Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER
People from the east coast are just too f'n ignorant to realize we had to put synthetic in because we couldn't fill cards out here.We had 4-7 horses in almost every race except cal bred m32cl....O.K.? We had to get the horses we had to the track more...Had to. Dirt was making it impossible to have good cards.I don't think just making the dirt more "eastern" (slower times etc. )would have been enough.We don't have as many horses here.You must not remember how horrible the cards were getting out here.So bad I was playing New York.I haven't played New York now for quite a while.
|
I don't disagree with your opinion that something had to be done to improve field size. It was unplayable when there was 4-5 horses in each race. I LOVE playing Hollywood with the new surface and I don't think I bet Hwd more than 3-4 times a year before that. My problem is with awarding the BC, the sport's 2nd most prestigious event, to the same facility two years in a row- denying fans in other parts of the country the opportunity to attend. I'll likely be there for both, but most people aren't as fortunate (or passionate) as me to be able to spend probably $1500 to fly to LA, buy tickets and a hotel. Seems like a twofold knee jerk reaction to the poor weather at Monmouth ( which truly was just bad luck- it hadn't rained much for months before that weekend, which was a deluge) and a moneygrab with CDSN's deserved higher demands.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by King Glorious
I don't understand why it can't be awarded to Belmont. The racing situation seems very stable there. Or why not Churchill or Arlington? They are begging for it. With so many options out there right now, why SA again?
|
If Magna was truly the only viable bidder then they could have put it at another one of their facilities. Gulfstream and Lone Star have been successful hosts in the past and I don't think anyone would complain if they went there again.