OFFICIAL: '09 Cup Back to Santa Anita

[slotdirt]

I like throwing the Lone Stars and Monmouths of the world a bone every couple of years, and see no real benefit in keeping the cup at Santa Anita every single year.

[Scav]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

I like throwing the Lone Stars and Monmouths of the world a bone every couple of years, and see no real benefit in keeping the cup at Santa Anita every single year.

Exactly.....

And now that Arlington has an alternative finish line, they should get a bone also because they can accomdate all BC races

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

except the seating...and i was there last time..betting was a mess..and it was cold..

[King Glorious]

When it's held in any place except California, it seems that the weather is almost always a factor or at least a concern. It's too often cold and raining and miserable. Santa Anita has hosted some great BC races in the past. The concern always heard about SA is that it's too hot. That was one time and personally, I'd rather they are racing when it's 95 degrees instead of this stuff we just had at Monmouth. My only concern is that they are racing on fake dirt in Cali and I don't like that and I think it's premature to be even considering awarding them another BC when they don't even know how this one will turn out because of the track. Under normal circumstances though, I wouldn't have any problem at all with it being at Santa Anita every year.

I still think that the BC is a great idea and a great thing for racing. At no other time do we get this kind of participation from horses from other parts of the world. At no other time do we get so many top horses matching up with each other. It's not the BC that has messed the sport up. It's the way horses are bred, trained, and raced now that has done the most damage. Tracks change up their prep distances and dates not because of the BC but because of how trainers train now. I just don't see the sense in blaming the BC when the BC has not changed. It worked fine in the beginning and still works fine now. Blaming the BC is like blaming the Derby because a lot of trainers are starting to go to the two-prep thing. When I first got involved with the game, having four preps was not unusual. Then it went down to three being the norm. With the recent good runs of horses that only prep twice and the way that many trainers like to copycat, I can easily see two becoming the norm. I can easily see more trainers holding out their 2yo's and starting them out as 3yo's because of the success Bernardini and Curlin had. The Derby is not to blame for any of this though because it hasn't changed. Other than adding a few more races, neither has the BC.

[deltagulf]

well why a track like the fair grounds can't hold it. plenty of hotel rooms and great food and entertainment.also weather is good in october down here.

also a dirt track.

[jwkniska]

Originally Posted by deltagulf

well why a track like the fair grounds can't hold it. plenty of hotel rooms and great food and entertainment.also weather is good in october down here.

also a dirt track.

as long as they've got enough barns for it (which I think they do), there's no reason they couldn't have it.... also, it'd be a nice boost back for the city to have another feature event there.

I'd like to see it back at AP someday, as I was unfortunately unable to go last time it was there due to being out of town.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by deltagulf

well why a track like the fair grounds can't hold it. plenty of hotel rooms and great food and entertainment.also weather is good in october down here.

also a dirt track.

Should have already been there. Never been to FG but certainly seems like it's fit to host the BC.

[The Bid]

Maybe Santa Anita should just be concerned with running a race, let alone a Breeders Cup race. Disgrace

[KY_Sasquash]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

When it's held in any place except California, it seems that the weather is almost always a factor or at least a concern. It's too often cold and raining and miserable. Santa Anita has hosted some great BC races in the past. The concern always heard about SA is that it's too hot. That was one time and personally, I'd rather they are racing when it's 95 degrees instead of this stuff we just had at Monmouth. My only concern is that they are racing on fake dirt in Cali and I don't like that and I think it's premature to be even considering awarding them another BC when they don't even know how this one will turn out because of the track. Under normal circumstances though, I wouldn't have any problem at all with it being at Santa Anita every year.

I don't like the BC being run over the synthetic surfaces either and I don't feel like the turf races are legit b/c the turf course is so hard and short its more like running on astroturf-those courses out there made Citronnade look like a monster on the turf, which she isn't. Churchill and Belmont are the best venues to use.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by KY_Sasquash

I don't like the BC being run over the synthetic surfaces either and I don't feel like the turf races are legit b/c the turf course is so hard and short its more like running on astroturf-those courses out there made Citronnade look like a monster on the turf, which she isn't. Churchill and Belmont are the best venues to use.

The BC was held at SA in 1986, 1993, and 2003.

The winners of the Turf have been:
1986-Manila
1993-Kotashaan
2003-High Chaparral

The winners of the Mile have been:
1986-Last Tycoon
1993-Lure
2003-Six Perfections

The lone winner of the F/M Turf was:
2003-Islington

Of that group, all of those horses were proven as not only grade one level horses but also as grade one winners. Of the seven, four were European based horses. Of the 21 horses to finish in the top three in the races, eight were European based horses and several more were transplanted Europeans. I can't see a single horse on this list that was not a legit winner and with Euro's holding a 4-3 edge in winners, I don't see how anyone can say it's unfair to them.

[Alan07]

Will there be a late post? They have been talking about the LA media Market all day

[KY_Sasquash]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

The BC was held at SA in 1986, 1993, and 2003.

The winners of the Turf have been:
1986-Manila
1993-Kotashaan
2003-High Chaparral

The winners of the Mile have been:
1986-Last Tycoon
1993-Lure
2003-Six Perfections

The lone winner of the F/M Turf was:
2003-Islington

Of that group, all of those horses were proven as not only grade one level horses but also as grade one winners. Of the seven, four were European based horses. Of the 21 horses to finish in the top three in the races, eight were European based horses and several more were transplanted Europeans. I can't see a single horse on this list that was not a legit winner and with Euro's holding a 4-3 edge in winners, I don't see how anyone can say it's unfair to them.

I stand corrected. Must be in my head. I really don't feel that their turf courses play like a true turf course as previously stated.

How could you leave my man Johar off that list though?

[Scav]

Originally Posted by hoovesupsideyourhead

except the seating...and i was there last time..betting was a mess..and it was cold..

I am a little bias because I didn't get to go. I was down at SIU and my dad wisely told me "It will be here another day, I wouldn't come all the way up just for the BC"

I should have not listened to him, like I don't listen to everything else

[Bigsmc]

Originally Posted by hoovesupsideyourhead

except the seating...and i was there last time..betting was a mess..and it was cold..

I agree with everything you said, but I think your enjoyment of a venue is a function of where your seats are.

I was stuck in the temporary bleachers at the top of the Clubhouse turn at AP and was miserable.

This year I was banished beyond the 3/16th pole at Monmouth sitting on the tarmac in a wooden folding outdoor wedding chair, so with no elevation, I couldn't see 3/4 of the track and the rain....oh, the rain. Others loved the venue. What was the difference? They had decent seats, under cover and high enough to see the whole track.

I have been to nine BC's and I have had such crappy luck with seats over the years and after the misery of Monmouth, I vowed to never attend another BC.

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

Originally Posted by Bigsmc

I agree with everything you said, but I think your enjoyment of a venue is a function of where your seats are.

I was stuck in the temporary bleachers at the top of the Clubhouse turn at AP and was miserable.

This year I was banished beyond the 3/16th pole at Monmouth sitting on the tarmac in a wooden folding outdoor wedding chair, so with no elevation, I couldn't see 3/4 of the track and the rain....oh, the rain. Others loved the venue. What was the difference? They had decent seats, under cover and high enough to see the whole track.

I have been to nine BC's and I have had such crappy luck with seats over the years and after the misery of Monmouth, I vowed to never attend another BC.

the bc was great at churchill..arl was ok but as we talked about cold..
seats and the weather make huge diff

[Alan07]

Nov 6-7 2009