kudos to byk.....

[todko]

It is indeed . . . what Hooves said . . . great commentary.

[Sightseek]

Great points all around!

Strong points, Steve.

I'm looking forward to the Filly & Mare Sprint. Why a Turf Sprint wasn't added is the real question. It just further solidifies the view that the powers that be in the industry have no idea what they're doing.

[SniperSB23]

Good article although I disagree with the premise. I think the creation of these races will create demand for logical preps leading up to them especially in the Mile and the Juvenile Turf Divisions. Yeah, this year may be a little rocky but I think down the line it will be for the better of the sport and the preps will be created to make the races make sense. You do make a good point as to whether or not they will go directly to G1 status. I have been wondering that myself. I'd actually like to see them be G2 events so that they don't dilute the normal 8 BC races and instead supplement them with additional good racing and a reason to go to the BC site for the Friday before. I highly doubt that happens though.

[philcski]

Some solid arguments, however one point I definitely disagree with is that Monmouth is a questionable venue. It's a lovely, historic racetrack that has proven to handle large crowds well. It's about time they finally made it there.

Very good op piece Steve. I believe Bill Nadar of NYRA called for more inclusion from all into the process, as well. It appears that the motivating factor here is the want to expand to the 2nd day, ala kentucky oaks/derby. It would seem to me that it is a corporate driven, not racing driven plan. Your salient points about the F/M sprint are well taken and it seems as if the quality is being watered down. i can also see alot of cross entree's and scratches on the horizon, as owners/trainers seek to avoid the heavy heads, but still get their G1 black type win for breeding .

[Linny]

I agree as well. BC execs are concerned that the Cup never really caught on to the general public, like the Derby but making a 2 day spectacle doesn't seem to be the answer.
Churchill has developed the Oaks/Derby weekend into a great racing/social/corporate event. The Oaks is now one of the most important races for 3yo fillies. As little as 15 years ago it was a decent fixture for mostly midwest based fillies. However, the Oaks has played off the popularity in the general public of the Derby. Non racing folks all know about the Derby. Your grandmother knows about the Derby! It's easy to understand the Derby. It's one race. For most people, the details of nominations and eligibility are meaningless, they want to see the race.
The BC has a problem amongst the general population in that it has so many divisions, that it's confusing. We segregate horses by age, gender, surface and distance. Within each age group, there are turfers, sprinters, turf sprinters, fillies, colts, etc. It's hard for general sports fans to translate all the divisions. Adding more divisions not only dilutes those that exist, it makes the novice all the more confused. I cannot see how dragging the event into 2 days makes it more appealing to the general fan.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by point given

i can also see alot of cross entree's and scratches on the horizon, as owners/trainers seek to avoid the heavy heads, but still get their G1 black type win for breeding .

No cross entering allowed in the BCup races

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by philcski

Some solid arguments, however one point I definitely disagree with is that Monmouth is a questionable venue. It's a lovely, historic racetrack that has proven to handle large crowds well. It's about time they finally made it there.

I'm a Jersey guy, but I am not a fan of Monmouth at all. I travel to Belmont when I feel like seeing live racing. The product, the facilities just don't do it for me. Nice to have the BC there from the standpoint of going to see it, and its every bit the venue that Lonestar is--that's for sure---but not my top choice for a BC venue as Belmont is.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Pillow Pants

Strong points, Steve.

Why a Turf Sprint wasn't added is the real question. It just further solidifies the view that the powers that be in the industry have no idea what they're doing.

What possible good could this do for horse racing? It would dilute the sprint as I guess a few would likely try it, and further the idea of breeding horses to run abbreviated distances.

I'd rather see a 250k turf sprint stakes on the undercard or something. It would draw pretty much the same field that a one million dollar race would anyway. No way this should be a BC race.

I do question the use of the word ersatz in the article, but other than that, it is great.