Breeders Cup questions to ponder

[Valuist]

1. Has there ever been a dumber idea by the BC than to run a race at 1 3/4 miles on dirt (or fake dirt if/when it applied)? I think the only races run at this distance are starter races at tracks like Beulah or Turfway. Oaklawn might run one also. What are they smoking when they come up with ideas like this?

2. OK....someone decided that fillies and mares should get their own sprint. Great idea......but there was an apparent typo in writing the conditions as they made it 7 furlongs. What? The regular sprint is at 6f; wouldn't it be logical to run this one at 6 furlongs also?

3. We had a juvenile and juvenile filly race. If you are going to card a Juvenile Turf and Juvenile Filly turf, here's an idea. Why not just run those races at Longchamp or Goodwood and save the Europeans the hassle of traveling?

4. Turf racing=good....at least turf ROUTE racing=good. Turf sprints=chaotic madness. Clearly one of the more disturbing trends of racing in the 21st century. I realize that there are hundreds of NY breds who apparently only are on this earth to sprint on grass but must we have a BC race for it?

5. Dirt Mile---definitely a good idea. Many high quality dirt runners just not up to the Classic level at 1 1/4 miles. But here's another idea; just like the BC Steeplechase which is run off site, when the BC is being held on a track that does NOT have real dirt racing, the DIRT mile should be run at an alternate site that has DIRT racing. The race is not the Plastic Mile, or the Polytrack Mile.

6. Why do the networks feel the need to overkill the story of ONE horse (or one trainer, or one jockey)? We all know who the telecast will be devoting 85% of their airtime to. Somehow I don't think there will be dramatic music or endless accounts of Haynesfield breaking his maiden, or Blame's rise to the upper echelon of handicap horses.

[Saratoga_Mike]

1. Has there ever been a dumber idea by the BC than to run a race at 1 3/4 miles on dirt (or fake dirt if/when it applied)? I think the only races run at this distance are starter races at tracks like Beulah or Turfway. Oaklawn might run one also. What are they smoking when they come up with ideas like this?

2. OK....someone decided that fillies and mares should get their own sprint. Great idea......but there was an apparent typo in writing the conditions as they made it 7 furlongs. What? The regular sprint is at 6f; wouldn't it be logical to run this one at 6 furlongs also?

3. We had a juvenile and juvenile filly race. If you are going to card a Juvenile Turf and Juvenile Filly turf, here's an idea. Why not just run those races at Longchamp or Goodwood and save the Europeans the hassle of traveling?

4. Turf racing=good....at least turf ROUTE racing=good. Turf sprints=chaotic madness. Clearly one of the more disturbing trends of racing in the 21st century. I realize that there are hundreds of NY breds who apparently only are on this earth to sprint on grass but must we have a BC race for it?

5. Dirt Mile---definitely a good idea. Many high quality dirt runners just not up to the Classic level at 1 1/4 miles. But here's another idea; just like the BC Steeplechase which is run off site, when the BC is being held on a track that does NOT have real dirt racing, the DIRT mile should be run at an alternate site that has DIRT racing. The race is not the Plastic Mile, or the Polytrack Mile.

6. Why do the networks feel the need to overkill the story of ONE horse (or one trainer, or one jockey)? We all know who the telecast will be devoting 85% of their airtime to. Somehow I don't think there will be dramatic music or endless accounts of Haynesfield breaking his maiden, or Blame's rise to the upper echelon of handicap horses.

1) Yes, scheduling the events over two days was dumber.

2) Yes, you're correct.

3) Because they're willing to ship over for the race?

4) Turf sprints aren't anymore chaotic than dirt sprints.

5) The polytrack will soon be anachronistic, rendering this point moot.

6) Rightfully or wrongfully so, they're trying to appeal to the mass audience. And the masses have never heard of Blame, but some have heard of Zen.

[Valuist]

1) Yes, scheduling the events over two days was dumber.

2) Yes, you're correct.

3) Because they're willing to ship over for the race?

4) Turf sprints aren't anymore chaotic than dirt sprints.

5) The polytrack will soon be anachronistic, rendering this point moot.

6) Rightfully or wrongfully so, they're trying to appeal to the mass audience. And the masses have never heard of Blame, but some have heard of Zen.

Why would focusing on one horse appeal more to the masses? I'm not a marketing person. I know marketing types tend to believe they can condition people to think in certain ways; probably because they think everyone else is an idiot.

Totally disagree on the turf sprints. In turf sprints, we see the same garbage from the riders; wait, wait, wait until the turn for home, then they let them run.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Why would focusing on one horse appeal more to the masses? I'm not a marketing person. I know marketing types tend to believe they can condition people to think in certain ways; probably because they think everyone else is an idiot.

Totally disagree on the turf sprints. In turf sprints, we see the same garbage from the riders; wait, wait, wait until the turn for home, then they let them run.

I don't have any opinion on your marketing question, but I totally disagree with you on turf sprints. Riders absolutely, positively do not wait, wait, wait. They ride, ride, ride. Anyway, I liked your poll.

[Valuist]

Interesting in that TVG has "The Works" for the Breeders Cup. In the spring of 2009, I asked why TVG didn't show The Works for the Derby. I was told, in no uncertain terms, that I was an idiot for asking because I didn't know that TVG didn't carry Churchill so there no works. No, I knew very well that TVG didn't carry CD.....the fact that they are showing it for a CD Breeders Cup begs one to wonder why they didn't show one for the Derby.

[JustRalph]

Interesting in that TVG has "The Works" for the Breeders Cup. In the spring of 2009, I asked why TVG didn't show The Works for the Derby. I was told, in no uncertain terms, that I was an idiot for asking because I didn't know that TVG didn't carry Churchill so there no works. No, I knew very well that TVG didn't carry CD.....the fact that they are showing it for a CD Breeders Cup begs one to wonder why they didn't show one for the Derby.

because Churchill was the first to strike down the "exclusivity" deal that led to even more tracks not renewing the exclusivity contracts with TVG. Tvg has a long memory

[PhantomOnTour]

1. Has there ever been a dumber idea by the BC than to run a race at 1 3/4 miles on dirt (or fake dirt if/when it applied)? I think the only races run at this distance are starter races at tracks like Beulah or Turfway. Oaklawn might run one also. What are they smoking when they come up with ideas like this?

2. OK....someone decided that fillies and mares should get their own sprint. Great idea......but there was an apparent typo in writing the conditions as they made it 7 furlongs. What? The regular sprint is at 6f; wouldn't it be logical to run this one at 6 furlongs also?

3. We had a juvenile and juvenile filly race. If you are going to card a Juvenile Turf and Juvenile Filly turf, here's an idea. Why not just run those races at Longchamp or Goodwood and save the Europeans the hassle of traveling?

4. Turf racing=good....at least turf ROUTE racing=good. Turf sprints=chaotic madness. Clearly one of the more disturbing trends of racing in the 21st century. I realize that there are hundreds of NY breds who apparently only are on this earth to sprint on grass but must we have a BC race for it?

5. Dirt Mile---definitely a good idea. Many high quality dirt runners just not up to the Classic level at 1 1/4 miles. But here's another idea; just like the BC Steeplechase which is run off site, when the BC is being held on a track that does NOT have real dirt racing, the DIRT mile should be run at an alternate site that has DIRT racing. The race is not the Plastic Mile, or the Polytrack Mile.6. Why do the networks feel the need to overkill the story of ONE horse (or one trainer, or one jockey)? We all know who the telecast will be devoting 85% of their airtime to. Somehow I don't think there will be dramatic music or endless accounts of Haynesfield breaking his maiden, or Blame's rise to the upper echelon of handicap horses.
It's not the Plastic Sprint or the Plastic Classic either...why move only the Dirt Mile?

I like the Turf Sprint. It's a bonafide division and needs it's BC slot...now just settle on one distance and keep it out of the P6 please (it changed by 3/16 going from 6.5f to 5f...that's too much). The F&M Turf deviates but not that much, I believe just an 1/8.

I also think the Juv Filly Turf and the Juv Turf should be merged into one single Juv Turf race.

[Valuist]

Whenever there has been a question about the overuse of camera angles and camera cuts at bizarre times during races, someone always chimes in "the networks are trying to appeal to a wide audience."

What? Nobody has ever answered why camera cuts and over use of cameras would make a race more appealing to novices. THink about it; lets say you are new to racing. You decide to make a simple bet; being new, you bet to win and want to focus on one horse. Just as you find your horse, the camera cuts to a head on of the horses racing down the backstretch. You have no idea where your horse is now. Ten seconds later its back to a pan shot. OK, you finally find your horse. Fifteen seconds later its back to the unnecessary low level camera several inches of the ground. By this time you are dizzy.

When will the networks ever get the camera work right?

[WinterTriangle]

Having a 'rock hard' turf course is one of the questions I ponder. Look at the amt of water they put down in europe compared to here.

[depalma113]

Whenever there has been a question about the overuse of camera angles and camera cuts at bizarre times during races, someone always chimes in "the networks are trying to appeal to a wide audience."

What? Nobody has ever answered why camera cuts and over use of cameras would make a race more appealing to novices. THink about it; lets say you are new to racing. You decide to make a simple bet; being new, you bet to win and want to focus on one horse. Just as you find your horse, the camera cuts to a head on of the horses racing down the backstretch. You have no idea where your horse is now. Ten seconds later its back to a pan shot. OK, you finally find your horse. Fifteen seconds later its back to the unnecessary low level camera several inches of the ground. By this time you are dizzy.

When will the networks ever get the camera work right?

It is a TV show. Showing the odds and letting handicappers talk about the race is only there to carry the show to the race. The network wants another Mrs. Genter moment. They win Emmy Awards for that. Who anyone bets is irrelevant to the network.

[Robert Goren]

I will take poly over mud any day. No rain this week please. If the track is off, I will be watching football.