Breeders' Cup Leaning Toward Permanent Host?
By Tom LaMarra

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...ost?source=rss

Updated: Wednesday, March 3, 2010 10:11 AM
Posted: Wednesday, March 3, 2010 9:49 AM

Breeders’ Cup board member Satish Sanan indicated March 2 the organization is leaning toward selecting a permanent host site for the World Championships, and also discussed ongoing efforts that could lead to an industry-owned advance deposit wagering system. Sanan made his comments on “At the Races With Steve Byk,” a horse racing program on SIRIUS/XM Satellite Radio. Sanan, also a Thoroughbred owner/breeder, discusses industry issues every Tuesday on the program.

Sanan said Breeders’ Cup representatives planned to meet March 3 to discuss the host-site plan and could make a decision soon. In response to a caller who asked if a decision had been made, Sanan said: “It’s not ratified yet.” Sanan said Santa Anita Park in Southern California meets the criteria of major media market, ability to accommodate crowds, good weather, and generating revenue through attendance and pari-mutuel handle. The only area in which it falls short is its racing surface, currently synthetic.

Sanan said he believes Santa Anita will replace its synthetic surface with dirt. He admitted he’s “not a fan of synthetic surfaces,” but said a host-site decision shouldn’t be based on “dirt versus synthetic.”

What Sanan basically confirms is that rather than moving the event around, which would be best for the sport, BC officials want to permanently position the Breeders' Cup in SoCal, because that's what is financially best for the Breeders' Cup.

And then he decries the lack of cooperation on the ADW front: "[G]etting industry factions to work together and see the big picture has been a challenge." With decisions like this one, perhaps he ought to look in the mirror.

Satish and the Breeders Cup...
 

I am curious if Satish or if anyone else has the figures on the Breeders Cup that Satish references during the show. The handle, attendence, field size...etc since the cups beginnings. I am one that understands his line of thinking in regards to having a permanant home and would love to see the stats to back up his idea.
I understand most people don't like change, it was evident by the callers yesterday (it was frustrating to listen to Satish constantly being interupted while making a point). Satish calls it like it is and doesnt sugarcoat anything, which is greatly appreciated.

He doesn't mention stats, but there's a decent write up on bloodhorse.com today. The thing I appreciated being pointed out is that it's impossible for the Breeders' Cup organization to make money when the event is held at Churchill. It's easy to forget the tracks are hosting the event, and as such, have their own fiduciary interests, not those of the BC, in mind.

IF SA goes back to dirt, and IF the BC is only going to have one site, then SA is a fine choice (although I'd prefer CD). But I'd rather not see a single site at all. And IF SA keeps some poly crap surface, then the BC would be cutting its own wrists to choose it. Which might just be the best result of all.

Why doesn't CD make any money on the event?

BC gets all the money, not the host track.

Asher needs a healthy cut.

Count me among those that hopes the Breeders' Cup falls apart in the near future.

NT

:tro:

ive heard from some on here that the sa bc is the best they have been to
if they change to dirt i could see it.

would that really help racing..i dont think so.

How would it hurt racing?

All the purse money lost when the BC goes away will me made up by other regional stakes races?

Where does that purse money come from?

I know where you are going, so answer..a bunch more NYRA stakes? Foal registration woud go away so that isn't the answer

it will lose the only other telly time the sport gets derby bieng the other.
and the good horses will leave to run in dubai where the super -money will
still be..imo

I honestly don't know, but I assumed, that BC purse money came from foal nominations. No more BC equals no more nominating, you get to keep your money in your pocket, instead of trying to produce a horse that can take advantage of those purse supplements. Is that an awful thing?

I was commenting as a fan, not as an owner. I don't forsee owning a horse that can take advantage of the BC Stakes program, so I wasn't initially looking at it that way when I :tro:'d Nick's post.

what about the supplement of graded stakes by the b.c?

That's what Bob and I are talking about.......I think.

Statement from Breeders’ Cup Chairman, Bill Farish
The Breeders’ Cup board is extremely disappointed with recent statements from board member Satish Sanan with regard to host sites and those views in no way reflect the official position of Breeders’ Cup, LTD. The Breeders’ Cup has longstanding and valued partnerships with Churchill Downs and the New York Racing Association. No final decisions have been made on host sites beyond 2010 and as we indicated in December the board is looking at a permanent host location as a potential option as part of our ongoing strategic planning initiative. We extend our sincere apology to Churchill Downs and the State of Kentucky. We look forward to our return to Louisville and Churchill Downs for the 2010 Breeders’ Cup World Championships.

Statement from Breeders’ Cup Board Member, Satish Sanan
I mischaracterized the Breeders’ Cup’s relationship with Churchill Downs and other host sites in a recent radio interview. I regret my poor choice of words. As part of the Breeders’ Cup strategic planning process, the board continues to evaluate future host sites and other core business issues.

I thought it had more to do with CD not willing to negotiate percentage of handle to the BC

Translated, BC board to Satish:
"YOU BLEW OUR COVER, YOU BASTARD!"

I guess Satish is done with ATR's for awhile

LOL guess so! The BC Board is so full of crap!

oh i thought you were on about the foal noms..

Here I was thinking Belmont would never see another BC.

I would support a CD and SA being the two tracks that host the races IF SA returns to dirt. Belmont and Monmouth are great but the weather is an issue.

Weather is not an issue. If it rains, it rains. Belmont has the fairest track that the BC goes to and a great turf course. Is it warm, no. Is it freezing, no.

IF, it's going to be at 1 permanent site it should be CD. the weather is usually decent that time of year. it's centrally located, they can handle the crowds. JMO

I defer to Satish on this one. Go Cali and NY, flyover country be damned.

I like and respect Satish Sanan a lot, but (you knew that was coming) I cannot agree with him on this issue.

Hosting the Breeders' Cup races at a permanent site would be inherently discriminatory, at least if you believe, as do I, in the "horse for course" angle. Horses that race regularly at any given track have an immediate and obvious advantage over their competitors, who are accustomed to racing elsewhere. So, a fixed-site Breeders' Cup would institute, in perpetuity, anything but a level playing/racing surface.

Moreover, granting a geographical group of horsemen permanent preferred status when it comes to the BC smacks of political favoritism. The swift response of the BC board to Mr. Sanan’s comments and his retractions lead me to infer that the KY contingent was ready to cry foul on just such grounds.

BC officials should do everything possible to avoid the appearance of political favoritism, not only to satisfy various racing jurisdictions, but also to satisfy people in the general public, whom we would like to convert to race fans. So many outsiders suspect that the sport is at the mercy of degenerate gamblers and inside deals. Awarding Santa Anita a sweetheart contract to host the BC might cement in the public mind a picture of racing as a corrupt industry. It would behoove the BC board to establish a fair and transparent bidding process for choosing a host site for the BC, much as the NFL selects a site for the Super Bowl or the OIC a site for the Olympic Games or the NBA a site for its All-Star Game (key words being "much as").

Other problems would have to be addressed if Santa Anita were to become the permanent site of the BC.

Foremost problem: surface, surface, surface. As a fan, if I cannot trust SAX's track surface to support regular racing, why would I trust it to support championship racing? And should the surface suddenly and miraculously become dependable, I would still be frustrated knowing that many of my favorite dirt horses would not show up. Why should they? Result charts demonstrate that running on Santa Anita’s synthetic track practically guarantees a dirt horse’s defeat. And if a regular fan like me sees the track surface as a problem, I should imagine that horsemen see it as an even greater problem. I think a lot of fans who love the speed and brilliance of dirt racing will decide to stay home instead of making a long trip to watch turf horses and Euro runners.

Another problem: Even if SAX’s synthetic surface were to be replaced with a dirt track (which possibility does not appear on the near horizon), BC fans could well become fed up with being herded annually to the same destination. Sure, Santa Anita is beautiful, but any place can get old after a couple of visits. Plus, southern California is far away for most of us, and it’s a high dollar trip. Travelers cannot get there without a significant outlay of cash for transportation, meals, and lodging. So, those who don't get bored with the site might well become tired, especially in this economy, of spending money and time to go there. “Been there; done that,” they’ll say.

agree with this very much and tried to make that very clear to Satish last night.

I agree with most of your post but the Super bowl and NBA all star games are not truly "bid" for and the IOC is among the dirtiest organizations in the world. Setting up a concrete rotation over say 10 years may be prudent but how anything can be considered permanent in this business environment is puzzling.

Exactly.. I love BC day and hate what it has done to racing. I am torn I kind of wantt racing to take a step back to when going to Belmont for Fall Championship day was everything in the world, but I cant say I dont adore BC day,not days!

In my perfect world they would race at two locations.. A two race SYN Day both races at 9f's (classics) one for boys one for the gals.. A Turf/Dirt day with a 3 year rotation Bel, CD, and a dirt SA, with the orginal BC races.

I agree with the bold section. Callers should have let him speak his piece and wait for their turn to respond. On the other hand, Mr. Sanan did his share of interrupting as well. Some of those spirited interruptions included his viewpoint that the Lone Star and Monmouth BCs were "disasters." Coming from a member of the BC board, that word choice struck me as injurious. I'm confident that Mr. Sanan didn't intend to be injurious, but there it is. So this is the thanks Lone Star and Monmouth get for hosting the BC, which they were proud to do, even though it cost them financially to do so? Think about how the organizers of those events must feel; the word "disaster" implies that all their hard work was not only meaningless but detrimental to the sport.

Lots of us have attended and enjoyed BC days at the smaller venues. The weather and racing at Lone Star were splendid. Who could attach the word "disaster" to a day that saw outstanding wins by Ashado, Ouija Board, Ghostzapper, Better Talk Now, Singletary, and Speightstown (among others)? And although the weather at Monmouth was wretched, the racing was anything but, with spectacular runs by Curlin, Midnight Lute, Ginger Punch, Kip Deville, War Pass, Indian Blessing, and English Channel (among others). I'll never forget those races, and I thought the events themselves were well-organized. What's more, I enjoyed my trips. Variety is nice.

Mr. Sanan's heart and passion for racing are evident. I think he's spot-on when he discusses racing's broken business model, and he has some terrific marketing ideas. I just don't like this one about the permanent host site.

I respectfully disagree, 2005 at Belmont was VERY, VERY cold.

I'll 2nd that... it was too cold to drink, and I don't have that problem very often.

:D I muddled through a few glasses of scotch from the stands, but it really was cold.