Satish and the Breeders Cup...

[Monarchos1]

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.

[robfla]

Originally Posted by asudevil

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

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

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Monarchos1

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.

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

[freddymo]

I guess Satish is done with ATR's for awhile

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by freddymo

I guess Satish is done with ATR's for awhile

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

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

Originally Posted by Bigsmc

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

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

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by freddymo

I guess Satish is done with ATR's for awhile

Here I was thinking Belmont would never see another BC.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

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.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by freddymo

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.

[ddthetide]

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

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by ddthetide

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.

[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").

[banter]

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.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by banter

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 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.

[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.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

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.

[banter]

Originally Posted by Ogygian

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.

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.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

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.

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

[smuthg]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

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.

[pmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by smuthg

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

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