Breeders' Cup Going for Grade 1's Again
 

Story from Thoroughbred Times

Just like last year, the Breeders' Cup is going for Grade 1 status for the 3 new races, and they are considering another $1 million race for the program.

They at least had Grade 1 winners in two of the three new races, which should help their cause, but I still am not sure they should go straight to a Grade 1, although I can see the argument from both sides.

Do you think they will receive the G1 status, and what are your feelings about adding another big race this soon?

BCL should be made to wait the full three years like every other venue applying for graded status. What are next year's 2 main track BC prelims going to tell us exactly being run on the Cushion for the first time? Let them get three years of fields to analyze which will include whatever venue gets the 2009 'festivus' and then give them whatever status the races deserve based on the fields.

Obviously these three initial new races will have zero bearing on any division championship this year or any time soon, so IMO... "here's your hat, what's your hurry?"

The article said the new race would be a turf sprint. I'd prefer the filly and mare turf mile. But a Turf sprint being the new race in time for Santa Anita next year makes me lick my chops. What do you guys think of this name?

"The Breeder's Cup Down-the-Hill-Mil"
Make it a 5f Turf sprint any year except when the BC is at SA. Then you gotta go 6.5 down the hill.

They said most likely a turf sprint (mainly geared toward the males but really both sexes like the BC Sprint). I don't think there's a point for a mile and a quarter on turf. If a horse can't get a mile and half, the mile's too tough or too short for them, and they can handle a little extra distance, they're gonna take a shot at the Classic on dirt. They'll never make the 1 1/4 turf race the same value of the BCC so you'll always lose the bulk of the contenders because it's just too much money to lose.

The BC people need to get in gear on coming up with G1 Juvenile races on turf. They have to show some movement toward developing that or I can't see the BC Juvenile Turf getting G1 status this year. Not that I wouldn't like it to have it at some point but no Euro G1 turfers made it and we don't have the opportunity yet to make our own so something's gotta give for it to have impact on year end honors. It's really a race in freefall at the moment.

From a marketing perspective it is quite perfectly actually. Running it at a unique distance and set up adds to the hype and gets the ball rolling quickly. Just look at how many people were talking about the Dirt Mile and 70.

I know that I showed my friends, who go to the track with me but don't follow horse racing, a race down the hill at TVG and half thought it was pretty cool and the other half thought it was the most retarded thing ever.

some what off-topic, but any chance they'd give the Fairgrounds the 2009 B/C? agree they should wait the full 3 years....

Is there a single Grade 2 Turf Sprint in the US during the course of the year?

Personally I think this is yet another example of how out of touch the BC is with American racing in general. Expecting the 2YO turf race to be a Grade 1 is absurd and indefensible. I have no problem with the other two races being Grade 1s...but the 2YO race should be a Grade 3. Hell, there isn't even one graded 2YO turf stake in the US prior to the BC....but they think they deserve a Grade 1. What fantasy world are they living in?

I don't see the point of a turf sprint at the BC yet. While I think it could be a fun and exciting race, there is no series of races that comes anywhere close to being considered legit preps for it.

I imagine you'd see plenty of equality between the sexes in that race. Fillies and mares who are good sprinting on the lawn can hold their own against the boys -- arguably even better than on dirt.

Turf sprints are basically for horses too slow to compete in other races....either sprinting on the dirt or going long on the turf. Why the BC feels a need to reward these horses is beyond me.

Oh, sorry, it isn't.....they don't have a clue.

I agree.

10 furlongs on turf can be suited to a completely different horse than the mile or the 12 furlong race.

Desert War in Australia comes to mind.

I thought the original idea of the BC was to crown champions. How exactly does diluting the fields even further by adding a Mile and a Quarter turf race achieve that goal? Hell, they only had 8 in the BC Turf this year. I'm very curious who the prospective champions are that would have made up the field for the 1 1/4 race. Certainly they couldn't have come from the meager fields we saw for this year's BC preps.

Go Between.

OK, at least we have one sane member here.

I am curious though, about your thought that horses run in turf sprints because they are too slow to run sprinting on dirt or going a mile on the green.

Maybe I haven't thought about it enough, but for a horse like Nicole's Dream, before she was retired -- it was just what she was good at.

Is it not possible that some horses are just suited to sprinting on the grass? I'll use Arlington as an example. There plenty of horses who can win there going six furlongs on the dirt (or now, poly) but couldn't win a mile event out of the chute to save their lives. Maybe you're just making a generalization based on the recent proliferation of cheap maiden sellers and NW1X grass sprints full of 20-time losers -- but at the level where we're getting multiple winners and higher-end optional claimers, I tend to disagree and think that some horses are just better suited for that trip.

Of course, this question is only in relation to turf sprinting in general, and not having a BC race for them.

Take a look at the pps of the horses that competed in the Turf Express at Hollywood on Saturday.

After doing so I am guessing you will agree with me.

I personally find turf sprints to be just about the most exciting/challenging race there is.

If it were as simple as putting your bad horses in these types of races, then why wouldn't those with decent sprinters, say, enter them in some of these races and collect comparable purses in less competitive, by your assumption, races?

As for these horses not being able to stretch out: This is because stretching out on the turf is a bit more nuanced than stretching out on the dirt. Going from one to two turns presents all sorts of footwork issues--even to horses experienced in doing so. Which makes your favorite horse's, Sleeping Indian, stretch out to 2 turns all the more impressive, slow pace and all: he was on the correct lead throughout -- which is alot more than can be said for English Colony's 1st (quasi) 2 turn effort.

That's fine that you find them a handicapping challenge.

How exactly does that qualify them for a supposed championship race? Where is the precedent for this in a country without even a Grade 2 race in that category?

And, furthermore, the reason " decent sprinters " don't run in turf sprints is because there is no money in those races and no graded status to add to their potential residual value. These races are called the BREEDERS Cup.....so why exactly should they be honoring horses that only run in these races because they aren't good enough to run in races that enhance their BREEDING value?

I imagine some " decent " sprinters might show up in a $1 Million BC race....you know the " decent " kind that are too slow to have any chance in the dirt BC sprint. To me that hardly makes it a race of any kind of championship quality.

So now we're not really focusing on mediocre dirt horses but rather those good enough to compete in quality races.

And, if there's a BC race for turf routers and turf milers, why shouldn't there be one for turf sprinters? Assuming we're discussing the addition of races.

Frankly, I'd much rather have seen a BC turf sprint at MTH (friday's card) than 2 mile races for 2 year olds.

It's also not a certainty, at least to me, that the best dirt sprinter will beat the best turf sprinter on the turf. Until that's proven to be the case, there's a place for the turf sprinter.

How about running a $250K for turf sprinters in addition to the 2YO fields? Certainly that would have gotten the same field as a phony BC race would have gotten.

Frankly, the BC needs to find a way to facilitate foreign participation, like every other country does. That is a far more pressing need than adding races of dubious quality.

If you want the Breeders' Cup to attract foreign based horses.

Take a look at the lineup that Hong Kong offers on December 9th.

The grass sprinters in that field definitely aren't racing because they are subpar and can't cut it on dirt. And there is a mile, a ten furlong, and a twelve furlong event. All different type horses, all quality fields.

If we want to attract foreign participation, card races that foreign based horses run in. Australian, Hong Kong, and Japanese racing all have spectacular sprinters on turf. They also have extraordinary 10 and 12 furlong horses on turf.

How do we get them to come instead of sub-par European horses?

Status and money that beats their own domestic races.

Turf sprints are **** here, but they are big time down under and in Asia.

Hong Kong pays the expenses of the horses, and their connections, to come for those races. The BC does not. Plus, the current value of the US dollar isn't helping either.

the HK Sprint is the World Championship turf sprint race attracting the best horses from Europe, Asia and Australia. Any addition of its kind to the Breeders Cup would not add alot IMO..

in my opinion they are just going to ruin the breeder's cup with too many options. The 3 races they added this year sort of made sense.

I hate turf sprints though, if that's what they're adding now. I guess it's just from having to handicap 12 horse maiden turf sprints at Belmont where no horse has any reliable form that I slowly began to hate turf sprints...:mad:

You must not have been around when the whole thing was being discussed. The major factor in the creation of the Breeders' Cup was early retirements of top colts and finding a way to prevent them. The original race (Classic) was framed as an enticement for post-Triple Crown 3yos to be kept in training for the fall by dangling a huge purse in front of the owners. The other races were added to get the managers of stallions unlikely to sire top-class 10f runners to pony up fees.

By the way, there were no G1 sprints or G1 turf miles in the US before the Breeders' Cup program came along. The sprint championship was most often a consolation award to sprinter/milers who couldn't step up to classic distances (Dr. Patches, My Juliet) or an extra honor to the classic distance champion who also won sprint races (Forego, Ack Ack). Pure 6f sprinters horses were a minority among sprint championship winners (Ta Wee, Gallant Bob) until the Breeders' Cup came along.

Foreign participation isn't going to increase in the foreseeable future. Southern Hemisphere horses aren't going to come because they are in the midst of their own classic carnivals and most would have to supplement. The Japanese would have to supplement, too, and their purses are much bigger than ours. George Washington's fate is going to discourage Euros from trying the Classic for a bit of time. The three turf races are going to contiue to get a mix of good and second level horses, since by the end of October many of the Euros are 'over the top' (ready for a rest after a long season) or 'gone in their coats' (started growing a winter coat and presumed to have gone into a winter metabolism).

I'm not sure i'm in favour of a BC Turf Sprint but it would attract European sprinters-because even with the weakness of the $-a purse of $1 Million which gives the winner earnings of about £270,000 is much more than they could win here.

Also if this race was created-obviously a fair number of Graded Stakes would be added to the calendar in North America and i can see the number of European sprinters being sold into American ownership or campaigned in the US going through the roof.

i saw that a marathon is under consideration--or that someone thought it should be under consideration. maybe that would generate more interest from over seas.

i also think the bc should have to wait for their status just like everyone else.

i doubt george will keep everyone else out. that's the only horse in over 20 years of trying that has lost his life. i certainly hope that the euros are made of sterner stuff. i don't see them avoiding their own turf races after dylan thomas' breakdown.

also, don't forget the races next year are on all weather. if anything, more euros will make the attempt at classic glory.

Don't forget Landseer off the top of my head.

I'm fine with a Turf Sprint since it won't cannibilize the current races, it should be a G3 race though unless it attracts a strong foreign presence several years in a row. I have no problem with the FM Sprint going to G1, I think it should be a G1 race and not have to wait to be given that designation. It is at least as good as the G1s that already exist in that division. The Juvy Turf and Dirt Mile should be given G3 status. If they won't even apply for a G3 then they should wait the normal time and be graded accordingly.

A blind man could see this coming a mile away.

A lot of people think the BC hit on a good thing with the FM Turf race and they're just "building on that success" with all these additional races. Then again, fillies and mares like Pebbles, Miss Alleged, Royal Heroine, Miesque (x2), Ridgewood Pearl and Six Perfections did just fine without the sex-restriction.

Adding a Juv Turf race, throwing a million dollars at it and trying to get G1 for it is ludicrous. There are a grand total of two Graded turf races for 2 yo's, both of which are Grade 3's and both run in late November at Hollywood. The purses for these races are $100k and $150k. What possible justification is there for a race like this? For the BC people to say it will draw Euro horses is rubbish. Fact is, they've done a lousy job getting Europeans to come during the last 5-8 years and throwing money at the problem is ridiculous and will only serve to further dilute decent racing throughout the fall.

There's even less reason for a $1,000,000 turf sprint aside from, perhaps, to provide competition to the Delta Jackpot as the most ridiculous race of the year.

I like Breeders Cup Day for the racing but overall it's bad for the sport the way it dilutes good races throughout the fall. The JCGC was ok this year but last year's race was pathetic. It won't be long until races like the JCGC and Cigar are downgraded or even go the way of the Marlboro.

This year's Cigar should have drawn Corinthian and a few others. Instead we saw a pretty lousy race. If you don't think it was a lousy race, you are in disagreement with bettors who wagered far more on Aqueduct's last race that day (a NYBred N1X) than they did on the Cigar.

On the positive side, the Cigar resulted in Naughty New Yorker now being Grade 1 Stakes Placed. There is always something for which to be thankful.

And the horse that Lester Piggott rode at Gulfstream, Mr. Brooks, if I recall correctly.

I dont understand why you guys care what grade a race is given. If they make the Juvy turf a grade 1 what is the impact on your life or the sport in general? Pretty much none unless you happen to own the winner. It just is not a big deal.

I also dont understand why anyone cares if the Breeders Cup wants to add races like a Turf sprint. So what if they have a million dollar turf sprint. It is not like they are taxing you with a higher takeout because of it. The result of the turf sprint should be the creation of another division of horses that may race past 3.

Very well said. I completely agree, in the grand scheme of things if you are only a bettor, whether the BC Juvenile Turf is run as a Grade I or ungraded next year means little. A full field will still almost certainly line up for the darn thing.

Also, by the way, the Summer Stakes at Woodbine on the Woodbine Mile undercard has a Canadian Grade 3. Not the same as American, but still graded.

NT

I dont think it matters much to owners, trainers, and breeders either, unless you have a horse or relative actually in the race.

1) Cause I'm a fan of the sport and don't want to see it further cheapened by creating more non-deserving G1 winners.

2) The more BC G1s the more likely the races start cannibilizing each other. Imagine if Hard Spun hadn't won the King's Bishop and the same deal was in place where the owner/trainer would get an additional $15 million from Darley if he won a G1 by the end of the year. In that scenario if the BC Dirt Mile was G1 wouldn't it have been a no brainer that he would have gone in that race and in turn significantly hurt the field for the BC Classic?

3) Why pay $1 million when you could draw the same field for $250,000? You would then have an additional $750,000 to spread out among the BC supplemented races across the entire racing calendar.

I would love to see a BC turf sprint. Maybe it would attract those very fast Aussie and Kiwi turf sprinters. Also Woodbine runs the Neartic Stakes a Grade 2 going 6F on the turf