Breeders' Cup Going for Grade 1's Again

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Apparantly you don't read all the threads.

How so?

[blackthroatedwind]

It was joke about some of the crazy suggestions people make.

Chuck, the same horses will show up for $250K. The money is better spent elsewhere ( or nowhere ). Look at the Juvenile turf races this year. The Filly race, for $250K, was exactly the same as the Colt BC for $1 Million. European and foreign participation? You're kidding....right? We get very little and frankly the BC doesn't seem to want any. With many horses not nominated and thus forced to pay exorbitant supplemental fees along with no perks offered by the BC ( as opposed to enormous perks from Japan and Hong Kong ) the best we could hope for were European mediocrities who happened to be nominated. Boy, is that exciting....and really what championship racing should be all about.

Why should racetracks around the country begin to construct a program of races to lead up to the BC? The BC has done the opposite to major races all around the country. They have drained, minimized, and even eliminated major races in just twenty short years. What obligation does the racing community have to work with a group that doesn't work in their better ( not even best ) interests? And, quite frankly, just pumping up purses, and/or creating races, doesn't alter the fact that many, if not most, of these supposed races would be extraordinarily weak fields. And furthermore, if the industry is going to work together on something, a great idea, they shouldn't waste it on the superfluous BC.

Frankly, considering the greed displayed by the BC I am beginning to wonder what major venue will be even interested in hosting it in the future. One can dream, I suppose, that the whole thing just goes away.

[parsixfarms]

This just in. No Grade I status for the "new" BC races in 2008:

http://news.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=42237

While generally of the view that there are too many Grade Is, I think the committee got it right with the three stakes (Maker's Mark Mile, First Lady and Just a Game), all at a mile on turf ironically, that were elevated to Grade I status for 2008.

[ALostTexan]

Breeders’ Cup officials earlier this year and again for the Nov. 27 meeting submitted letters asking the American Graded Stakes Committee to consider grade I status for the Filly & Mare Sprint, Juvenile Turf, and Dirt Mile, all run for the first time this year. Breeders’ Cup chairman Bill Farish, who attended the grading session as a guest, asked the committee to table the request.
...
“It’s up to the Breeders’ Cup (whether to resubmit the request),” said Andy Schweigardt, director of industry relations and development for the Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association and secretary for the AGSC. “They asked that we not consider it (at the Nov. 27 meeting).”

Looks like the Breeders' Cup guys actually got this one right, too, by asking that the Committee table to recommendation. Sounds like they might have taken a good, hard look at their request...

[brianwspencer]

Oh my! They downgraded the illustrious Washington Park Handicap from a Grade II to a Grade III -- and dropped the grade altogether from the Arlington Classic.

East Coast bias.

[Pedigree Ann]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Oh my! They downgraded the illustrious Washington Park Handicap from a Grade II to a Grade III -- and dropped the grade altogether from the Arlington Classic.

East Coast bias.

Once upon a time, the Arlington Classic was indeed a classic race, a 10f dirt contest that was won by such horses as Blue Larkspur, Gallant Fox, Omaha, Challedon, Shut Out, and Twilight Tear. Even after it was shortened to a one-turn mile, it still attratcted champions -winners included Native Dancer, Nashua, T.V. Lark, Tom Rolfe, Buckpasser, Dr. Fager and Ack Ack. Then they started to play around with it, changed the distance and surface, dropped it a couple of years here and there....,

If there had been grading in the 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s, the Arlington Classic would have been a deserving G1. The name meant something then; I hate to see track management squander the history inherent in grand old race names by giving them to less meaningful contests.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by ALostTexan

Looks like the Breeders' Cup guys actually got this one right, too, by asking that the Committee table to recommendation. Sounds like they might have taken a good, hard look at their request...

They asked them to table the request because they are going to add another race.

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

They asked them to table the request because they are going to add another race.

I find it funny that the BC people asked the TOBA Graded Stakes Committee people to "table" their request.

It's the same people.

How the Graded Committe found their way to deciding there would be 3 more G 1's in 2008 than in 2007 -- with no races losing Grade 1 status -- just shows how incestuous and self-serving the BC is.

I suppose I don't blame them for doing what is in their own interest. But not everyone is stupid enough to believe that we need three more Grade 1's when the entire fall racing season already serves as a prep for the interests of the Breeders Cup.

Eventually, the TOBA-GSC will be forced to downgrade races like the Cigar and the JCGC. And no one will care.

[the_fat_man]

I just don't get all the disparagement concerning turf sprints. I think it takes a special kind of sprinter to be able to handle the turf, one that's a better athlete than it's dirt counterpart, as there's much more involved in terms of footwork on the turf than on the dirt. And, like all turf races, turf sprints are much more challenging in terms of race strategy and, in turn, handicapping. And I don't buy into the notion that only horses that can't run on the dirt turn to the turf, as if it were their last recourse. Two examples, off the top of my head, of turf sprinters that are at least as good, if not better, on the dirt: Gold Trippi and Giant Deputy.

I realize they're not top of the line runners but they're certainly not crows.

Can only hope that PJ Campo keeps 'em coming next year at BEL and SAR.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

I find it funny that the BC people asked the TOBA Graded Stakes Committee people to "table" their request.

It's the same people.

How the Graded Committe found their way to deciding there would be 3 more G 1's in 2008 than in 2007 -- with no races losing Grade 1 status -- just shows how incestuous and self-serving the BC is.

I suppose I don't blame them for doing what is in their own interest. But not everyone is stupid enough to believe that we need three more Grade 1's when the entire fall racing season already serves as a prep for the interests of the Breeders Cup.

Eventually, the TOBA-GSC will be forced to downgrade races like the Cigar and the JCGC. And no one will care.

If the BC and stakes committee are one in the same it is awfully interesting that they are denying the BC graded status.

It is hard to follow how the Breeders Cup is to blame for The Makers Mark, Just A Game or First Lady being upgraded. If any race deserves an upgrade it is the Makers MArk. Run in April, the last 3 year it was won by the future BC mile winner in Kip Deville, Miesques Approval and Artie Schiller. The First Lady gets a grade 1 field every year. The Just a Game is a race in June with little BC implications.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

It was joke about some of the crazy suggestions people make.

Chuck, the same horses will show up for $250K. The money is better spent elsewhere ( or nowhere ). Look at the Juvenile turf races this year. The Filly race, for $250K, was exactly the same as the Colt BC for $1 Million. European and foreign participation? You're kidding....right? We get very little and frankly the BC doesn't seem to want any. With many horses not nominated and thus forced to pay exorbitant supplemental fees along with no perks offered by the BC ( as opposed to enormous perks from Japan and Hong Kong ) the best we could hope for were European mediocrities who happened to be nominated. Boy, is that exciting....and really what championship racing should be all about.

Why should racetracks around the country begin to construct a program of races to lead up to the BC? The BC has done the opposite to major races all around the country. They have drained, minimized, and even eliminated major races in just twenty short years. What obligation does the racing community have to work with a group that doesn't work in their better ( not even best ) interests? And, quite frankly, just pumping up purses, and/or creating races, doesn't alter the fact that many, if not most, of these supposed races would be extraordinarily weak fields. And furthermore, if the industry is going to work together on something, a great idea, they shouldn't waste it on the superfluous BC.

Frankly, considering the greed displayed by the BC I am beginning to wonder what major venue will be even interested in hosting it in the future. One can dream, I suppose, that the whole thing just goes away.

What difference does it make to Andy Serling or Chuck Simon if the race purse is $250 or 1 million? That is what I am try to convey? So what if they will attract the same field? Do you think the BC will use that extra money for good use?

There have been plenty of Euros that come when the races are at a location that they feel is suitable for them. This year obviously was an exception but I dont believe that it was a great year for top horses over there either. Hell just last year there were at least a dozen or more euros at CD. Many if not most Euros are eligible to the BC through the EBF. The South Americans are the ones who are not eligible and there probably should be a program where a horse can be nominated once they are imported for a pretty good fee ($25000?)

If you are that pessimistic that you believe tracks should not try to implement a series of races that would have possible benefits with little to no downside then this may be falling on deaf ears. But it would not be difficult or costly to do.

As for the greed displayed by the BC, why would they be any different than the tracks, trainers, owners, jockeys, breeders, sales companies, etc.?

[blackthroatedwind]

None of it matters to me Chuck. Hell, why should any of this crap matter to any of us? Does Daafur matter? What matters?

That doesn't mean it isn't a stupid and indefensible idea to denote a supposed championship race for a division that doesn't exist at anything close to a high level and is populated by also rans.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

None of it matters to me Chuck. Hell, why should any of this crap matter to any of us? Does Daafur matter? What matters?

That doesn't mean it isn't a stupid and indefensible idea to denote a supposed championship race for a division that doesn't exist at anything close to a high level and is populated by also rans.

I think the problem is that you are accepting these races as "championship" races. By changing the name that still doesn't make them championships. Was the Distaff a championship race this year?

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I think the problem is that you are accepting these races as "championship" races. By changing the name that still doesn't make them championships. Was the Distaff a championship race this year?

No, but it was at least contested by a bunch of reasonable horses with decent accomplishments.

[blackthroatedwind]

Let me add, the BC is supposed to be, by it's very conception, a series of championship races. Whether I accept them as such is besides the point. They are saying so.....and thus by creating a BC Turf Sprint they would be denoting a race, that by its very nature is likely to be at least mostly contested by marginal race horses, as a " Championship " event. It lessens the rest of their program if nothing else.