Jockey Club Gold Cup

[cj]

Draws a whopping field of 4. Hell, McSchell should have shipped one in for the 5th place purse!

[toetoe]

Yeah, it amazes me that so much money goes to so few mediocre animals. I will say that Round Pond is going in a much easier race than the Keeneland heat with Happy Ticket, et al.

[OTM Al]

This is pretty poor. There are plenty of horses here that could be running in this. Are they really that afraid of Bernardini? The other stakes on the card aren't that spectacular either. Beldame has 6, but at least they are solid. Flowerbowl has an ok 7. The Hirsch looks pretty sad as does the Vosburgh. Hope Henny rocks the doors off of Silver Train in that one. At least the 5 non stakes races are all over subscribed.

[Tom]

NY racing is not so super anymore.

[Indulto]

This is pretty poor. There are plenty of horses here that could be running in this. Are they really that afraid of Bernardini? The other stakes on the card aren't that spectacular either. Beldame has 6, but at least they are solid. Flowerbowl has an ok 7. The Hirsch looks pretty sad as does the Vosburgh. Hope Henny rocks the doors off of Silver Train in that one. At least the 5 non stakes races are all over subscribed.Cheer up, OA.

Maybe there'll be another P6 carryover tomorrow to justify a legitimate fix-six format wager: x / y / ALL / ALL / ALL / ALL

See y'all :lol:

[depalma13]

Hope Henny rocks the doors off of Silver Train in that one. At least the 5 non stakes races are all over subscribed.

Not me. I'd rather see him lose this one to beef up his odds on cup day.

[classhandicapper]

Draws a whopping field of 4. Hell, McSchell should have shipped one in for the 5th place purse!

It's pathetic.

I love when the best teams, players, horses etc... get together in a tournament, race, playoff, heads up match etc..... I can get excited for days just looking forward to an event like that.

I feel sorry for horseplayers like me that weren't around in the late 70s and early 80s when this sport was great.

Back in those days every horse didn't need 8 weeks between races.

They didn't get retired because of a minor setback that would cause them to miss a couple of months.

They didn't ship a thousand miles away from their home base to find an easier spot.

They didn't threaten the Racing Secretary if the horse had to carry more than 120 lbs.

No, the best horses often actively pursued the toughest race possible to prove how great they were, to earn horse of the year, and they accepted 130+ pounds if they had to.

No 4-5 race campaigns avoiding everyone and anyone that could run and then retiring with a mysterious injury all the while telling everyone that this could have been one of the great ones. I'm sick of it.

[Smiley]

What ticked me off was when Pletcher said that he wouldn't enter his horses unless Bernadini was sick. I thought horse racing was about competition. Why does everyone dodge now?? You never know what's going to happen...that's why they run the race my friends!

[rastajenk]

I feel sorry for horseplayers like me that weren't around in the late 70s and early 80s when this sport was great.

You know that's the immediate pre-Breeders Cup era, don't you? Do you think there's a direct correlation there somehow?

I've often wondered, on msg boards and in my own musings, whether the BC has really had a positive effect on racing overall. Sure, it's a great day with exposure and betting opportunities galore, but at what price to the rest of the racing season? Races that were once presitgious in and of themselves are now merely prep races. Trainers can cherry-pick their way through the schedule to get to the BC, if the big purse money and Eclipse awards are the prime motivators, instead of charting season-long campaigns to meet and beat the best out there.

I'm not entirely convinced of this; I'm not ready to picket the event with "Death to the Cup" signs, or start a boycott, or anything uselessly radical. I just wonder sometimes how a year without a BC would look in these times. I believe even the winter races like the Big Cap or Gulfstream's handicaps would be strengthened if horses weren't held out 'til summer for a brief run-up to the Cup. And maybe the two months of the year after BC Day wouldn't be so bleak either. Just a thought.

[ryesteve]

I don't think it was the BC that led to racing as it is today. If you're gonna pin it on anything, I'd say Secretariat. He was retired at 3, and syndicated for stud duty for a fortune (at the time). That pretty much became the business model going forward.

And yeah, it sucks that the JCGC is a 4 horse field, but then again, Spectacular Bid beat a one-horse field during the supposed heyday that we're harking back to...

[shanta]

You know that's the immediate pre-Breeders Cup era, don't you? Do you think there's a direct correlation there somehow?

I've often wondered, on msg boards and in my own musings, whether the BC has really had a positive effect on racing overall. Sure, it's a great day with exposure and betting opportunities galore, but at what price to the rest of the racing season? Races that were once presitgious in and of themselves are now merely prep races. Trainers can cherry-pick their way through the schedule to get to the BC, if the big purse money and Eclipse awards are the prime motivators, instead of charting season-long campaigns to meet and beat the best out there.

I'm not entirely convinced of this; I'm not ready to picket the event with "Death to the Cup" signs, or start a boycott, or anything uselessly radical. I just wonder sometimes how a year without a BC would look in these times. I believe even the winter races like the Big Cap or Gulfstream's handicaps would be strengthened if horses weren't held out 'til summer for a brief run-up to the Cup. And maybe the two months of the year after BC Day wouldn't be so bleak either. Just a thought.

Great post Rasta,
Definitely food for thought man.

Richie

[RobinFromIreland]

Bernardini is 1/3 with Coral for the JCGC over in the UK with Dylan Thomas next best at 11/4.

Bernardini = free money?

[alysheba88]

You know that's the immediate pre-Breeders Cup era, don't you? Do you think there's a direct correlation there somehow?

I've often wondered, on msg boards and in my own musings, whether the BC has really had a positive effect on racing overall. Sure, it's a great day with exposure and betting opportunities galore, but at what price to the rest of the racing season? Races that were once presitgious in and of themselves are now merely prep races. Trainers can cherry-pick their way through the schedule to get to the BC, if the big purse money and Eclipse awards are the prime motivators, instead of charting season-long campaigns to meet and beat the best out there.

I'm not entirely convinced of this; I'm not ready to picket the event with "Death to the Cup" signs, or start a boycott, or anything uselessly radical. I just wonder sometimes how a year without a BC would look in these times. I believe even the winter races like the Big Cap or Gulfstream's handicaps would be strengthened if horses weren't held out 'til summer for a brief run-up to the Cup. And maybe the two months of the year after BC Day wouldn't be so bleak either. Just a thought.


To me the best years for racing as a fan were the early BC years. From 84-90. Great horses, great races, trainers, etc. The BC is one of the only good things left today and that is declining also. Tomorrow's Belmont card is a joke and embarrassment. Dont blame the BC though

[alysheba88]

I don't think it was the BC that led to racing as it is today. If you're gonna pin it on anything, I'd say Secretariat. He was retired at 3, and syndicated for stud duty for a fortune (at the time). That pretty much became the business model going forward.

And yeah, it sucks that the JCGC is a 4 horse field, but then again, Spectacular Bid beat a one-horse field during the supposed heyday that we're harking back to...

Problem with that theory is several top horses ran as older horses after Secretariat. If not a majority. Secretariat was an anomaly more than anything. More representative of what happens today. Not back then. Even then he ran a bunch of times at 2 and 3 which they never do now.

[cj]

I think the Breeder's Cup at least provides one chance to bring the best together. Without that, other than the Kentucky Derby, we would NEVER see it.

[alysheba88]

I think the Breeder's Cup at least provides one chance to bring the best together. Without that, other than the Kentucky Derby, we would NEVER see it.

Exactly. All we have now is paper champions anyway. With all gutless connections afraid to run. Without the BC it would be just all hyping and pounding of chests and no running. With connections and fans arguing over who would have won what races, instead of actually having the races.

[classhandicapper]

You know that's the immediate pre-Breeders Cup era, don't you? Do you think there's a direct correlation there somehow?



I think the Breeder's Cup has changed the way some trainers map out their campaigns because they want to peak later in the season than in the old days. That's understandable because the money is bigger and IMO sometimes a disproportionate amount of weight is put on those races when it comes time to award the Eclipse award. I still love it!

All that said, I think there are several differences that have had a hugely negative impact that have nothing to do with the Breeder's Cup.

Most of the big name trainers of today seem to believe that less racing is better for ALMOST ALL HORSES and they have the resources to pick their spots and avoid each other. It appears they are often so worried about bouncing etc... that IMHO they miss opportunities to run in and win more races (or at least win more money for the year). I would find that less frustrating if I believed that horses bounced as often as some other handicappers/trainers seem to believe. IMO, many of the times people use the word bouce it had nothing to do with physical reaction from a tough effort, but rather their extremely narrow view of performance that's often limited to final time.

It's harder to get major confrontations when the handful of trainers that have all the best stock these days map out 3-5 race campaigns for the whole year with 6-8 weeks between starts. There's a major stake somewhere in the country more often that that. All you have to do is keep your best horse on a slightly different schedule than the other major competitors and you can avoid them until the BC. You can even hope a few of them go down during the season so you'll never have to face each other.

Another problem is the prices being paid for stallions and yearlings. High prices encourage early retirement. I haven't studied the economics, but I'd be willing to bet that most participants are losing a higher percentage of the money they invest than they did back in the old days because the prices are ridiculously high relative to earnings power of the horses. Sure there are some lottery winners, but most players must be getting buried. Of course, many people get into this game for reasons other than the economics, but at the margin, if enough people go broke or bleed too badly it will eventually bust the prices (unless the Sheiks/Japanese etc... don't mind bidding against each other and bleeding gallons forever).

I am selfishly hoping that prices collapse and that the handful of the currently successful trainers of high stock horses have a few terrible seasons so the horses retire later and a few of them are in the hands of trainers that actually let them run.

Even if I am wrong in some of my analysis, I think we should all be able to agree with my desire for more high quality confrontatations and bigger fields.

I'm done venting now. :mad:

[ponyplayerdotca]

You wanna get rid of 4-horse and 5-horse fields? Increase the purse structure.

The only way to achieve larger fields on a regular basis (at any track) is to change the purse payout structure.

Instead of the top 5 placings getting paid only, increase it to the top 8 or 10.

Example
Current 5-horse percent pay structure (roughly):
1st = 60% of purse
2nd = 20%
3rd = 11%
4th = 6%
5th = 3%

Proposed increase change to 8-horse structure:
1st = 50% of purse
2nd = 18%
3rd = 10%
4th = 7%
5th = 6%
6th = 4%
7th = 3%
8th = 2%

(Or something like that)

This way, you're talking a language any trainer can understand: MORE MONEY. Get paid more for starting a horse in a race than just the $400 starting fee paid to all finishers past 5th place. To trainers and horseman, it means a chance to make money based on where you finish in the race. So to them, finishing 6th is better than 8th or 10th now, not the same (financially).

It won't affect the horseplayer in the sense of price returns or superfectas (top 3 or 4). But it might help ensure greater than 5-horse fields to wager on with more money available to the connections via the expanded purse structure (regardless of whether it's a $1 million stakes race or a conditioned nickel claimer).

Yes, it's less money for 1st and 2nd place, but since the majority of any purse goes to the top 2 horses, they'll still be making it hand-over-fist in the long run. Why not let the smaller barns and less talented horses make a living too?

(paraphrasing PA - I like this tag question) Right or wrong?

[the_fat_man]

Even if I am wrong in some of my analysis, I think we should all be able to agree with my desire for more high quality confrontatations and bigger fields.

Henny Hughes vs. Silver Train is a 'high quality confrontation'. (Well, for some, in any event.)
I mean, it could only be better if Discrete Cat were in the race. But then it wouldn't be much of a confrontation.

Teammate vs. Take D' Tour is another 'high quality confrontation', in my opinion.

Moreover, both of these races are very interesting in terms of strategy.

And the latter has the Cornelio angle: blew 2 grade I's with Teammate and couldn't quite figure out how to ride Take D' Tour. I mean, just thinking about what Cornelio might do in this race is absolutely DELICIOUS. It's like having an Egyptian road carpet weaver pilot the space shuttle.

And I haven't even looked at the turf stakes.

What would appease the intelligencia:

Invasor and Lava Man in JCGC?

[alysheba88]

You wanna get rid of 4-horse and 5-horse fields? Increase the purse structure.

The only way to achieve larger fields on a regular basis (at any track) is to change the purse payout structure.

Instead of the top 5 placings getting paid only, increase it to the top 8 or 10.

Example
Current 5-horse percent pay structure (roughly):
1st = 60% of purse
2nd = 20%
3rd = 11%
4th = 6%
5th = 3%

Proposed increase change to 8-horse structure:
1st = 50% of purse
2nd = 18%
3rd = 10%
4th = 7%
5th = 6%
6th = 4%
7th = 3%
8th = 2%

(Or something like that)

This way, you're talking a language any trainer can understand: MORE MONEY. Get paid more for starting a horse in a race than just the $400 starting fee paid to all finishers past 5th place. To trainers and horseman, it means a chance to make money based on where you finish in the race. So to them, finishing 6th is better than 8th or 10th now, not the same (financially).

It won't affect the horseplayer in the sense of price returns or superfectas (top 3 or 4). But it might help ensure greater than 5-horse fields to wager on with more money available to the connections via the expanded purse structure (regardless of whether it's a $1 million stakes race or a conditioned nickel claimer).

Yes, it's less money for 1st and 2nd place, but since the majority of any purse goes to the top 2 horses, they'll still be making it hand-over-fist in the long run. Why not let the smaller barns and less talented horses make a living too?

(paraphrasing PA - I like this tag question) Right or wrong?


I know you are trying but that would not help at all.

Because the owners who can afford it, and who actually have the better horses will not change. They could care less about 6th place purses. You think an owner who pays Pletcher and Frankel cares about 6th place? Its all about grade one wins and getting them as easily as possible with them. Thats all they care about.

What could compound this is you would then get the cooks coming out of the woodwork- entering claimers so they could pick up a check. Would be a complete farce.

[The Judge]

Some of these owners are the Mega Rich yet they still run and retire their horses because of money. Even thou they know the fans want to see the best to run against the best. At 4 or 5 it would seem that this is when a horse would be fully a grown and at it's best for racing.

It's hard for me to understand. They don't need the money.

[alysheba88]

Henny Hughes vs. Silver Train is a 'high quality confrontation'. (Well, for some, in any event.)
I mean, it could only be better if Discrete Cat were in the race. But then it wouldn't be much of a confrontation.

Teammate vs. Take D' Tour is another 'high quality confrontation', in my opinion.

Moreover, both of these races are very interesting in terms of strategy.

And the latter has the Cornelio angle: blew 2 grade I's with Teammate and couldn't quite figure out how to ride Take D' Tour. I mean, just thinking about what Cornelio might do in this race is absolutely DELICIOUS. It's like having an Egyptian road carpet weaver pilot the space shuttle.

And I haven't even looked at the turf stakes.

What would appease the intelligencia:

Invasor and Lava Man in JCGC?


This is exactly what I am talking about. Again I know you mean well and I dont mean to come down on you. I really dont. But I dont know how to make my point otherwise. Its the lowering of standards. It seems okay since our standards are so low now. Go back to 15-20 years ago and look at the fields in these kinds of races. Invasor and Lava Man would have run against each other three times already and would have also faced 5-6 other quality horses at the same time- one of which would have beaten the top two. We woudlnt be holding a breath for a one on one match up in a sprint race. We would be looking at a ten horse field that had five high quality animals with scores to settle from prior races

[the_fat_man]

This is exactly what I am talking about. Again I know you mean well and I dont mean to come down on you. I really dont. But I dont know how to make my point otherwise. Its the lowering of standards. It seems okay since our standards are so low now. Go back to 15-20 years ago and look at the fields in these kinds of races. Invasor and Lava Man would have run against each other three times already and would have also faced 5-6 other quality horses at the same time- one of which would have beaten the top two. We woudlnt be holding a breath for a one on one match up in a sprint race. We would be looking at a ten horse field that had five high quality animals with scores to settle from prior races

Yeah

Now, if there were competitive racing, as you describe --which essentially comes down to LARGER FIELDS-- would that mean

that you'd be AT THE TRACK betting (or doing research for betting)

rather than <b>WHINING on MULTIPLE FORUMS </b>

about the sad state of the sport?


I've been in the game since the early '70's. Though I like to sensationalize and think that the norm was races with 'five high quality animals', in reality, this wasn't the case. There were a few good horses and OTHERS we thought were really good cause they always ran in the good races. They were never good enough to win these races, however (baring some fluke), so what did we really gain by their presence? I know, it was a good image --good presentation.


If you took a moment to think about races, how they shape up in a non trivial way, the Vosburgh is much more interesting with its limited field than with a full field of essentially NON contenders. In fact, Henny Hughes would've benefitted with a larger field (like his last race).

Savor it.

As for the JCGC:

now you have another few weeks to WHINE about Bernardini NOT BEATING ANYTHING of SUBSTANCE.

[cj]

Savor a two horse race, 4-5 against 6-5 or something like that? That is sad actually.

[ponyplayerdotca]

ALYSHEBA 88 wrote:

"I know you are trying but that would not help at all.

Because the owners who can afford it, and who actually have the better horses will not change. They could care less about 6th place purses. You think an owner who pays Pletcher and Frankel cares about 6th place? Its all about grade one wins and getting them as easily as possible with them. Thats all they care about.

What could compound this is you would then get the cooks coming out of the woodwork- entering claimers so they could pick up a check. Would be a complete farce."

===

My idea may not be completely practical, but you have to start somewhere to shake things up.

No, Pletcher and Frankel don't care about the small potatoes, of course. But are they the only ones allowed to make a good living in this sport?

As for the "kooks" or "crooks" (I couldn't decipher which you meant when you put "cooks") coming out of the woodwork, just write the conditions for a race to exclude either horses that aren't qualified or are too qualified.

So, some low level claimer can't enter a big stakes race unless they have so many stakes appearances or allowance wins (or something like that). And some horses that have earned too much in graded stakes or big stakes can't enter the smaller stakes available (to "steal the purse" so to speak).

Again, not a perfect idea as I've written it. But in my suggestion somewhere there has to be a starting point for practical change.

The system we have now is too exploited by the horseman. And we, the paying public get the short end of the stick again and again.

The $1 million JCGC has a 4-horse field. That simply shouldn't happen, IMO.

[alysheba88]

Yeah

Now, if there were competitive racing, as you describe --which essentially comes down to LARGER FIELDS-- would that mean

that you'd be AT THE TRACK betting (or doing research for betting)

rather than <b>WHINING on MULTIPLE FORUMS </b>

about the sad state of the sport?


I've been in the game since the early '70's. Though I like to sensationalize and think that the norm was races with 'five high quality animals', in reality, this wasn't the case. There were a few good horses and OTHERS we thought were really good cause they always ran in the good races. They were never good enough to win these races, however (baring some fluke), so what did we really gain by their presence? I know, it was a good image --good presentation.


If you took a moment to think about races, how they shape up in a non trivial way, the Vosburgh is much more interesting with its limited field than with a full field of essentially NON contenders. In fact, Henny Hughes would've benefitted with a larger field (like his last race).

Savor it.

As for the JCGC:

now you have another few weeks to WHINE about Bernardini NOT BEATING ANYTHING of SUBSTANCE.


Find me one post on any forum where I have knocked Bernardini. One.

On the contrary have defended the horse for months and said a long time ago he should be top three year old if he won the Travers- which he did. But dont let facts get in the way. I am talking much bigger picture here.

As far as bigger fields and not betting, that is EXACTLY what I am saying. I have gone to BC Preview day 7 years running and I wont go this year because of the bad card. I may bet on some of the earlier races- the non Grade one races- but dont think I am driving all the way out there for those.

As far as "the old days" you could not be more wrong. Go back to Alysheba's races and the quality of foes he ran against. Deep quality fields. Second tier older horses from the late 80's would be stars today

And for the record I am not saying that automatically making a field larger makes it better. I just gave an example in another post about how paying down to 8th place might make the fields bigger but is no solution.

[alysheba88]

ALYSHEBA 88 wrote:

"I know you are trying but that would not help at all.

Because the owners who can afford it, and who actually have the better horses will not change. They could care less about 6th place purses. You think an owner who pays Pletcher and Frankel cares about 6th place? Its all about grade one wins and getting them as easily as possible with them. Thats all they care about.

What could compound this is you would then get the cooks coming out of the woodwork- entering claimers so they could pick up a check. Would be a complete farce."

===

My idea may not be completely practical, but you have to start somewhere to shake things up.

No, Pletcher and Frankel don't care about the small potatoes, of course. But are they the only ones allowed to make a good living in this sport?

As for the "kooks" or "crooks" (I couldn't decipher which you meant when you put "cooks") coming out of the woodwork, just write the conditions for a race to exclude either horses that aren't qualified or are too qualified.

So, some low level claimer can't enter a big stakes race unless they have so many stakes appearances or allowance wins (or something like that). And some horses that have earned too much in graded stakes or big stakes can't enter the smaller stakes available (to "steal the purse" so to speak).

Again, not a perfect idea as I've written it. But in my suggestion somewhere there has to be a starting point for practical change.

The system we have now is too exploited by the horseman. And we, the paying public get the short end of the stick again and again.

The $1 million JCGC has a 4-horse field. That simply shouldn't happen, IMO.

I meant kooks. You would see horses not qualified to be in races running.

I think the simpler solution is greatly reducing the number of grade ones, but keeping the overall money dedicated to them the same. Half as many races but double the purse money for the ones remaining

[alysheba88]

ALYSHEBA 88 wrote:

"I know you are trying but that would not help at all.

Because the owners who can afford it, and who actually have the better horses will not change. They could care less about 6th place purses. You think an owner who pays Pletcher and Frankel cares about 6th place? Its all about grade one wins and getting them as easily as possible with them. Thats all they care about.

What could compound this is you would then get the cooks coming out of the woodwork- entering claimers so they could pick up a check. Would be a complete farce."

===

My idea may not be completely practical, but you have to start somewhere to shake things up.

No, Pletcher and Frankel don't care about the small potatoes, of course. But are they the only ones allowed to make a good living in this sport?

As for the "kooks" or "crooks" (I couldn't decipher which you meant when you put "cooks") coming out of the woodwork, just write the conditions for a race to exclude either horses that aren't qualified or are too qualified.

So, some low level claimer can't enter a big stakes race unless they have so many stakes appearances or allowance wins (or something like that). And some horses that have earned too much in graded stakes or big stakes can't enter the smaller stakes available (to "steal the purse" so to speak).

Again, not a perfect idea as I've written it. But in my suggestion somewhere there has to be a starting point for practical change.

The system we have now is too exploited by the horseman. And we, the paying public get the short end of the stick again and again.

The $1 million JCGC has a 4-horse field. That simply shouldn't happen, IMO.


Compare the fields of BC races in the late to mid 80's to those of this year. And we will talk again

[cj]

It all goes back to the same problem. Too many tracks running too many stakes races. And most importantly, too many graded stakes scheduled with similar conditions in the same time frame.

The tracks should work together and specialize a little more. Let us say two tracks are running G1/2 stakes within a week of each other, one dirt route and one dirt sprint for older horses. Have one drop the sprint, and add that to the purse of the route. Have the other drop the route, and add the purse to the sprint. Now horsemen have less options, but for more money. This whole concept could be spread out over the whole racing calender.

I'm not talking about East Coast / West Coast type of deals. But tracks running basically the same race on the same day or within a week or two in the same geographic region is ridiculous. Yet, it happens ALL THE TIME!

[uncbossfan]

Just don't bet on the damn race, I'm not. Belmont and the NYRA could give 2 shits about how large the fields are if people keep laying 10K on Bernardini at 1-9. They are still taking their cut. Quit playing small fields and let that handle start to dip, thats what will get things changed. Until then, we will have to glorify Grade 1 races that only have at best 2 or 3 quality grade 1 horses in them, or in this case 4 horses all together! I mean honestly, Andromedas Hero is not Grade 1 quality. He got smoked at Thistle Downs! Keeneland Forever, Belmont Never!

[46zilzal]

To me the best years for racing as a fan were the early BC years. From 84-90. Great horses, great races, trainers, etc. The BC is one of the only good things left today and that is declining also. Tomorrow's Belmont card is a joke and embarrassment. Dont blame the BC though

Earlier than that horses had to be winners or at least TRY to represent both coasts so SA Winter used to mean something

[foregoforever]

I think the Breeder's Cup at least provides one chance to bring the best together. Without that, other than the Kentucky Derby, we would NEVER see it.

I don't agree. I think we'd be better off without the Breeders Cup races.

The BC was good for the game in the early years because it got racing on TV in the fall and provided an opportunity to bring casual fans into the sport more than 3 times a year. Now it's on the same cable network that shows most of the prep races, so it's not at all clear that this still holds.

The trick is trying to figure out how the sport would operate without the BC. It's not just a matter of dropping BC day from the schedule, but judging how it would change things in the rest of the year.

Everyone loves the notion of a big championship day, but we all know that the best horse often doesn't win. Horses have bad trips, bad rides, bad post positions, bad luck and bad days. I much prefer a champion that proves it over the course of a year rather than a one-race wonder.

If championships were determined by looking at number of Grade 1 and 2 wins, then trainers and owners would strive to get those numbers up. The first 9 months of the year would be devoted to putting that case together. With the BC, most of them are concentrating on not losing the championship in those 9 months.

[Tom]

Forgo-good point.

Frankly, eclipse awards nowadays are joke to me. Win one race and get a prize!

I agree HOY should be over the YEAR, not a BC race.

[PlanB]

BC day is the greatest. Why have just 1 BC day? Why not 2 a year?

[PaceAdvantage]

What ticked me off was when Pletcher said that he wouldn't enter his horses unless Bernadini was sick. I thought horse racing was about competition. Why does everyone dodge now?? You never know what's going to happen...that's why they run the race my friends!

This kind of trainer mentality doesn't just rear its ugly head at the highest levels, it has permeated down the chain, and is a reason for many of the short fields you see today.

[46zilzal]

I don't agree. I think we'd be better off without the Breeders Cup races.


You have a point. TOO MUCH EMPHASIS on the importance of a single day. wide open to sample error.

Recall when Cougar II and Fort Marcy had to impress on both coasts ALL YEAR LONG, to garner an Eclipse.

[Indulto]

... I think we'd be better off without the Breeders Cup races.

The BC was good for the game in the early years because it got racing on TV in the fall and provided an opportunity to bring casual fans into the sport more than 3 times a year.

... Everyone loves the notion of a big championship day, but we all know that the best horse often doesn't win. Horses have bad trips, bad rides, bad post positions, bad luck and bad days. I much prefer a champion that proves it over the course of a year rather than a one-race wonder.

... With the BC, most of them are concentrating on not losing the championship in those 9 months.FF,
BC is now cable-only because it can't get the ratings.

The Thoroughbred championship Tour is a much more appropriate concept now. The TCT could be modified to include 12-16 divisions to be televised in groups of 3-4 races every weekend. Each division competition could be recycled every month or so at varying distances to provide multiple opportunities to qualify for a final cycle which would even more richly reward its participants.

Such events would also acummulate points toward division championships, but defeating the divisional point leader more than once could override the ranking.

The current practice of multiple BC preps for the same division on or near the same day is self-defeating.

[Tom]

This kind of trainer mentality doesn't just rear its ugly head at the highest levels, it has permeated down the chain, and is a reason for many of the short fields you see today.

Perhaps entry into a BC race should requrie X number G1/G2 wins/places. Failure to qualitft would make the horse eligibly for only 10% the normal purse.

[ryesteve]

Perhaps entry into a BC race should requrie X number G1/G2 wins/places. Failure to qualitft would make the horse eligibly for only 10% the normal purse.
With that rule in place, you'd never see a horse like Discrete Cat take a shot. I'm no fan of the way he's been campaigned, but such a rule wouldn't have made them handle him any differently... it would just preclude any chance of them entering him.

[foregoforever]

The Thoroughbred championship Tour is a much more appropriate concept now.

I liked the concept, but in practice, you'll have to negotiate all the races and points with the various track managements, who can never agree on anything.

I figure that the carrots to be dangled in front of the horsemen are championships and grade winner credentials. Let's face it, the Dubai contingent isn't in it for purse money.

So I'd be interested in a points system. I'd also like to see graded stakes subject to a grade deduction if they don't fill to some level of quality. They downgrade turf races moved to the dirt once in a while. I don't see why they can't do it for other races.

[Tom]

Definately far too many graded stake races theses days.
I'd like to see them cut back by about 50% - make a G1 stake a REAL graded racen, not the fluff stuff most are today.

JCGC should be an overnight based on the terrible field this year.

[depalma13]

FF,
BC is now cable-only because it can't get the ratings.



Yes and no.

ESPN outbid NBC for the event. If NBC was getting great ratings they would have upped their bid and still held on to the event.

ESPN, though wanted the BC as part of their growth strategy. ESPN is growing in Europe. Horse racing still matters over there. They can use programming like the BC to leverage their way into other countries, and to maximizing advertising revenue.

For the last 30 years, Monday Night Football was the top rated prime time show in America, yet it was sent to ESPN. A network with far fewer homes. Why? It is the same reason ESPN bought the rights to the Breeders Cup. Disney's growth strategy for ESPN.

NBC may be seen in roughly 20 million more homes than ESPN, but the majority of those homes are people that don't have enough money to matter to advertisers, or don't fit the targeted 18-39 age group. The general feeling today almost everyone that has grown up with cable has ESPN (18-39) and those that don't most likely can't afford basic it. If they can't afford basic cable or satelite, then they are not going to be able to afford the products being pitched. Add that to the power of the ESPN brand on the internet (targeting a whole generation that spends more time online, than watching the tube), and focus advertising rather than taking a hit or miss approach is now the norm.

Major sporting events on "free" tv are going away. The feeling is, if the viewer really wants to see it, they will find it, even if they have to pay for it.

Don't forget, ABC has the rights to the Belmont. My guess is within the next couple of years, that will be on ESPN too.

[Tom]

Hope there is no baseball game that day!