[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by miraja2

You and I have argued this many times, so I won't go over my whole argument again, but first of all I honestly don't know how you can say that the BC hasn't changed.
The '08 and the '09 BCs will look a lot different than the BCs in the 1980s:

First of all, (and most importantly) there will be no dirt races.
Secondly, it will be a 2-day "event."
Thirdly, there will be a bunch of new races.

As for the larger point, nobody in their right mind would argue that the BC is the one and only thing destroying this sport. There are a lot of contenders in that department. The bottom line for me is that the BC was a terrible idea in the begining, and it seems to be getting worse and worse all the time.

As for comparing the Derby and the BC, I know that you know what a ridiculous analogy that is, so I won't take the time to respond to that.....again.

The concept of the BC hasn't changed. That's what I said. It was started as a day at the end of the year to get the top horses in each division together to have championship races. That's still what it is. The new races and the second day don't change that. I can't believe that you are holding the dirt/synthetic issue against the BC. They weren't the ones that mandated the CA tracks to install the stuff. With Churchill taking themselves out of the running and Gulfstream basically doing the same, what is the BC supposed to do? Alternate it back and forth between Belmont and Woodbine? A lot of the complaining being heard about the BC being at SA in back to back years is not due to the synthetic track but about it being way out here on the West Coast. So should they solve that problem by permanently holding it on the East Coast?

I don't know why the Derby analogy was a bad one. One of the main problems people seem to think they have with the BC is the way that trainers alter their schedules to fit with the BC. Isn't that the same thing trainers do with the Derby?