, and Lost Code got together for the Haskell. Java Gold, Gulch, and Broad Brush met in the Whitney. A few weeks later, Alysheba, Bet Twice, Java Gold, Cryptoclearance, Gulch, Polish Navy, and Temperate Sil all got together for the Travers. Polish Navy met Bet Twice again in the Woodward. Java Gold went in the Marlboro Cup and the JCGC. The horses kept on facing each other in the late summer and fall and this was with the BC on the schedule. These days, that wouldn't happen. Some of those horses would instead go in the Jim Dandy. Some would go in the WV Derby. Some would go in the Penn Derby. Some might have gone to try the turf since they have those big purse races in Virginia. Some would just skip races in order to be fresh for the BC. I don't see how the BC can be blamed for the way that people think. I remember a time when it was common to run a 2yo 5-6 times and then have a 3-5 race prep season before the Kentucky Derby. But somewhere along the way, ideas have changed. It's not uncommon to see trainers give their horses 2-3 races as 2yo's and then only two races as at three before trying the Derby. Smarty won the Derby in his 7th start. How many had Barbaro had before the Derby? How many had Curlin had? How many had Big Brown had? Does anyone blame the Derby for the changes in training and racing philosophy? No. So why blame the BC? The main concept of the BC has not changed. It's the training and racing philosophy that has.

1987 was one of the greatest 3yo crops of modern time. There were so many good horses, they had to face each other. In fact, they made short work of all the 3yo and up races, too (Polish Navy, part of the lower echelon of the division, took down the Woodward). Using that group as a basis for your argument is preposterous.

The Penn and West Viriginia Derbies also didn't have $750,000 purses back then, either.

As far as the Derby goes, a lot of what you spoke of has to do with the race being a great "waster" of horses, meaning that a lot of horses don't come out the other end after the classics. Trainers with a good 3yo nowadays rightly or wrongly are probably looking beyond the Derby (maybe towards the BC?) and thus make adjustments.

The BC, on the other hand, is a great "waster" of races...

Your are sort of making the point for me. The Penn and WV Derbies are options that weren't there before. At least not real options for top horses. Add in the Indiana Derby and some other races.......there are just more options nowdays for top horses to avoid each other. That's not the fault of the BC that they avoid each other so much that the BC is one of the rare chances to get them all together and thus, a lot of emphasis is placed on the BC results when it comes to time for voting for championships.

Getting back to the Derby, I think that you are avoiding the question. The question is since so much has changed in the way people prepare for the Derby, why aren't people blaming the Derby? The answer is because the Derby hasn't changed. It's been the first Saturday in May for the longest and the only thing that's changed is the way people prepare for it. Same with the BC.

The BC is far from perfect but does anyone actually think we would have ever seen Bernardini, Invasor, and Lava Man face off a couple years ago if it wasn't for the BC? Bernardini would have been retired as HOY after the JCGC and all the Lava Man supporters would still be claiming he was best. Invasor would have gone on the shelf after the Whitney to rest up for his campaign in Dubai the following spring. If you have a top 3yo, and a top older horse on each coast they will find ways to duck each other without the BC, especially with all the superowners (and supertrainers) out there that will never run their horses against each other in anything but the BC.

Well what I was getting at in an earlier post, and perhaps this doesn't make sense as far as those specific 3yo races you mentioned go, was that all these "new" trumped up races are created with the BC in mind so that horses can get to the BC by following a path of least resistance.

And as far as the Derby goes, I didn't avoid the question. People do blame the Derby. The Derby trail (not necessarily the actual race--Eight Belles was the first horse to break down in it in a while) trashes horses. That's why the training/campaigning has been altered, but not the race itself. Its been around for well over a hundred years, not twenty.

The BC is not in the same boat. The Derby is just one part of the season (and traditionally the pinnacle), with many other prestigious races (from every division) taking the spotlight at various times throughout the year. The BC tries to drown all that out (once again, indirectly) and compress the entire season into a single day of racing, to the detriment of all those other historic races which ultimately become moot in the grand scheme of things.

Actually, back in the day, without the BC and with the Belmont Fall Championship meet being the lynchpin of the year, you might have seen those 3 horses hook up not only once, but possibly 3 times (in the Woodward, Marlboro Cup, and Jockey Club Gold Cup).

Then we might not have to speculate if Bernardini was truly a typical, gutless, overrated AP Indy.

We would have known for sure...with 3 straight, non-threatening 2nds.

Do you honestly believe that would still happen if there was no BC? I sure as hell don't.

I don't think you could be more wrong here. It's still Proud Spell's as of now unless Music Note or Indian Blessing wins a BC race. It's not lost.

Cause too many divisions have top horses with the same owners and/or same trainers. The BC is the only day where the purses are high enough that they'll actually run against each other. Plus with the Cali races, including the Goodwood, getting G1 status there is even less incentive for any horse there to come east. You would have years where the top 3yo and top older horses on both coasts never meet when they would have if there was a BC.

You and Betsy should just cut the crap and screw already.

To be honest, the Goodwood is perhaps the only existing race that the BC "improved" from a graded ranking and purse perspective. Oak Tree bolstered the race (and also created the Lady's Secret for females) specifically to serve as BC preps. Back in the day, it was just a Grade 3 race, mainly because in fact, the top CA handicap horses did go east for those races at Belmont (eg John Henry, Lemhi Gold, Turkoman, Bates Motel, Exceller, Cougar II, Island Whirl, Precisionist, Crystal Water, Ancient Title, Jaklin Klugman, Gate Dancer, etc.).

It also probably helped that Del Mar had no marquee handicap at the time either, with just a Grade 3 (the Cabrillo) standing in place of what would become the Pacific Classic. CA Handicap horses didn't have much to do at home beyond the Hollywood Gold Cup in June.