Stronach reneges on SA surface change..

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

[/b]

Nice job with Satish today, Phil

Very salient with a healthy dose of respect, but unfortunately seemed to fall on deaf ears

Hope that Haileah gets it's act together and writes a new chapter to this...

Thanks- last ditch effort to pitch keeping the rotational schedule. I agree that it fell on deaf ears though. It's a done deal on the permanent Santa Anita site.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Why Santa Anita when Fairplex is available?

The Breeders Cup Turf can be run on the dirt - right?

[pmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Why Santa Anita when Fairplex is available?

The Breeders Cup Turf can be run on the dirt - right?

With a new dirt surface at SA and the right business model, I could live with it as the permanent home (and would go back to having a betting interest).

With the "dirt" races run over synthetic, I will continue to have no interest in the BC. Perhaps they could just have turf racing and the dirt and synthetic horses could compete in a swimming competition to level the playing field...

[Danzig]

at some point in the past, i looked at handle numbers. churchill far outweighs the other tracks when you compare bc's. why they'd have it at a permanent site other than in ky, i don't know. as for the bc in cali, for every euro you draw due to surface, you lose another due to the much warmer weather. add in the firmness of the turf track....you lose anyone who has a horse they don't want to run on syn, who prefers a track with cut in the ground. overall, you'd have to think ky would be the best choice if they're so determined to have one permanent host site.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Danzig

at some point in the past, i looked at handle numbers. churchill far outweighs the other tracks when you compare bc's. why they'd have it at a permanent site other than in ky, i don't know. as for the bc in cali, for every euro you draw due to surface, you lose another due to the much warmer weather. add in the firmness of the turf track....you lose anyone who has a horse they don't want to run on syn, who prefers a track with cut in the ground. overall, you'd have to think ky would be the best choice if they're so determined to have one permanent host site.

From a fan's perspective, and not taking into account the surface at all, there really is no better place to attend a BC than SA. The physical plant is designed well, the lines are the shortest of any BC that I know of, the infield is a great viewing alternative and you have the best chance for good weather that time of year outside of GP (where it never will go again) and LS ,where it probably will never go again. Yeah..it's a pain for the East Coast people to get to and that is why I still think a three way geographical rotation is best, but I do see the reasoning behind a single track hosting.

That being said...and I have been on the bottom of the poly hater list, but the need to have a dirt track for BC races is becoming more and more evident and to award SA the permanant rights if they keep an artificial surface is a slap in the face to the Bettor and the Breeders, Trainers and Owners of dirt horses.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by GBBob

From a fan's perspective, and not taking into account the surface at all, there really is no better place to attend a BC than SA. The physical plant is designed well, the lines are the shortest of any BC that I know of, the infield is a great viewing alternative and you have the best chance for good weather that time of year outside of GP (where it never will go again) and LS ,where it probably will never go again. Yeah..it's a pain for the East Coast people to get to and that is why I still think a three way geographical rotation is best, but I do see the reasoning behind a single track hosting.

That being said...and I have been on the bottom of the poly hater list, but the need to have a dirt track for BC races is becoming more and more evident and to award SA the permanant rights if they keep an artificial surface is a slap in the face to the Bettor and the Breeders, Trainers and Owners of dirt horses.

If you hate the BC then electing SA to host it permanently will be an awesome stroke of luck. Within a few short years the BC will fail and the racing will return to its roots, G1 races that feature horses competing against one another with key races being the benchmarks. Great dirt horses will point to the Fall Champsionship, great turfers will race at AP in the million and Secr. and order will be restored. That being said I really loved the BC and enjoy the racing immensely but I do see the damage it has done to racing and wonder if the industry wouldnt be better off without it?

[Danzig]

i'm just glad i've made plans to go this year to churchill. might be my only bc in person.

[johnny pinwheel]

Originally Posted by freddymo

If you hate the BC then electing SA to host it permanently will be an awesome stroke of luck. Within a few short years the BC will fail and the racing will return to its roots, G1 races that feature horses competing against one another with key races being the benchmarks. Great dirt horses will point to the Fall Champsionship, great turfers will race at AP in the million and Secr. and order will be restored. That being said I really loved the BC and enjoy the racing immensely but I do see the damage it has done to racing and wonder if the industry wouldnt be better off without it?

i agree with you. The BC is great racing and its exciting. i've been to all the belmont editions and monmouth. i would not even want to go to santa anita. its to the point where i don't even bet those (poly)tracks and i'm not a 2 dollar bettor. keenland used to be one of my favorites, now its a joke. the BC won't last if its always there (SA) on the current track. it would get to the point where no dirt horses would bother showing. this would be good for racing however. people want to see the stars run, win or lose. this cherry picking of so called "prep" races(graded stakes no less) all leading to the BC is killing the game. horses run 2 or 3 times to get to the "cup". the price paid by not seeing these horses run is not good for the sport in the long term. i actually believe this is incentive for horses to race less and when you are talking about the big guns, that can't be good.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GBBob

From a fan's perspective, and not taking into account the surface at all, there really is no better place to attend a BC than SA. The physical plant is designed well, the lines are the shortest of any BC that I know of, the infield is a great viewing alternative and you have the best chance for good weather that time of year outside of GP (where it never will go again) and LS ,where it probably will never go again. Yeah..it's a pain for the East Coast people to get to and that is why I still think a three way geographical rotation is best, but I do see the reasoning behind a single track hosting.

That being said...and I have been on the bottom of the poly hater list, but the need to have a dirt track for BC races is becoming more and more evident and to award SA the permanant rights if they keep an artificial surface is a slap in the face to the Bettor and the Breeders, Trainers and Owners of dirt horses.

sure, weather wise i'd imagine it's the best place to be. but, business wise, it's not. if the bc wants to make this a profitable venture, you'd think they'd go to the place that draws the most bettors and achieves the highest handle.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Danzig

sure, weather wise i'd imagine it's the best place to be. but, business wise, it's not. if the bc wants to make this a profitable venture, you'd think they'd go to the place that draws the most bettors and achieves the highest handle.

Isn't that what I said?..Dirt track and SA is the best track to host it.

[Bigsmc]

Originally Posted by GBBob

From a fan's perspective, and not taking into account the surface at all, there really is no better place to attend a BC than SA. The physical plant is designed well, the lines are the shortest of any BC that I know of, the infield is a great viewing alternative and you have the best chance for good weather that time of year outside of GP (where it never will go again) and LS ,where it probably will never go again. Yeah..it's a pain for the East Coast people to get to and that is why I still think a three way geographical rotation is best, but I do see the reasoning behind a single track hosting.

That being said...and I have been on the bottom of the poly hater list, but the need to have a dirt track for BC races is becoming more and more evident and to award SA the permanant rights if they keep an artificial surface is a slap in the face to the Bettor and the Breeders, Trainers and Owners of dirt horses.

That is a function of where you sit at each venue. I was at the BC in 1993 at SA and it was the worst betting lines I have encountered at any BC. For the record, I have attended BC's at Churchill, Woodbine, Hollywood, Santa Anita, Arlington Park, Monmouth and Gulfstream. Hands down, the worst betting lines I encountered were at SA.

[Scav]

Originally Posted by Bigsmc

That is a function of where you sit at each venue. I was at the BC in 1993 at SA and it was the worst betting lines I have encountered at any BC. For the record, I have attended BC's at Churchill, Woodbine, Hollywood, Santa Anita, Arlington Park, Monmouth and Gulfstream. Hands down, the worst betting lines I encountered were at SA.

You didn't roll there with me.