Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Danzig
at some point in the past, i looked at handle numbers. churchill far outweighs the other tracks when you compare bc's. why they'd have it at a permanent site other than in ky, i don't know. as for the bc in cali, for every euro you draw due to surface, you lose another due to the much warmer weather. add in the firmness of the turf track....you lose anyone who has a horse they don't want to run on syn, who prefers a track with cut in the ground. overall, you'd have to think ky would be the best choice if they're so determined to have one permanent host site.
|
From a fan's perspective, and not taking into account the surface at all, there really is no better place to attend a BC than SA. The physical plant is designed well, the lines are the shortest of any BC that I know of, the infield is a great viewing alternative and you have the best chance for good weather that time of year outside of GP (where it never will go again) and LS ,where it probably will never go again. Yeah..it's a pain for the East Coast people to get to and that is why I still think a three way geographical rotation is best, but I do see the reasoning behind a single track hosting.
That being said...and I have been on the bottom of the poly hater list, but the need to have a dirt track for BC races is becoming more and more evident and to award SA the permanant rights if they keep an artificial surface is a slap in the face to the Bettor and the Breeders, Trainers and Owners of dirt horses.