What Happened To The Jockey Club Gold Cup

[aaron]

I remember when legendary horses used to run in the Jockey Club Gold Cup. Now,the race is just another race on the card. I guess that is the effect of the Breeders Cup. Where have you gone Kelso,Forego,Cigar and Skip Away.Not to mention,Affirmed and Seattle Slew getting beat by Exceller in probably what was Seattle Slew's best race.

[ronsmac]

I remember when legendary horses used to run in the Jockey Club Gold Cup. Now,the race is just another race on the card. I guess that is the effect of the Breeders Cup. Where have you gone Kelso,Forego,Cigar and Skip Away.Not to mention,Affirmed and Seattle Slew getting beat by Exceller in probably what was Seattle Slew's best race.
The Whitney and the Woodward winners are skipping this race for the second year in a row.

[dilanesp]

I remember when legendary horses used to run in the Jockey Club Gold Cup. Now,the race is just another race on the card. I guess that is the effect of the Breeders Cup. Where have you gone Kelso,Forego,Cigar and Skip Away.Not to mention,Affirmed and Seattle Slew getting beat by Exceller in probably what was Seattle Slew's best race.

It was happening before the Breeders' Cup.

Some data points:

Late 1960's-- Oak Tree. They didn't used to run in Southern California in the fall. This was a game changer. Indeed, in 1950 they DID run a fall meeting in Southern California, and it crushed New York as all of the best eastern horses, including most importantly Hill Prince, shipped out to Hollywood Park to run in it.

Oak Tree didn't immediately card a competitor to the JCGC. But it did immediately become an alternative to the New York stakes schedule, with better weather and bigger purses.

Changes in breeding-- the JCGC used to be 2 miles. Then it was 1 1/2 miles. Now it is 1 1/4 miles, and horses still skip it because their trainers don't want a 1 1/4 mile race. It isn't the only race that has shrunk, by far, but it's had to adjust because so few top horses are bred for stamina, and as it has adjusted it became a less "special" race.

Changes in training-- the JCGC, in the 1970's and 1980's, was part of a full New York handicap schedule at Belmont Park, including the Woodward, and the Marlboro Cup, spaced a couple of weeks apart. Slew O Gold, for instance, used to run in all three. Lots of horses did. But modern trainers don't like to run their horses very often (the only thing that has survived this trend is the Triple Crown). So now the Woodward has been backed into the Saratoga meet (where it really doesn't belong), the Marlboro is gone, and even then, lots of trainers want to run in one and not the other.

The Breeders' Cup-- you mentioned this, and it is obvious. It's worth noting though that the BC is as much a symptom as it is a cause. As I noted, the New York stakes calendar was in decline (along with attendance as well) long before the BC came around. The BC probably wouldn't have ever happened if New York were still in the dominant position it was in during the 1950's and 1960's-- you wouldn't need it, because all the top horses would ship to NY for the major fall stakes races in each division.

But the BC certainly exacerbated the trends.

[classhandicapper]

I remember when legendary horses used to run in the Jockey Club Gold Cup. Now,the race is just another race on the card. I guess that is the effect of the Breeders Cup. Where have you gone Kelso,Forego,Cigar and Skip Away.Not to mention,Affirmed and Seattle Slew getting beat by Exceller in probably what was Seattle Slew's best race.

What happened to the Champagne too?

It may have attracted the most impressive MSW winners, but it used to draw more seasoned horses and many of the winners of 2yo stakes in NY and from other parts of the country.

Perhaps there aren't enough 2yos to have a really strong program, but being from the same generation of horseplayers as you, it's sad to see races that used to decide championships turn into preps and strong NW1 ALW races.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Everybody covered all the bases but it seems to really boil down to more options for trainers that are looking to race less these days. Between the two I don't think there is any solution to making any race singularly significant year in year out outside the TC and BC.

[Track Phantom]

There are too many horses consolidated with too few trainers. It will continue to destroy the game as we once knew it.

Pretty simple.

[rastajenk]

And contraction will exacerbate it.

In fact, many of the sins that many here wail about all the time will be exaggerated with contraction: supertrainers, impudent jockeys, the battle between designer drugs and testing standards, the influence of breeding, just about everything.

But that's another subject; sorry for the temporary thread derailment.

;)

[ReplayRandall]

There are too many horses consolidated with too few trainers. It will continue to destroy the game as we once knew it.

Pretty simple.

Yes, it's simple to see, the ultimate survival result for horse racing is contraction to 10 super hub tracks.... Bigger fields with better value for the bettor, finally being run with a National Racing Czar, with the goal of rising to the integrity and handle of Hong Kong.......As you said, "pretty simple".

[rastajenk]

Well, that was fun. :kiss:

[SuperPickle]

And contraction will exacerbate it.

In fact, many of the sins that many here wail about all the time will be exaggerated with contraction: supertrainers, impudent jockeys, the battle between designer drugs and testing standards, the influence of breeding, just about everything.

But that's another subject; sorry for the temporary thread derailment.

;)

It's ridiculous to use the argument that super trainers would get more horses so contraction is wrong.

First off Baffert, Brown, and Pletcher actively turn down horses and throw horses out. Even Graham Motion didn't take new owners for 2-3 years.

Second off, they already get all the good/well bred horses. They're looking for quality. They're looking for owners spending $500k plus on yearlings and the three of them pretty much dominate that market already.

Third, they've already turned down the chance to go west/east. Baffert has had a million chances to open a NY division. He doesn't want to. Brown and Pletcher could have 20-30 horses in SoCal any time they want. They'd rather stay home and use Parx and Monmouth as need be.

Pletcher and Brown aren't going to add another 100 horses if we had less tracks. They have all they want. They already dominate the game.

[ReplayRandall]

Well, that was fun. :kiss:

We both posted at the same time about contraction.....The JCGC illustrious days are from a bygone era, but still it exists. Maybe with contraction, it will be restored to it's former glory....:cool:

[rastajenk]

We both posted at the same time about contraction.....The JCGC illustrious days are from a bygone era, but still it exists. Maybe with contraction, it will be restored to it's former glory....:cool:Not as long as the Breeders Cup exists. Personally, I would like a return to the early days of the BC where regional stars could enter and sometimes win or at least hit the board, but contraction would without doubt put an end to that. In fact, with the contraction that some folks pine for, there wouldn't even need to be a Breeders Cup. An East-West competition not unlike the Sunshine Millions would do the same, with some Euros thrown in for spice. What fun. :ThmbDown:

[ReplayRandall]

It's ridiculous to use the argument that super trainers would get more horses so contraction is wrong.

First off Baffert, Brown, and Pletcher actively turn down horses and throw horses out. Even Graham Motion didn't take new owners for 2-3 years.

Second off, they already get all the good/well bred horses. They're looking for quality. They're looking for owners spending $500k plus on yearlings and the three of them pretty much dominate that market already.

Third, they've already turned down the chance to go west/east. Baffert has had a million chances to open a NY division. He doesn't want to. Brown and Pletcher could have 20-30 horses in SoCal any time they want. They'd rather stay home and use Parx and Monmouth as need be.

Pletcher and Brown aren't going to add another 100 horses if we had less tracks. They have all they want. They already dominate the game.
You act as if this situation with the trainers will never change. You couldn't be more WRONG. The game is dying and yet there is still a deep passion and a love for the game that will eventually supersede the way trainers dictate the game. EVERYTHING changes, mostly for the worst, but PASSION by the players and the owners eventually will win out with a complete reformation of the way the game is run. Holy crap, if Hong Kong can do it, if Japan can do it, if Australia can do it, why the hell can't the US??....And if the trainers don't like it, OUT YOU GO!..Jeff Mullins and his big mouth first.

[ReplayRandall]

Not as long as the Breeders Cup exists. Personally, I would like a return to the early days of the BC where regional stars could enter and sometimes win or at least hit the board, but contraction would without doubt put an end to that. In fact, with the contraction that some folks pine for, there wouldn't even need to be a Breeders Cup. An East-West competition not unlike the Sunshine Millions would do the same, with some Euros thrown in for spice. What fun. :ThmbDown:

Rasty, I can't help you if you don't see the vision....I look at it every night via Hong Kong....What fun they're having..:ThmbUp::ThmbUp:

[rastajenk]

What passion can owners in Missouri or Iowa, or southern Illinois, or central Ohio, or Colorado and New Mexico, or Michigan have if the game is being played out 1000 miles away? Can they rope a few friends and say "let's go to the races, but there's airfare, and hotel costs, and other incidentals, hope you can swing that." Win pictures will be peopled by an assistant trainer, a groom, a a valet hiding behind the winning horse; you want that on the wall of your den?
There's no passion there. So the pool of potential participants shrinks even more. But hey, if it makes for a better betting experience for the current generation, who cares, right?

[SuperPickle]

You act as if this situation with the trainers will never change. You couldn't be more WRONG. The game is dying and yet there is still a deep passion and a love for the game that will eventually supersede the way trainers dictate the game. EVERYTHING changes, mostly for the worst, but PASSION by the players and the owners eventually will win out with a complete reformation of the way the game is run. Holy crap, if Hong Kong can do it, if Japan can do it, if Australia can do it, why the hell can't the US??....And if the trainers don't like it, OUT YOU GO!..Jeff Mullins and his big mouth first.

I wish this was right but it's not. Unfortunately horse players willl always take a backseat to trainers and horseman. And slots/welfare certainly don't strengthen horse players stance.

[ReplayRandall]

I wish this was right but it's not. Unfortunately horse players willl always take a backseat to trainers and horseman. And slots/welfare certainly don't strengthen horse players stance.

I respect you SP, we get along, but that really was a weak reply....

[SuperPickle]

I respect you SP, we get along, but that really was a weak reply....

Two thoughts...

1. As long as you don't own the core product (I.e. The horse) you don't have the leverage of those who do have it. Theoretically you can have horsing racing without bettors but certainly not without horses.

2. Slots, subsidies and welfare crush the horse players leverage. With some tracks getting more than 50% of their purses from other sources and most tracks suplimenting purses in some way it water downs the importance of the horse players.

[alhattab]

I remember when legendary horses used to run in the Jockey Club Gold Cup. Now,the race is just another race on the card. I guess that is the effect of the Breeders Cup. Where have you gone Kelso,Forego,Cigar and Skip Away.Not to mention,Affirmed and Seattle Slew getting beat by Exceller in probably what was Seattle Slew's best race.

The PA Derby and the Cotillion have adversely affected the JCGC and Beldame. Could have had some good 3yo in both. Skip Away was a 3YO when he beat Cigar (BC @ WO). Curlin won in 2007 as a 3yo (BC @ Mth). In 2010 Prx moved the PA Derby to end of Sept rather than Labor Day. The new timing complemented the Travers perfectly and gave trainers another shot at straight 3yo, and killed the JCGC. Before then the PA Derby was purely second rate. The BC on the West Coast doesn't help either

[thespaah]

I remember when legendary horses used to run in the Jockey Club Gold Cup. Now,the race is just another race on the card. I guess that is the effect of the Breeders Cup. Where have you gone Kelso,Forego,Cigar and Skip Away.Not to mention,Affirmed and Seattle Slew getting beat by Exceller in probably what was Seattle Slew's best race.
Three words. The Breeders Cup.....
As connections race fewer and fewer times per year some championship horses race as few as 5 starts per season.
With that in mind, over the years two month gaps between starts is not uncommon.
IMO the Breeders Cup and the reluctance of connections to expose their horses to the best competition and racing so infrequently, has pretty much destroyed the traditional fall stakes calendar across the country.
That's it. That is what we are stuck with.

[ReplayRandall]

Two thoughts...

1. As long as you don't own the core product (I.e. The horse) you don't have the leverage of those who do have it. Theoretically you can have horsing racing without bettors but certainly not without horses.

2. Slots, subsidies and welfare crush the horse players leverage. With some tracks getting more than 50% of their purses from other sources and most tracks suplimenting purses in some way it water downs the importance of the horse players.
Final Thought...

The late Robert Goren, said it best:

"Some day in the not too distant future, horse players will betting on computer generated races over the net. Race tracks will become casinos and shopping centers. And some crooner will be belting out "there used to be a race track here".

[rastajenk]

Do you hope for that? It sounds like it, with your desire to contract to a Hong Kong type situation. A more pure gaming situation, without much regard to the people and their passion that keeps it going as is. Without that, you got nothing. if you think the marketing is bad now, as another recent thread suggested, try selling that.

[ReplayRandall]

Do you hope for that? It sounds like it, with your desire to contract to a Hong Kong type situation. A more pure gaming situation, without much regard to the people and their passion that keeps it going as is. Without that, you got nothing. if you think the marketing is bad now, as another recent thread suggested, try selling that.

And who do you think started that thread and kept it going??..:rolleyes:

[Track Phantom]

Unfortunately, the game isn't in a healthy state.

* Trainers and owners prefer small fields
* Tracks could care less if the fields are small, still get their takeout cut
* Owners dumping honest trainers and move to the next supertrainer
* Too many owners (and horses) are now consolidated with too few trainers
* Breeding money far exceeds potential racing earnings leading horses to the breeding shed sooner and overprotecting them during their racing career

All of these things have an impact on field size. Most importantly, if owners/trainers would rather run in 5-6 horse fields and tracks are indifferent to field size and just a few super trainers have the majority of horses, how is this problem going to change? I can understand small fields in lower level races but a litany of 6 horse fields in Grade 1 races is pathetic and shines very poorly on the state of the game.

[classhandicapper]

I want make one point about contraction.

If the sport contracts, American Pharoah, Tapit, Curlin etc.. are probably going to continue covering as many mares as they do now. The reduction will come from the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th tier horses that are now bred. So for example, lets say there was a 50% reduction in the foal crop, there's not going to be a 50% reduction at the top. There may be some loss of quality (maybe we don't wind up with CA Chrome), but it won't be as drastic as some people might think if we continue breeding the best to the best in the same or even greater numbers.

[aaron]

Three words. The Breeders Cup.....
As connections race fewer and fewer times per year some championship horses race as few as 5 starts per season.
With that in mind, over the years two month gaps between starts is not uncommon.
IMO the Breeders Cup and the reluctance of connections to expose their horses to the best competition and racing so infrequently, has pretty much destroyed the traditional fall stakes calendar across the country.
That's it. That is what we are stuck with.
I don't know, if it is only the Breeders Cup,but I agree on the reluctance of owners and trainers to run their horses is ridiculous. If a horse can workout, he can run. As I recall,Secretarit lost 3 races his TC year. Jockey Gold Cup had some pretty good races after the establishment of the Breeders Cup.
Wealthy owners and trainers seem to be afraid to lose.Isn't racing supposed to be the best horses running against each other more than once.The only time they change the MO is for Triple Crown races, where ignorant owners and trainers ruin horses that don't belong in those races.

[MonmouthParkJoe]

Unfortunately, the game isn't in a healthy state.

* Trainers and owners prefer small fields
* Tracks could care less if the fields are small, still get their takeout cut
* Owners dumping honest trainers and move to the next supertrainer
* Too many owners (and horses) are now consolidated with too few trainers
* Breeding money far exceeds potential racing earnings leading horses to the breeding shed sooner and overprotecting them during their racing career

All of these things have an impact on field size. Most importantly, if owners/trainers would rather run in 5-6 horse fields and tracks are indifferent to field size and just a few super trainers have the majority of horses, how is this problem going to change? I can understand small fields in lower level races but a litany of 6 horse fields in Grade 1 races is pathetic and shines very poorly on the state of the game.

The small fields are an issue, but I think its really two fold. The first being the obvious declining foal crop. The second I think has to do with the conditions that are being written. Some conditions are so restrictive that it allows trainers to really wait out the perfect small field to run their horses in. Non-winners of X, life time earnings at certain distances over a period of time, ect. I honestly think the less restrictions we have the more horses would be forced to run in certain spots

[Tom]

It is a decent Gr 2 race this year.
Maybe we should rename it the Jockey Club SILVER Cup.

[Redboard]

They should move it up a week next year. Most trainers like to give at least five weeks between races. Maybe reduce it to 9 furlongs too, so it's not as hard. The BCC is the most important race of the year; you want to be firing on all cylinders.

[Tom]

Real champions should be able to.

[ronsmac]

They should move it up a week next year. Most trainers like to give at least five weeks between races. Maybe reduce it to 9 furlongs too, so it's not as hard. The BCC is the most important race of the year; you want to be firing on all cylinders.The 5 week move probably makes sense. Maybe even switiching it with the Woodward. Two 1m 1/8th. Grade ones at Saratoga for older males seems redundant.

[Redboard]

The 5 week move probably makes sense. Maybe even switiching it with the Woodward. Two 1m 1/8th. Grade ones at Saratoga for older males seems redundant.
10 panels at Belmont is awkward also, with at that start on the turn.

[depalma113]

It simply comes down to the fact that Breeders Cup Limited and NYRA cannot get together and bring the races back to Belmont.

[dilanesp]

It simply comes down to the fact that Breeders Cup Limited and NYRA cannot get together and bring the races back to Belmont.

That might be good for NYRA but it wouldn't solve the JCGC's problems.

The BC, by the way, has decent reasons to stay out of New York. They would go there if New York State and NYRA got their ducks in a row, of course, but the event is a lot more profitable in Southern California and Kentucky. So it's not as though you are ever going to get a lot of BC's in New York.

[EMD4ME]

That might be good for NYRA but it wouldn't solve the JCGC's problems.

The BC, by the way, has decent reasons to stay out of New York. They would go there if New York State and NYRA got their ducks in a row, of course, but the event is a lot more profitable in Southern California and Kentucky. So it's not as though you are ever going to get a lot of BC's in New York.

Last time they had 1: Jerry Bailey was king, Dutrow was on top and Ghostzapper was a virgin.

Prediction: We won't see a BC in NY till at least 2030.

[horses4courses]

Ha ha ha ha...........Hoppertunity wins the JC Gold Cup.
That's a pretty weak bunch. :ThmbDown:

[EMD4ME]

Ha ha ha ha...........Hoppertunity wins the JC Gold Cup.
That's a pretty weak bunch. :ThmbDown:

It's pretty sad when Hopperunity wins the JCGC......

[Tom]

He had been chasing far better than this groups of G2/3 plodders.
Baffert didn't ship 3000 miles to lose to Effenex.

[Redboard]

Mubtaahij really came up small(10 lengths back). He nosed out Frosted for second place last race(Woodward). I think the extra furlong hurt him. Closers don’t always improve stretching out, in fact, they more often do worse. Looks like the BC dirt mile will be a great betting opportunity. :bang:

Effinex ran a good race. Apparently, he’ll be the “least from the east” this year, by default. :rolleyes:

[Tom]

I have a lot of confidence in the horse following the one that just beat him, who flew 3000 miles to avoid who they are heading west to face. :confused: :rolleyes:

[SuperPickle]

My initial reaction after the race was "God is Frank screwed."

Could you have picked a worse year to have a $10 million race for older males.

The older horses are a joke. Of the three triple crown winners one is retired and two are off form. The Travers winner looks fragile.

What if Crome doesn't go? What if Frosted doesn't? What if the foreign horses stay away?

There's a real shot horses like Effinex or Hopportunity are real contenders in a $10 million race.

[Redboard]

My initial reaction after the race was "God is Frank screwed."

Could you have picked a worse year to have a $10 million race for older males.

The older horses are a joke. Of the three triple crown winners one is retired and two are off form. The Travers winner looks fragile.

What if Crome doesn't go? What if Frosted doesn't? What if the foreign horses stay away?

There's a real shot horses like Effinex or Hopportunity are real contenders in a $10 million race.

Looking down the road, by January all of the current 2YrOlds will be three and maybe one of them will step up. :faint:

[Bigadam119]

Looking down the road, by January all of the current 2YrOlds will be three and maybe one of them will step up. :faint:

I think they took the conditions of the Donn for the Pegasus which was a 4 y.o. and up race.

[burnsy]

They should move it up a week next year. Most trainers like to give at least five weeks between races. Maybe reduce it to 9 furlongs too, so it's not as hard. The BCC is the most important race of the year; you want to be firing on all cylinders.

Kelso won this race 5 times in a row at 2 miles. I think 3 went sub 3:20. Now people want it to be 9 furlongs? What's with these horses and NOT racing? Or getting any kind of classic distance?

Then the laugher is the "experts" and "Gurus" cutting people off and putting them down when they say: " These horses are fast, but why can't they last over 9 furlongs?" And "why can't they race more than every 5-8 weeks?"

After seeing the JCGC yesterday.....Hoppertunity comes "off the bench" from handy defeats and trumps the east.............If CC is right these guys are "appetizers" next month.......lol. It could be said the CC is a "throw back", 5 years old, just kicking ass and taking names.....that's a friggin race horse....and the way they were meant to run once upon a time. But even he takes long breaks before a "drink at the well".

[Robert Fischer]

Mubtaahij really came up small(10 lengths back). He nosed out Frosted for second place last race(Woodward). I think the extra furlong hurt him. Closers don’t always improve stretching out, in fact, they more often do worse. Looks like the BC dirt mile will be a great betting opportunity. :bang:

Effinex ran a good race. Apparently, he’ll be the “least from the east” this year, by default. :rolleyes:

I TRIED to give Mubtaahij a mulligan in the Suburban, for maybe needing a race, and lugging in to a dead rail. My eyes didn't agree with the script, but I gave it an honest try.

However, after re-watching the Woodward Stakes, when Irad Ortiz raised his whip to the heavens, and the Red Sea was parted by God, and Mubtaahij still couldn't muster enough to out-finish a mediocre Shaman Ghost to the wire..., I looked to alternative stretch runners.

[aaron]

Kelso won this race 5 times in a row at 2 miles. I think 3 went sub 3:20. Now people want it to be 9 furlongs? What's with these horses and NOT racing? Or getting any kind of classic distance?

Then the laugher is the "experts" and "Gurus" cutting people off and putting them down when they say: " These horses are fast, but why can't they last over 9 furlongs?" And "why can't they race more than every 5-8 weeks?"

After seeing the JCGC yesterday.....Hoppertunity comes "off the bench" from handy defeats and trumps the east.............If CC is right these guys are "appetizers" next month.......lol. It could be said the CC is a "throw back", 5 years old, just kicking ass and taking names.....that's a friggin race horse....and the way they were meant to run once upon a time. But even he takes long breaks before a "drink at the well".
It is all about owners and trainers.They are more concerned about their win % than they are about doing the right thing.If a horse can workout, he can run.In horse racing it is not a disgrace to lose a race. Years ago top horses used to always run against each other. Trainers then started pulling out of races because of weight, basically ending Handicap races and competition. Forego lost races and carried as much as 138 lbs. He is still regarded as one of the great horses.Owners who are great businessmen, don't have a clue about what is best for racing.The top trainers control the game.They have basically ruined the game with their shortsightedness.Take a look at Belmont yesterday. Was there one horse people came out to see ? How much did NYRA lose with purses that were wasted on unattractive card with short fields,

[ronsmac]

Kelso won this race 5 times in a row at 2 miles. I think 3 went sub 3:20. Now people want it to be 9 furlongs? What's with these horses and NOT racing? Or getting any kind of classic distance?

Then the laugher is the "experts" and "Gurus" cutting people off and putting them down when they say: " These horses are fast, but why can't they last over 9 furlongs?" And "why can't they race more than every 5-8 weeks?"

After seeing the JCGC yesterday.....Hoppertunity comes "off the bench" from handy defeats and trumps the east.............If CC is right these guys are "appetizers" next month.......lol. It could be said the CC is a "throw back", 5 years old, just kicking ass and taking names.....that's a friggin race horse....and the way they were meant to run once upon a time. But even he takes long breaks before a "drink at the well".I give Chrome a pass for his break this year because of the trip to Dubai. Assuming he makes it to the classic, that will be four consecutive races in a row. Even though the spacing these days isn't what it used to be. Even some of the sprinters are skipping their respective Breeders Cup preps this year. It may be an illusion , but it seems like an inordinate number of horses will have 8-10 week layoffs coming into this years races.

[infrontby1]

Good article from espn on this topic:


http://www.espn.com/horse-racing/story/_/id/17742465/belmont-fall-stakes-get-spotlight)

[dilanesp]

Good article from espn on this topic:


http://www.espn.com/horse-racing/story/_/id/17742465/belmont-fall-stakes-get-spotlight)

A lot of Watchmaker's arguments were just wrong. As I noted above, New York's fall stakes were in decline before the BC came around.

And the BC was not "intended" to be as moveable as he says. It was intended to make a profit and decide championships. If you go back and look at the publicity in 1984 it was definitely intended to be in California most years because of our good weather and big crowds.

Pushing for NYRA to host BC's is pushing for the BC to risk losses and bad weather. I do think it's not a terrible idea to go there occasionally, but this is the whine of someone who doesn't understand that New York's fall decline was inevitable.

Bear in mind, Saratoga is much bigger now than it ever was in the past, so trends sometimes work in NYRA's favor too.

[CincyHorseplayer]

A lot of Watchmaker's arguments were just wrong. As I noted above, New York's fall stakes were in decline before the BC came around.

And the BC was not "intended" to be as moveable as he says. It was intended to make a profit and decide championships. If you go back and look at the publicity in 1984 it was definitely intended to be in California most years because of our good weather and big crowds.

Pushing for NYRA to host BC's is pushing for the BC to risk losses and bad weather. I do think it's not a terrible idea to go there occasionally, but this is the whine of someone who doesn't understand that New York's fall decline was inevitable.

Bear in mind, Saratoga is much bigger now than it ever was in the past, so trends sometimes work in NYRA's favor too.

You gave yourself away as a California dreamer in your post and it is so biased it's pathetically obvious.

If the BC is NOT a movable event then it is useless. 10 times in 2 places in 11 years is BS.

Before the BC the NY races were in decline? Where and what else was taking the helm of relevance for Eclipse honors? Not buying this fiction.

There is no whine larger than a west coast whine. You invented the rivalry. The rest of us in this country could care less about that fiction too.

But by all means keep on. It's entertaining! Freedom of speech is God's gift to comedy!

[the little guy]

You gave yourself away as a California dreamer in your post and it is so biased it's pathetically obvious.

If the BC is NOT a movable event then it is useless. 10 times in 2 places in 11 years is BS.

Before the BC the NY races were in decline? Where and what else was taking the helm of relevance for Eclipse honors? Not buying this fiction.

There is no whine larger than a west coast whine. You invented the rivalry. The rest of us in this country could care less about that fiction too.

But by all means keep on. It's entertaining! Freedom of speech is God's gift to comedy!

Post of the day.


:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[dilanesp]

You gave yourself away as a California dreamer in your post and it is so biased it's pathetically obvious.

If the BC is NOT a movable event then it is useless. 10 times in 2 places in 11 years is BS.

Before the BC the NY races were in decline? Where and what else was taking the helm of relevance for Eclipse honors? Not buying this fiction.

There is no whine larger than a west coast whine. You invented the rivalry. The rest of us in this country could care less about that fiction too.

But by all means keep on. It's entertaining! Freedom of speech is God's gift to comedy!

Cincy, NYRA's attendance was way down IN THE 1970's, and Oak Tree was pulling good horses out of their stakes. That all predates the BC.

The BC certainly can move around and does, somewhat. But it happens they make more money when they stage it in California and Kentucky and may even take a loss, or make much less, in New York. Plus there's the weather.

That's reality. New York is never going to recapture its glory in the fall. There are too many other options. As I said, though, Saratoga is bigger than ever. So the trends work both ways.

[EMD4ME]

Cincy, NYRA's attendance was way down IN THE 1970's, and Oak Tree was pulling good horses out of their stakes. That all predates the BC.

The BC certainly can move around and does, somewhat. But it happens they make more money when they stage it in California and Kentucky and may even take a loss, or make much less, in New York. Plus there's the weather.

That's reality. New York is never going to recapture its glory in the fall. There are too many other options. As I said, though, Saratoga is bigger than ever. So the trends work both ways.

I hope Repole combined with some slot money create a BC OLD SCHOOL STYLE: FALL CHAMPIONSHIP MEET.

Run all "copies" of BC at Belmont 1 week before the BC and make the purses are 50% higher.

Make NYRA preps for the races throughout the year for free births AND destroy, water down the BC product.

You CALI people/BC people need a dose in reality.

Finally, nothing personal Dilan, I kinda like your posts :ThmbUp: :lol:

[cj]

I hope Repole combined with some slot money create a BC OLD SCHOOL STYLE: FALL CHAMPIONSHIP MEET.

Run all "copies" of BC at Belmont 1 week before the BC and make the purses 50% higher.

Make NYRA preps for the races throughout the year for free births AND destroy, water down the BC product.

You CALI people/BC people need a dose in reality.

Finally, nothing personal Dilan, I kinda like your posts :ThmbUp: :lol:

Actually surprised this hasn't happened yet. It could be done, no doubt. The money is there.

[horses4courses]

Run all "copies" of BC at Belmont 1 week before the BC and make the purses are 50% higher.

It certainly would make a lot of connections of Euro turf horses very happy.

[EMD4ME]

Actually surprised this hasn't happened yet. It could be done, no doubt. The money is there.

They should do it. I personally am sick of watching Turf horses run on tight turns and astroturf. I'm sick of a speed biased dirt track and turf course.

Real Turf, is the Belmont turf of yesteryear. Wide turns and turf that is more than 1 inch deep.

I think I am one of the higher (higher than the median) players in the country and I handle almost nothing on BC day. It's just not a good place to hold a Championship race (SA).

[EMD4ME]

It certainly would make a lot of connections of Euro turf horses very happy.

I agree.


Plus, I don't see why Cuomo can't allow just 5-10 million of the money he siphons away from Capitol Expenditures to go for lights at Belmont.

It's so repulsive. (How much he hates NYRA and horse racing)

[ronsmac]

I hope Repole combined with some slot money create a BC OLD SCHOOL STYLE: FALL CHAMPIONSHIP MEET.

Run all "copies" of BC at Belmont 1 week before the BC and make the purses are 50% higher.

Make NYRA preps for the races throughout the year for free births AND destroy, water down the BC product.

You CALI people/BC people need a dose in reality.

Finally, nothing personal Dilan, I kinda like your posts :ThmbUp: :lol:That might work for the grass races but the way the California dirt horses have been winning the last few years, they would just raid New York and take all the money back to California. It was really bad this year when Songbird came east and just stole easy money. The same with Drefong and Arrogate. I'm not sure why the dirt horses have been so much better in California since they ditched the synthetics.

[EMD4ME]

That might work for the grass races but the way the California dirt horses have been winning the last few years, they would just raid New York and take all the money back to California. It was really bad this year when Songbird came east and just stole easy money. The same with Drefong and Arrogate. I'm not sure why the dirt horses have been so much better in California since they ditched the synthetics.

Hey, I don't care if the Cali horses come here and kill the NY horses. I just care that the BC people get their producted diluted and destroyed. They deserve it.

The BC was created to be a rotating event. Not a stupid yearly SA event.

Why should NYRA have their entire fall Graded Stakes schedule compromised to a near non important meet? All for what? So that the fat boys at the BC eat more?

F em

[rsetup]

Actually surprised this hasn't happened yet. It could be done, no doubt. The money is there. Where are the horses?

[EMD4ME]

Remember, if NYRA does that, they don't hurt as much as the BC. NYRA has slot money coming in.

The BC needs all the handle, revenue etc that they can get.

Dilute them and you break them. You MAKE them come back to you.

Why reward them? Again, Forget them.

[cj]

Where are the horses?

Doesn't matter, they gave out a million for a G2 at best yesterday. You weaken the BC and make people question if they are really championship races, it will sting. NYRA is getting hurt by the BC. They get nothing from the BC. Why shouldn't they take them on?

[ultracapper]

And the continuing saga of horse racing's demise continues with the internal battles.

Gotta be another way gentleman.

[rastajenk]

Yeah, those goings-on did wonders for Indy Car racing, didn't they? :rolleyes:

[Tom]

I have long advocated NYRA put on their own BC weekend ahead of the real one. And to sweeten the pot, give a 5 lb. weight break to any horse who starts in a "NYRA CUP" prep race at Belmont in September or October.

[EMD4ME]

And the continuing saga of horse racing's demise continues with the internal battles.

Gotta be another way gentleman.

I don't see the BC doing much for racing. Maybe I'm blind. I only see it hurting racing.

Horses are racing less, G1 means less than it did 20 years ago. Smaller fields etc.

If we go back to no year end championships, maybe horses would race more in more prestigous races INSTEAD of making a few starts and making the BC the goal.

Why should the premier/co premier circuit in the country, play 2nd fiddle to the BC?

[ronsmac]

I don't see the BC doing much for racing. Maybe I'm blind. I only see it hurting racing.

Horses are racing less, G1 means less than it did 20 years ago. Smaller fields etc.

If we go back to no year end championships, maybe horses would race more in more prestigous races INSTEAD of making a few starts and making the BC the goal.

Why should the premier/co premier circuit in the country, play 2nd fiddle to the BC? You might be right , but those beeeders cup cards have been phenomenal the last few years. It's my favorite weekend of the year by far.

[EMD4ME]

You might be right , but those beeeders cup cards have been phenomenal the last few years. It's my favorite weekend of the year by far.

To each his/her own. I can't argue with you on that.

I'm thinking year round and overall good for the game. If the Olympics were held in Georgia every single time, do you think the entire world would watch as intently?

I just feel that tracks, mostly NYRA, are sacrificing way too much for nothing in return.

Why should NYRA accept less, for the good of Santa Anita???

[infrontby1]

What's going to happen to the JCGC and the other fall championship races at Belmont will be what happened to their other premier races including the summer handicap triple crown races (remember those?) such as the Suburban and the Brooklyn Handicaps, and moving races like the Metropolitan Handicap as an undercard race on the big racing day:


They will lose their Grade I status


If and when that will happen, these races will fall off the radar of the best horses' connections that are in charge of planning where to race their stock.

Again, it's a question of whether the owner wants the big purse (e.g. racing in the Delta Downs Jackpot) or the Grade I trophy on their breeding resume (e.g. The Champagne at Belmont)

[CincyHorseplayer]

The other somewhat less talked about and minor theme of this thread has been distance. Even when I was 3-4 years into my 20 year playing saga I appreciated more and more 2 turn races on both surfaces mainly because more could develop in a race and IMO they were more competitive because of it. When I had been around long enough pedigree started to peek out at me and I took notice. Knowing the lay of the land by sires and dams makes you appreciate distance ability also. And IMO more and more I see pedigrees coming along geared for distances on both sides of the breeding line. Racing cut back the distances over time. I would like to see this practice undone in one way or another because I think it is absurd. The 10f distance IMO is the championship distance for GR-1 competition. It allows milers and those with true staying power an equal chance. Cultivating the flat mile as Europe does and revering their milers=absolutely. But when it comes to the top competition in this country beyond a flat mile I think these races much be stretched back out. To me in stakes company 8.5 furlong races are absolutely useless. To the point I don't think that distance should allowed even GR-3 status. The Donn, Whitney, Woodward, Haskell, these should ALL be 10f races IMO. I feel so strongly that I don't think any 9f race should be allowed beyond GR-2 status. And have some more 11-12 furlong dirt stakes. Cultivate this again. When trainers can't escape the distance reality unless it is for lesser purses I think it would alter their approach and we would end up with more fit horses and the contenders from pretenders would be weeded out definitively. I think this would restore some of the greatness back to racing and would put a bigger influence back into pedigree. That's my 2 cents and I would love to see this.

[Tom]

If we go back to no year end championships, maybe horses would race more in more prestigous races INSTEAD of making a few starts and making the BC the goal.

Why should the premier/co premier circuit in the country, play 2nd fiddle to the BC?

Bingo.
Championships earned by running in a series of Graded races to get them.
Stay in the barn, watch the awards show on TVG.

[classhandicapper]

I hope whatever strategy NYRA takes (if any) is well thought out.

I remember the 70s when these big NY races used to draw large crowds and be real championship races. At great as racing in NY was back then, those races didn't generate as much national interest among casual fans as the Breeder's Cup does. People that are normally not that interested in racing, watch and bet on BC races. There are only 4 events each year that generate that huge fan interest: Derby, Preakness, Belmont and the BC. Killing one of them doesn't make much sense to me.

Bringing the BC to NY once in awhile makes perfect sense. That's the way it was supposed to be. But I don't see how that restores these other Belmont races to past glory. You might get an extra horse here or there because they want their horse to prep at Belmont too, but that's about it.

Making the NY purses larger might help a little in marginal decisions, but I don't see how it makes sense for the sport (or NY) to put up enough money to actually compete with the BC and/or try to destroy it.

As long as the BC has the biggest purses and carries the most weight in Eclipse voting, connections are going to try to keep their horses fresh so they can still get a peak performance in November and take down the money and award.

Perhaps some kind of point total for a series of races in NY (or nationally) (with bonuses) would at least change the way people think about the weighting for Eclipse Awards.

It's going to take some creative thinking. I don't have many good ideas.

[Tom]

NYRA did not have national coverage like it does today.
Hardly anyone could bet those races.
Today, wagering is available to a large markets, as is their product.

Who is going to compete with them if they bring out the big guns?

[SuperPickle]

I can't see how doing your own breeders cup would work.

Their simply aren't enough horses is the problem. Competing for them solves nothing.

In the two-year-old races and the lesser divisions and the tighter divisions the Breeder's Cup literally decides the Eclipse winner. I can't see owners giving that up.

What I always find fascinating is people think purse money solves every problem in the sport. Haven't we kind of learned its actually the opposite? That all this new slot money combined with less horses, combined with horses racing less, is the reason you have the 2016 JCC.

All of racings problems come back to contraction. Not only of tracks but of stakes races themselves also.

NYRA and other tracks are still trying to run a stakes schedule from 50 years ago. Maybe they need to come to their senses and do something like this...

You eliminate the Woodard and the Suburban. You come to grips with there's always going to be limited talent in the older horse division so you cut it from five stakes to three. The Met, The Whitney, and JCC. You space them 6-8 weeks apart. And you make each a million dollars with a $2-3 million dollar bonus for winning all three.

So you have the Met on Belmont Day. You have the Whitney on Saratoga opening weekend and have you the JCC 6 weeks before the Classic. Add a bonus and there you go.

And you could do the same thing with the older mares and do it for 50-75% of the money.

Sooner or later you have to accept and adjust that their are less horses racing less often. Throwing money at them solves nothing.

[EMD4ME]

NYRA did not have national coverage like it does today.
Hardly anyone could bet those races.
Today, wagering is available to a large markets, as is their product.

Who is going to compete with them if they bring out the big guns?

No one. Period. They should so do it and do it grand.

[Redboard]

You guys are delusional. I can see Chris Kay walking into Cuomo’s office with a plan to hold another “big” day in November($20 Million in purses), when they just lost at least $1 Million on last Saturday’s big day, $4 Million in purses, $13 Million in handle according to Equibase ( most of that was off-track).
Let’s get real here people, if NYRA really wants the Breeders Cup they can certainly get it. They just don’t want it for reasons which I haven’t the foggiest clue about. The NYRA insiders here are very quiet.

[CincyHorseplayer]

I think it should be done for at least 1 year. If they don't get back into a routine rotation, keep on trucking and water the BC down. Tit for tat.

[classhandicapper]

Horseplayers that already scan the national scene for good betting opportunities or exciting racing already look at these NY fall races and bet them if they have an opinion. No doubt, if the races are better, they will generate more interest and handle.

But I'm talking about the people that play a handful of times a year. They come out in droves for the Triple Crown, BC and maybe another miscellaneous race here or there with star quality. The BC has an established brand. IMO you aren't going to get the same number of people making the trek to their simulcast center, OTB, or funding their online accounts etc... to play the JCGC just because it's a better race with a bigger purse. You'll get more, but it won't be the same. IMO it would take years to establish the same brand power the BC already has - if it was ever as successful. We would probably wind up with 2 diluted products that are both losing money for awhile.

I think the idea is to co-exist with the BC, get it to NY more often, and create better incentives for connections to run in a series of NY series instead of shipping or staying in the barn.

Making all the purses much larger is probably problematical. But giving out points for a series of NY races with a bonus at the end (not just win both races or win a series of races) could help. You could make races like the JCGC, Champagne, Frizette etc.. worth the most points. That will give more horses a shot at the purse and bonus. Something like that may drag a few bonus hunters into a few extra NY races as long as they remain in contention for that prize at the end. Others will run in the race just to win the purse and prestige even if they aren't in contention for the bonus.

It's a trough problem. I'm not a marketer. I'm thinking out loud. But I don't think taking on the BC is such a good idea for the industry.

[DeltaLover]

As a bettor I do not care about the excitement, or the revealed greatness of the horses. For me, having the big names (as the winners of the Whitney and the Woodward or even CC) skipping the JCGC was great, as it resulted to a good betting race that I was lucky to capitalize on it. All I am interested about is to have well balanced events escorted with a good chance to beat the crowd and nothing more.

I admit that I find it difficult o understand why bettors seem to be obsessed about things like, “who is going to become horse of the year”, “CC is superior than Frosted and probably is the best older horse since Kelso (LOL)” or making comments like “geez this Songbird is probably is the best 3yo since Ruffian, it so nice to watch her winning every other week (of course beating the same under-matched group of fillies!)”...

The only good thing that can come out from this way of thinking, is the appearance of ridiculously over-bet favorites that create some very profitable betting situations when a hyped horse shows up (see Tepin, Frosted, Nyquist etc)

[Tom]

How about enjoyment of the sport?

[DeltaLover]

How about enjoyment of the sport?

I fail to understand where the enjoyment is coming simply by watching some animals running around (unless of course some $$ on a nose are involved)..

[Tom]

You don't know what you are missing.

[DeltaLover]

Its OK, I can live with it..

[dilanesp]

Actually surprised this hasn't happened yet. It could be done, no doubt. The money is there.

The Breeders' Cup has the second most lucrative financing mechanism in all of throughbred racing, behind only the Dubai World Cup (basically limitless).

Between all the stallion nomination fees, and the foal nomination fees, and the entry and supplemental fees, and the television revenue, and the sponsorship, and the money they get from the European Breeders' Fund, and the revenue they share with the tracks, they have enough money to set their purses far, far higher than they do. They could also easily up the purses by eliminating some of the Friday races as well.

They would win any competition with any entity other than Dubai. Plus, it is the BREEDERS' cup. The breeding industry is very much committed to the BC. NYRA taking it on would be suicidal.

[dilanesp]

I want to emphasize something else I mentioned earlier, too.

All this sadness about NYRA's fall stakes schedule ignores what happened to its summer stakes schedule. I know there's this feeling people have that Saratoga has always been the biggest thing in the world, but it really wasn't. If you look at Saratoga's purses in the 1960's and 1970's, and their attendance (other than Travers Day), and the fields their races drew, you will find that the track is doing much, much better now. It has become the center of American racing in the summer, and it brings in tons of money for NYRA, with the association charging high prices for tickets and seats and supporting gigantic purses.

So the fall racing isn't what it once was. Meanwhile, New York fans have the best summer racing they have ever had. It's a pretty decent trade-off.

[cj]

The Breeders' Cup has the second most lucrative financing mechanism in all of throughbred racing, behind only the Dubai World Cup (basically limitless).

Between all the stallion nomination fees, and the foal nomination fees, and the entry and supplemental fees, and the television revenue, and the sponsorship, and the money they get from the European Breeders' Fund, and the revenue they share with the tracks, they have enough money to set their purses far, far higher than they do. They could also easily up the purses by eliminating some of the Friday races as well.

They would win any competition with any entity other than Dubai. Plus, it is the BREEDERS' cup. The breeding industry is very much committed to the BC. NYRA taking it on would be suicidal.

If this were true would they really be worried about how profitable it is going to certain tracks over others? Wouldn't those paying the fees be raising hell about the "low" purses?

[alhattab]

To me in stakes company 8.5 furlong races are absolutely useless. To the point I don't think that distance should allowed even GR-3 status. The Donn, Whitney, Woodward, Haskell, these should ALL be 10f races IMO. I feel so strongly that I don't think any 9f race should be allowed beyond GR-2 status.

A variation of this theme would be to eliminate or reduce graded status on age-restricted races (other than 2YO races) after a specified date. The logical races/dates would be the Alabama, Travers, Del Mar Derby, whatever they run out at Santa Anita (the Swaps?), Belmont races for 3YO, etc. So races like the QEII, PA Derby, Cotillion, others could for example be no better than G3 if run after these dates. Yes my example is arbitrary and would need to be thought out.

[chiguy]

I hope whatever strategy NYRA takes (if any) is well thought out.

I remember the 70s when these big NY races used to draw large crowds and be real championship races. At great as racing in NY was back then, those races didn't generate as much national interest among casual fans as the Breeder's Cup does. People that are normally not that interested in racing, watch and bet on BC races. There are only 4 events each year that generate that huge fan interest: Derby, Preakness, Belmont and the BC. Killing one of them doesn't make much sense to me.

Bringing the BC to NY once in awhile makes perfect sense. That's the way it was supposed to be. But I don't see how that restores these other Belmont races to past glory. You might get an extra horse here or there because they want their horse to prep at Belmont too, but that's about it.

Making the NY purses larger might help a little in marginal decisions, but I don't see how it makes sense for the sport (or NY) to put up enough money to actually compete with the BC and/or try to destroy it.

As long as the BC has the biggest purses and carries the most weight in Eclipse voting, connections are going to try to keep their horses fresh so they can still get a peak performance in November and take down the money and award.

Perhaps some kind of point total for a series of races in NY (or nationally) (with bonuses) would at least change the way people think about the weighting for Eclipse Awards.

It's going to take some creative thinking. I don't have many good ideas.

Sharp post. I have to ask the question because I don't know the answer. Why did the BC come into existence? What was deemed wrong with the way things were that this idea came to fruition and has been a great success? I got involved in racing after the first BC. After that I have been all in every year. I have traveled to a handful of these just to see so many of these great horses in person. I really hate the idea of NYRA or any racing group trying to kill it off. It is one of the few things in racing that actually works. Can it get better? Of course but to kill it off just sounds too much like something we as a community would do given our track record.

[dilanesp]

If this were true would they really be worried about how profitable it is going to certain tracks over others? Wouldn't those paying the fees be raising hell about the "low" purses?

No, because the job of a business is to maximize profit. You set purses where they need to be to ensure that the best horses run in the Breeders' Cup. If there were a competitor, they would of course set them higher. Sometimes you even take a loss to drive out a competitor. Big airlines do this all the time-- discount a route where a low fare competitor springs up, and then raise the prices again when the competitor is eliminated.

Similarly, you run at tracks that will make you the biggest profit. In general, that means California and Kentucky. Now, there are other considerations (weather, the cooperativeness of the host track, the desires of the BC's constituents in Kentucky and Europe, etc.), that are taken into account. That's why they don't just run at Santa Anita or Churchill every year. And there are decent arguments why they should go to New York occasionally, as they once did.

But every time they go there, they take a hit on their profits. They get their lowest attendances (among tracks in the regular rotation) in New York, and the event tends to get swallowed up by all the big things going on in New York, so the event has a lower promotional profile, which can hurt with sponsorships too. Plus New York can have bad weather.

The bottom line:

1. The most profitable places to run the BC are at Santa Anita and Churchill. That's why so many of them are held at those two tracks.

2. There are some reasons, more or less compelling, to run the event at other tracks, on occasion, including Belmont.

3. They have historically made less money or possibly lost money on BC's at Belmont, so it's not going to host it very often.

4. However, the BC's funding sources are secure enough that they could raise purses, pressure owners and breeders not to participate, and do whatever else is necessary to beat back any potential competitor. I'm sure NYRA, Stronach, and the rest of the industry knows this.

5. Unless and until such a competitor arrives, the BC will set purses at a level that maximizes its returns. If a competitor did arrive, they would take a temporary loss if necessary to beat it back.

[dilanesp]

Sharp post. I have to ask the question because I don't know the answer. Why did the BC come into existence? What was deemed wrong with the way things were that this idea came to fruition and has been a great success? I got involved in racing after the first BC. After that I have been all in every year. I have traveled to a handful of these just to see so many of these great horses in person. I really hate the idea of NYRA or any racing group trying to kill it off. It is one of the few things in racing that actually works. Can it get better? Of course but to kill it off just sounds too much like something we as a community would do given our track record.

The Breeders' Cup came into existence because John Gaines figured out a profitable business model based on sire and foal nominations, similar to the All American Futurity, which had been a very profitable quarter horse race. Basically if you get the owners of almost every decently bred horse in the country to pay nomination fees, you generate a huge pool of money which gives you the opportunity to card races with fantastically large purses. At the time the first BC was run in 1984, the Classic's purse was three times the largest previous purse ever put up for a thoroughbred race.

Once you have a funding mechanism, the prospect of having a series of championship races will generate significant attendance and betting handle. It all follows from that.

Having said that, if you want a more philosophical, less economic explanation, it's what I talked about upthread. The proliferation of fall racing had stripped New York's fall races of their absolute ability to crown champions. Top 2 year olds and turf horses had started running at Oak Tree rather than in New York-- the Norfolk, Oak Leaf, Carleton F. Burke, Oak Tree Invitational, and Yellow Ribbon were all drawing horses who would have, in the past, gone to New York (or to Laurel for the DC International). Hollywood had started up the Hollywood Futurity, Starlet, and Turf Cup. And it wasn't just California-- Louisiana Downs had started carding the Super Derby. The Arlington Million was a late summer race with a huge purse which had become more important than the fall New York grass races. Etc.

So the New York fall races could no longer credibly crown all the champions, and there were more and more rich options for horsemen who wanted to go elsewhere. Which meant you needed a championship event to ensure that top horses would actually meet each other. The Breeders' Cup, with its funding mechanism, could do it. Nobody else really could.

[Redboard]

It would definitely generate more interest in the fall Belmont stakes if the BC returned to Belmont.

The last time it was held there, 2005, six of the top ten finishers in the BC Classic were coming off of Belmont races, including the BCC winner, Saint Liam, who won the Woodward that year( it was still being run at Belmont); Flower Alley(2nd), Suave(5th), Sun King(9th), Borrego(10th) were all last-out JCGC.

[SuperPickle]

The Breeders' Cup has the second most lucrative financing mechanism in all of throughbred racing, behind only the Dubai World Cup (basically limitless).

Between all the stallion nomination fees, and the foal nomination fees, and the entry and supplemental fees, and the television revenue, and the sponsorship, and the money they get from the European Breeders' Fund, and the revenue they share with the tracks, they have enough money to set their purses far, far higher than they do. They could also easily up the purses by eliminating some of the Friday races as well.

They would win any competition with any entity other than Dubai. Plus, it is the BREEDERS' cup. The breeding industry is very much committed to the BC. NYRA taking it on would be suicidal.

One of racing's dirty little secrets is the host track of the Breeders Cup generally loses money. My hunch is either Frank has figured out a way to turn a small profit with it or a smaller loss through the LA market or cross promotion with his ADW but tracks generally lose money. Sometime HUGE money. Because it rained the whole weekend Monmouth was in the red over $3 million dollars. You can make a pretty good argument it sped up the demise of the Monmouth.

That's the reason tracks won't bid on it anymore. After Monmouth took that huge loss all the second tier tracks backed away. NYRA won't touch it. Basically Frank is the only bidder. I know Del Mar is going to give it try because they know they'll have the weather but outside of that under its current terms I'm not even sure. I'm not even sure Churchill wants it.

[dilanesp]

One of racing's dirty little secrets is the host track of the Breeders Cup generally loses money. My hunch is either Frank has figured out a way to turn a small profit with it or a smaller loss through the LA market or cross promotion with his ADW but tracks generally lose money. Sometime HUGE money. Because it rained the whole weekend Monmouth was in the red over $3 million dollars. You can make a pretty good argument it sped up the demise of the Monmouth.

That's the reason tracks won't bid on it anymore. After Monmouth took that huge loss all the second tier tracks backed away. NYRA won't touch it. Basically Frank is the only bidder. I know Del Mar is going to give it try because they know they'll have the weather but outside of that under its current terms I'm not even sure. I'm not even sure Churchill wants it.

BC day definitely loses money for the host track, though it can be profitable for the Breeders' Cup.

Basically, the BC demands that the host track bear the normal expenses of a race day (paying the gate crew, mutuel clerks, cleanup, etc.) while signing over all the revenues to the BC.

However, there is an argument for hosting the BC, and it's the one that is made in this thread by other posters, actually. It's a spillover effect-- it potentially generates interest in the rest of your meet, brings good horses for the prep races, brings out some out of town fans to the races the week of the BC, etc.

There's also definitely a prestige aspect to it. I doubt, for instance, that Del Mar is going to make any money hosting the thing, but they certainly wanted it badly. That's why you've seen a lot of tracks host it once.

(EDIT: One other point, and it gets to yours. It's possible that because the BC makes a consistent profit at Santa Anita and Churchill, those tracks are offered more favorable terms (including a share of the loot or the BC covering more expenses) than other tracks are offered. We don't know, we don't see the contracts. But this would be an entirely rational approach for the BC to take.)

[ronsmac]

Speaking of Belmont. Huge fields today.

[EMD4ME]

Fine with me. I hit both pick 5s multiple multiple times. It can rain all day as far as I'm concerned.

[Redboard]

Speaking of Belmont. Huge fields today.

Are you kidding? I didn't see any more than seven..... oh....

Never mind.

[CosmicWon]

JCGC was a total bummer this year because there just aren't enough good handicap horses to go around while all the 3yos who could've run and been competitive a la Tonalist, Palace Malice (2nd), Bernardini, Curlin, Stay Thirsty (3rd) all seemingly went in the PA Derby or were layed up/subsequently retired.

It feels not so much like a NYRA thing because that race will always hold so much intrinsic heft but just a victim of circumstance. I mean it's not like the Awesome Again was "awesome" at all this year outside the two top guns, nor does Keeneland have a comparable race that would poach handicap horses.

Let's face it, there's a reason why Wise Dan was Champ Older Male and HoY numerous times, (thereby precipitating the Eclipse to become Champion Older Dirt Male) and that's that the supply of G1 dirt males < demand for those races. That's not a NYRA or BC problem but breeding industry inefficiency combined with a profligate Stakes Committee and its inability to maintain quality control of 3yo and up male stakes opportunities going a route of ground.

So much of these small fields can be ascribed to the Graded Stakes Committee and its terrible circular logic in terms of determining the number of stakes opps because if a LARGE basis in the calculus of grading stakes is accounting for what horses do after a particular race, it doesn't take a Rocket Surgeon to figure out that smaller crops and smaller fields => more horses subsequently placing in stakes B, C, and D thereby artificially bolstering the "prestige" of Stakes A. (It's like how the Fountain of Youth was G1 for a few years)

Until they fix that categorical and perhaps catastrophic flaw in how gradings are allocated Nationwide, you'd better get used to 5-6 horse fields in graded stakes for as far as the eye can see. (There are actually more Graded Stales now than there were before the crash in 2008 when the foal crop was 1/3 larger!)

Given it's owners, breeders, and racing secretaries on the Committee whose best interest is served by NOT fixing such a flaw, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for any changes.

[alhattab]

JCGC was a total bummer this year because there just aren't enough good handicap horses to go around while all the 3yos who could've run and been competitive a la Tonalist, Palace Malice (2nd), Bernardini, Curlin, Stay Thirsty (3rd) all seemingly went in the PA Derby or were layed up/subsequently retired.

It feels not so much like a NYRA thing because that race will always hold so much intrinsic heft but just a victim of circumstance. I mean it's not like the Awesome Again was "awesome" at all this year outside the two top guns, nor does Keeneland have a comparable race that would poach handicap horses.

Let's face it, there's a reason why Wise Dan was Champ Older Male and HoY numerous times, (thereby precipitating the Eclipse to become Champion Older Dirt Male) and that's that the supply of G1 dirt males < demand for those races. That's not a NYRA or BC problem but breeding industry inefficiency combined with a profligate Stakes Committee and its inability to maintain quality control of 3yo and up male stakes opportunities going a route of ground.

So much of these small fields can be ascribed to the Graded Stakes Committee and its terrible circular logic in terms of determining the number of stakes opps because if a LARGE basis in the calculus of grading stakes is accounting for what horses do after a particular race, it doesn't take a Rocket Surgeon to figure out that smaller crops and smaller fields => more horses subsequently placing in stakes B, C, and D thereby artificially bolstering the "prestige" of Stakes A. (It's like how the Fountain of Youth was G1 for a few years)

Until they fix that categorical and perhaps catastrophic flaw in how gradings are allocated Nationwide, you'd better get used to 5-6 horse fields in graded stakes for as far as the eye can see. (There are actually more Graded Stales now than there were before the crash in 2008 when the foal crop was 1/3 larger!)

Given it's owners, breeders, and racing secretaries on the Committee whose best interest is served by NOT fixing such a flaw, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for any changes.

Harrrrrumph!

[classhandicapper]

I agree that the PA Derby has also had a negative impact on the JCGC, but it's not just that. The Frizette and Champagne were both about as exciting as any fan could hope for. A few of those horses may turn out to be quite good, but there's no way the horses this year were as seasoned and good going into the race as in past editions.

[dilanesp]

I agree that the PA Derby has also had a negative impact on the JCGC, but it's not just that. The Frizette and Champagne were both about as exciting as any fan could hope for. A few of those horses may turn out to be quite good, but there's no way the horses this year were as seasoned and good going into the race as in past editions.

Bear in mind there's two different things that have happened to two year old stakes.

Not only do you have the issues in New York we are discussing, but also trainers no longer give horses full 2 year old campaigns. Affirmed and Alydar actually met each other six times as two year olds, including five times in New York. Nowadays, top 2 year olds don't even start 6 times, much less meet the same horse.

Even a 2 year old campaign like Favorite Trick's is unthinkable nowadays.

So big 2 year old stakes, including even the BC Juvenile, are filled with horses making their third or fourth start.

[classhandicapper]

Bear in mind there's two different things that have happened to two year old stakes.

Not only do you have the issues in New York we are discussing, but also trainers no longer give horses full 2 year old campaigns. Affirmed and Alydar actually met each other six times as two year olds, including five times in New York. Nowadays, top 2 year olds don't even start 6 times, much less meet the same horse.

Even a 2 year old campaign like Favorite Trick's is unthinkable nowadays.

So big 2 year old stakes, including even the BC Juvenile, are filled with horses making their third or fourth start.

I agree.

I'm not a big believer in bounce theory, but I do believe that spacing and lighter campaigns can keep a horse at or near its peak longer. That's hardly revolutionary thinking. Top horses used to get fresheners back in the 70s also. I don't quite understand the extremely light campaigns for 2yos though. I haven't seen any statistical data to suggest it gives you some advantage later on. If anything, I'd still rather have a more seasoned horse going into the Derby. If the horse is doing well, I refuse to believe 5-6 races at 2 is going to cause a problem. That goes double since so many of the good ones retire at 3 anyway. It's not like they are running at 5 or 6.

[Thomas Roulston]

What has happened to it? It has gone from 2 miles to a mile and a half to a mile and a quarter.

Could a mile and an eighth be next?

I say quite possibly.