[King Glorious]

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.