Breeders' Cup Going for Grade 1's Again

[parsixfarms]

This just in. No Grade I status for the "new" BC races in 2008:

http://news.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=42237

While generally of the view that there are too many Grade Is, I think the committee got it right with the three stakes (Maker's Mark Mile, First Lady and Just a Game), all at a mile on turf ironically, that were elevated to Grade I status for 2008.

[ALostTexan]

Breeders’ Cup officials earlier this year and again for the Nov. 27 meeting submitted letters asking the American Graded Stakes Committee to consider grade I status for the Filly & Mare Sprint, Juvenile Turf, and Dirt Mile, all run for the first time this year. Breeders’ Cup chairman Bill Farish, who attended the grading session as a guest, asked the committee to table the request.
...
“It’s up to the Breeders’ Cup (whether to resubmit the request),” said Andy Schweigardt, director of industry relations and development for the Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association and secretary for the AGSC. “They asked that we not consider it (at the Nov. 27 meeting).”

Looks like the Breeders' Cup guys actually got this one right, too, by asking that the Committee table to recommendation. Sounds like they might have taken a good, hard look at their request...

[brianwspencer]

Oh my! They downgraded the illustrious Washington Park Handicap from a Grade II to a Grade III -- and dropped the grade altogether from the Arlington Classic.

East Coast bias.

[Pedigree Ann]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Oh my! They downgraded the illustrious Washington Park Handicap from a Grade II to a Grade III -- and dropped the grade altogether from the Arlington Classic.

East Coast bias.

Once upon a time, the Arlington Classic was indeed a classic race, a 10f dirt contest that was won by such horses as Blue Larkspur, Gallant Fox, Omaha, Challedon, Shut Out, and Twilight Tear. Even after it was shortened to a one-turn mile, it still attratcted champions -winners included Native Dancer, Nashua, T.V. Lark, Tom Rolfe, Buckpasser, Dr. Fager and Ack Ack. Then they started to play around with it, changed the distance and surface, dropped it a couple of years here and there....,

If there had been grading in the 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s, the Arlington Classic would have been a deserving G1. The name meant something then; I hate to see track management squander the history inherent in grand old race names by giving them to less meaningful contests.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by ALostTexan

Looks like the Breeders' Cup guys actually got this one right, too, by asking that the Committee table to recommendation. Sounds like they might have taken a good, hard look at their request...

They asked them to table the request because they are going to add another race.

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

They asked them to table the request because they are going to add another race.

I find it funny that the BC people asked the TOBA Graded Stakes Committee people to "table" their request.

It's the same people.

How the Graded Committe found their way to deciding there would be 3 more G 1's in 2008 than in 2007 -- with no races losing Grade 1 status -- just shows how incestuous and self-serving the BC is.

I suppose I don't blame them for doing what is in their own interest. But not everyone is stupid enough to believe that we need three more Grade 1's when the entire fall racing season already serves as a prep for the interests of the Breeders Cup.

Eventually, the TOBA-GSC will be forced to downgrade races like the Cigar and the JCGC. And no one will care.

[the_fat_man]

I just don't get all the disparagement concerning turf sprints. I think it takes a special kind of sprinter to be able to handle the turf, one that's a better athlete than it's dirt counterpart, as there's much more involved in terms of footwork on the turf than on the dirt. And, like all turf races, turf sprints are much more challenging in terms of race strategy and, in turn, handicapping. And I don't buy into the notion that only horses that can't run on the dirt turn to the turf, as if it were their last recourse. Two examples, off the top of my head, of turf sprinters that are at least as good, if not better, on the dirt: Gold Trippi and Giant Deputy.

I realize they're not top of the line runners but they're certainly not crows.

Can only hope that PJ Campo keeps 'em coming next year at BEL and SAR.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

I just don't get all the disparagement concerning turf sprints. I think it takes a special kind of sprinter to be able to handle the turf, one that's a better athlete than it's dirt counterpart, as there's much more involved in terms of footwork on the turf than on the dirt. And, like all turf races, turf sprints are much more challenging in terms of race strategy and, in turn, handicapping. And I don't buy into the notion that only horses that can't run on the dirt turn to the turf, as if it were their last recourse. Two examples, off the top of my head, of turf sprinters that are at least as good, if not better, on the dirt: Gold Trippi and Giant Deputy.

I realize they're not top of the line runners but they're certainly not crows.

Can only hope that PJ Campo keeps 'em coming next year at BEL and SAR.

Not " only " but probably the majority.

I'm not disparaging turf sprints ( though I believe there are too many at the cheaper levels run in NY ). I'm all for a daily mix of races. If I don't like a kind of race I will work around it. If the turf sprints work for you, great, as I'm sure there are other kinds of races some favor that you don't.

That, however, is not the discussion at least I'm having here.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

I just don't get all the disparagement concerning turf sprints. I think it takes a special kind of sprinter to be able to handle the turf, one that's a better athlete than it's dirt counterpart, as there's much more involved in terms of footwork on the turf than on the dirt. And, like all turf races, turf sprints are much more challenging in terms of race strategy and, in turn, handicapping. And I don't buy into the notion that only horses that can't run on the dirt turn to the turf, as if it were their last recourse. Two examples, off the top of my head, of turf sprinters that are at least as good, if not better, on the dirt: Gold Trippi and Giant Deputy.

I realize they're not top of the line runners but they're certainly not crows.

Can only hope that PJ Campo keeps 'em coming next year at BEL and SAR.

Turf sprints are a last resort for any intact horse and any filly/mare simply becase there are so few graded stakes in that "division" and the whole game is about getting black type. I can guarantee there are no horses running in turf sprints that could be out competing in other more lucrative divisions.

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

Turf sprints are a last resort for any intact horse and any filly/mare simply becase there are so few graded stakes in that "division" and the whole game is about getting black type. I can guarantee there are no horses running in turf sprints that could be out competing in other more lucrative divisions.

yet, there are horses that are very talented turf sprinters; even excel at it. in fact, they're able to run faster on the turf than their dirt counterparts do on dirt (this is obviously because of the surface, right?). and, would probably beat those competing in 'more lucrative divisions' on the turf. once again, if we are to assume that these horses are the bottom feeders of racing, we need to have established that their dirt counterparts are better than they are on the turf. and, since, running on the turf is clearly beneath them, we'll never know for sure, will we? it goes round and round.

I also find it a bit ironic, that the very expensive, the very well bred, Green Monkey, was every bit the flop on turf that he is on dirt. then again, he was routing; there's still the sprint turf option left for him.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

Turf sprints are a last resort for any intact horse and any filly/mare simply becase there are so few graded stakes in that "division" and the whole game is about getting black type. I can guarantee there are no horses running in turf sprints that could be out competing in other more lucrative divisions.

Which is kind of my point. If there were more opportunities than the talent level would rise proportionally. You would also see more imported sprinters though with the dollar as weak as it is only the mega wealthy could do it. It would also diversify the stallion ranks eventually which would be a positive for the sport in general.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Cardus

Maybe they compete in turf sprints because A) they are bred for turf, and B) they are bred to sprint.

That is poor breeding if anyone is that unblessed. People do everything possible to not breed a horse to be a turf sprinter.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

I find it funny that the BC people asked the TOBA Graded Stakes Committee people to "table" their request.

It's the same people.

How the Graded Committe found their way to deciding there would be 3 more G 1's in 2008 than in 2007 -- with no races losing Grade 1 status -- just shows how incestuous and self-serving the BC is.

I suppose I don't blame them for doing what is in their own interest. But not everyone is stupid enough to believe that we need three more Grade 1's when the entire fall racing season already serves as a prep for the interests of the Breeders Cup.

Eventually, the TOBA-GSC will be forced to downgrade races like the Cigar and the JCGC. And no one will care.

If the BC and stakes committee are one in the same it is awfully interesting that they are denying the BC graded status.

It is hard to follow how the Breeders Cup is to blame for The Makers Mark, Just A Game or First Lady being upgraded. If any race deserves an upgrade it is the Makers MArk. Run in April, the last 3 year it was won by the future BC mile winner in Kip Deville, Miesques Approval and Artie Schiller. The First Lady gets a grade 1 field every year. The Just a Game is a race in June with little BC implications.

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

If the BC and stakes committee are one in the same it is awfully interesting that they are denying the BC graded status.

It is hard to follow how the Breeders Cup is to blame for The Makers Mark, Just A Game or First Lady being upgraded. If any race deserves an upgrade it is the Makers MArk. Run in April, the last 3 year it was won by the future BC mile winner in Kip Deville, Miesques Approval and Artie Schiller. The First Lady gets a grade 1 field every year. The Just a Game is a race in June with little BC implications.

Of course they are one in the same. Look at the names of the BC-BoD and the TOBA-GSC. Same people. They are going to do what is in their own interest. This year it was bumping up those turf races while maintaining G 1 status for EVERY existing G 1.

I have no problem with bumping races up. I do have a problem with not bumping races down. And they don't bump some of the deserving-to-be-bumped-down G1's because that takes $$ out of their pocket or the pocket of one of their friends.

Can you imagine the ill-mannered looks that would be shot around the room if Stamps, Dinnie or whoever just won a race or cut a stud deal for a horse that won a G 1 that just got cut down? The horror!!

And when it comes time to throw one of the children out of the boat and actually bump down a G 1, you can bet it will be a Cali or Gulfstream race that goes down.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

And when it comes time to throw one of the children out of the boat and actually bump down a G 1, you can bet it will be a Cali or Gulfstream race that goes down.

Which G1s do you think should have been dropped down?