Satish and the Breeders Cup...

[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.