[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by banter

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").

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.