Taking the Breeder's Cup back to a "Championship"

[Cannon Shell]

I thought the part about 30 US tracks bidding on the cup was interesting. If you count Belmont, Aqueduct,Saratoga, Churchill Downs, Keeneland, Gulfstream, Monmouth, Calder, Santa Anita, Del Mar, Hollywood, Lone Star, Arlington, Fair Grounds, Woodbine, Laurel, Pimlico, Delaware, Colonial, Bay Meadows, Golden gate, and Oaklawn you get 22 and a lot of these are a stretch. Do tracks like Beulah, Sam Houston, Tampa Bay, and Suffolk really make BC bids?
Counting the NY tracks as one(and Belmont is the only viable choice there) The S.California trcks, and Churchill seem like the only tracks that can handle the cup without serious risks. The new Gulfstream is great for the bluehairs but does not have the proper facilities anymore to host the event. Woodbine and Arlington were so/so. I did not attend in Lone Star but the reviews were mixed at best.
Imagine getting tickets to the Cup in Hong Kong? You would need to hit the Magna 5 for the duration of the Gulfstream meet to pay for the airfare, hotel and tickets. Thats not even counting food, drink and other pleasures.

[blackthroatedwind]

Personally I find some of the decisions coming out of the BC/NTRA since Greg Avioli took over to be troubling, to say the least, and I wonder what his qualifications are, what his goals are, and whether or not these are in the best interests of racing. The last thing the game needs is yet another person in power who is out of touch with the needs of the participants. More pandering to the " powers that be " is exactly what we DON'T need.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Personally I find some of the decisions coming out of the BC/NTRA since Greg Avioli took over to be troubling, to say the least, and I wonder what his qualifications are, what his goals are, and whether or not these are in the best interests of racing. The last thing the game needs is yet another person in power who is out of touch with the needs of the participants. More pandering to the " powers that be " is exactly what we DON'T need.

Point #1. Since when is being qualified a prerequisite in positions of power in the thoroughbred world.
Point #2. Does anyone is horseracing have a goal that does not put $ into their own pocket in some way, shape, or manner
Point #3. 'Best interests of racing'? See point #2

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Point #1. Since when is being qualified a prerequisite in positions of power in the thoroughbred world.
Point #2. Does anyone is horseracing have a goal that does not put $ into their own pocket in some way, shape, or manner
Point #3. 'Best interests of racing'? See point #2

It seems to me that Avioli is closely linked to Tim Smith. How exactly did that work in his favor?

Fool me once.....

[Danzig]

i think having the bc overseas would be a bad idea.

as for different tracks--what would the possibility be of having two separate tracks do the bc in the same year. for example, oaklawn has no turf track, which obviously keeps it from hosting-but not if they split the bill with another track--say, colonial downs. one gets the dirt, the other the turf.

i don't think that has a snowballs chance of happing--but i like it a bit better than going overseas!

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Does anyone else have a big problem with Breeders Cup races being run over an artifical dirt surface?

After watching Keeneland's fall meet, and some Hollywood Park racing---I really hope it's a long, long time before races that play a key role in deciding dirt championships, are run over an artifical surface.

They can't keep the Breeders Cup out of Southern California forever though.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Does anyone else have a big problem with Breeders Cup races being run over an artifical dirt surface?

After watching Keeneland's fall meet, and some Hollywood Park racing---I really hope it's a long, long time before races that play a key role in deciding dirt championships, are run over an artifical surface.

They can't keep the Breeders Cup out of Southern California forever though.

I dont because I'm am so weary of all the 'change' in the sport. I am tired of arguing with track management about issues, tired of rhetoric from horsemans groups, tired of 'supertrainers' supposed greatness, tired of jockeys complaining, tired waterdowned racing cards pretty much every weekday, tired of breeders pointing the fingers at trainers when the fine steeds they bred wont run further than 5 furlongs or make more than 3 starts, tired of the word 'business decision' by people who have billions of dollars of net worth, tired of inept racing commissions full of buffoons who refuse to put an ounce of effort into making the sport better, tired of arguing about medication by both sides of the line, tired of owners ripping off trainers, tired of trainers ripping off owners, tired of stewards who make bad calls then refuse to explain their decision and the tracks and comissions that hire these morons, tired of PETA's attitude towards horseracing......
So polytrack and the breeders cup just doesn't do it for me. I really dont care, I'll run in it if I have a horse good enough, watch it if I dont.

[-BT-]

Can't think of too much or anything that the NTRA has done right. I can easily see them selling out the BC to the highest bidder even if it means going overseas........and selling out the people who support the game here

[MaTH716]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Does anyone else have a big problem with Breeders Cup races being run over an artifical dirt surface?

After watching Keeneland's fall meet, and some Hollywood Park racing---I really hope it's a long, long time before races that play a key role in deciding dirt championships, are run over an artifical surface.

They can't keep the Breeders Cup out of Southern California forever though.

As of right now I do have a problem with running the breeders cup on a artifical surface. Until the majority of the major tracks have an artifical surface and the majority of the races run are on poly, how can you have the so called championship races run on a surface that most of the horse have not ran on? In a year that they do hold the BC at a track with poly, are the trainers going to steer there BC horses to run all there prep races at synthetic tracks only. Meaning you will not see any BC contenders at NY tracks, Churchill and so on. Then there is the Handicapping issue which should probably be a totally differnent thread.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

I agree.

There are obvious benifits to having artifical dirt surfaces, I just wish they would have been installed on training tracks, and at non big leauge racing racetracks.

Besides making the Breeders Cup a waste one day soon, if an artifical dirt surface is installed at one of the three tracks that host a triple crown race, I think the triple crown series will obviously be tainted.

As a bettor, I do love the idea of having a third surface in American racing. It will create some more oppertunities to find an edge over the less serious members of the betting public. However, as a fan of the sport, seeing top class horses running over an artifical dirt surface, is nothing short of an eyesore.