Breeders' Cup Going for Grade 1's Again

[ALostTexan]

Story from Thoroughbred Times

Just like last year, the Breeders' Cup is going for Grade 1 status for the 3 new races, and they are considering another $1 million race for the program.

They at least had Grade 1 winners in two of the three new races, which should help their cause, but I still am not sure they should go straight to a Grade 1, although I can see the argument from both sides.

Do you think they will receive the G1 status, and what are your feelings about adding another big race this soon?

[Kasept]

BCL should be made to wait the full three years like every other venue applying for graded status. What are next year's 2 main track BC prelims going to tell us exactly being run on the Cushion for the first time? Let them get three years of fields to analyze which will include whatever venue gets the 2009 'festivus' and then give them whatever status the races deserve based on the fields.

Obviously these three initial new races will have zero bearing on any division championship this year or any time soon, so IMO... "here's your hat, what's your hurry?"

[pmayjr]

The article said the new race would be a turf sprint. I'd prefer the filly and mare turf mile. But a Turf sprint being the new race in time for Santa Anita next year makes me lick my chops. What do you guys think of this name?

"The Breeder's Cup Down-the-Hill-Mil"
Make it a 5f Turf sprint any year except when the BC is at SA. Then you gotta go 6.5 down the hill.

[Merlinsky]

They said most likely a turf sprint (mainly geared toward the males but really both sexes like the BC Sprint). I don't think there's a point for a mile and a quarter on turf. If a horse can't get a mile and half, the mile's too tough or too short for them, and they can handle a little extra distance, they're gonna take a shot at the Classic on dirt. They'll never make the 1 1/4 turf race the same value of the BCC so you'll always lose the bulk of the contenders because it's just too much money to lose.

The BC people need to get in gear on coming up with G1 Juvenile races on turf. They have to show some movement toward developing that or I can't see the BC Juvenile Turf getting G1 status this year. Not that I wouldn't like it to have it at some point but no Euro G1 turfers made it and we don't have the opportunity yet to make our own so something's gotta give for it to have impact on year end honors. It's really a race in freefall at the moment.

[Scav]

Originally Posted by pmayjr

The article said the new race would be a turf sprint. I'd prefer the filly and mare turf mile. But a Turf sprint being the new race in time for Santa Anita next year makes me lick my chops. What do you guys think of this name?

"The Breeder's Cup Down-the-Hill-Mil"
Make it a 5f Turf sprint any year except when the BC is at SA. Then you gotta go 6.5 down the hill.

From a marketing perspective it is quite perfectly actually. Running it at a unique distance and set up adds to the hype and gets the ball rolling quickly. Just look at how many people were talking about the Dirt Mile and 70.

I know that I showed my friends, who go to the track with me but don't follow horse racing, a race down the hill at TVG and half thought it was pretty cool and the other half thought it was the most retarded thing ever.

[smuthg]

some what off-topic, but any chance they'd give the Fairgrounds the 2009 B/C? agree they should wait the full 3 years....

[blackthroatedwind]

Is there a single Grade 2 Turf Sprint in the US during the course of the year?

Personally I think this is yet another example of how out of touch the BC is with American racing in general. Expecting the 2YO turf race to be a Grade 1 is absurd and indefensible. I have no problem with the other two races being Grade 1s...but the 2YO race should be a Grade 3. Hell, there isn't even one graded 2YO turf stake in the US prior to the BC....but they think they deserve a Grade 1. What fantasy world are they living in?

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Merlinsky

They said most likely a turf sprint (mainly geared toward the males but really both sexes like the BC Sprint).

I don't see the point of a turf sprint at the BC yet. While I think it could be a fun and exciting race, there is no series of races that comes anywhere close to being considered legit preps for it.

I imagine you'd see plenty of equality between the sexes in that race. Fillies and mares who are good sprinting on the lawn can hold their own against the boys -- arguably even better than on dirt.

[blackthroatedwind]

Turf sprints are basically for horses too slow to compete in other races....either sprinting on the dirt or going long on the turf. Why the BC feels a need to reward these horses is beyond me.

Oh, sorry, it isn't.....they don't have a clue.

[Scurlogue Champ]

Originally Posted by Cardus

I like the idea of adding a 1 1/4 turf race, so we can have two 7 or 8 fields for middle distance (10f. and 12f.) turf races.

I agree.

10 furlongs on turf can be suited to a completely different horse than the mile or the 12 furlong race.

Desert War in Australia comes to mind.

[blackthroatedwind]

I thought the original idea of the BC was to crown champions. How exactly does diluting the fields even further by adding a Mile and a Quarter turf race achieve that goal? Hell, they only had 8 in the BC Turf this year. I'm very curious who the prospective champions are that would have made up the field for the 1 1/4 race. Certainly they couldn't have come from the meager fields we saw for this year's BC preps.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I thought the original idea of the BC was to crown champions. How exactly does diluting the fields even further by adding a Mile and a Quarter turf race achieve that goal? Hell, they only had 8 in the BC Turf this year. I'm very curious who the prospective champions are that would have made up the field for the 1 1/4 race. Certainly they couldn't have come from the meager fields we saw for this year's BC preps.

Go Between.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Go Between.

OK, at least we have one sane member here.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

OK, at least we have one sane member here.

I am curious though, about your thought that horses run in turf sprints because they are too slow to run sprinting on dirt or going a mile on the green.

Maybe I haven't thought about it enough, but for a horse like Nicole's Dream, before she was retired -- it was just what she was good at.

Is it not possible that some horses are just suited to sprinting on the grass? I'll use Arlington as an example. There plenty of horses who can win there going six furlongs on the dirt (or now, poly) but couldn't win a mile event out of the chute to save their lives. Maybe you're just making a generalization based on the recent proliferation of cheap maiden sellers and NW1X grass sprints full of 20-time losers -- but at the level where we're getting multiple winners and higher-end optional claimers, I tend to disagree and think that some horses are just better suited for that trip.

Of course, this question is only in relation to turf sprinting in general, and not having a BC race for them.

[blackthroatedwind]

Take a look at the pps of the horses that competed in the Turf Express at Hollywood on Saturday.

After doing so I am guessing you will agree with me.

[the_fat_man]

I personally find turf sprints to be just about the most exciting/challenging race there is.

If it were as simple as putting your bad horses in these types of races, then why wouldn't those with decent sprinters, say, enter them in some of these races and collect comparable purses in less competitive, by your assumption, races?

As for these horses not being able to stretch out: This is because stretching out on the turf is a bit more nuanced than stretching out on the dirt. Going from one to two turns presents all sorts of footwork issues--even to horses experienced in doing so. Which makes your favorite horse's, Sleeping Indian, stretch out to 2 turns all the more impressive, slow pace and all: he was on the correct lead throughout -- which is alot more than can be said for English Colony's 1st (quasi) 2 turn effort.

[blackthroatedwind]

That's fine that you find them a handicapping challenge.

How exactly does that qualify them for a supposed championship race? Where is the precedent for this in a country without even a Grade 2 race in that category?

[blackthroatedwind]

And, furthermore, the reason " decent sprinters " don't run in turf sprints is because there is no money in those races and no graded status to add to their potential residual value. These races are called the BREEDERS Cup.....so why exactly should they be honoring horses that only run in these races because they aren't good enough to run in races that enhance their BREEDING value?

I imagine some " decent " sprinters might show up in a $1 Million BC race....you know the " decent " kind that are too slow to have any chance in the dirt BC sprint. To me that hardly makes it a race of any kind of championship quality.

[the_fat_man]

So now we're not really focusing on mediocre dirt horses but rather those good enough to compete in quality races.

And, if there's a BC race for turf routers and turf milers, why shouldn't there be one for turf sprinters? Assuming we're discussing the addition of races.

Frankly, I'd much rather have seen a BC turf sprint at MTH (friday's card) than 2 mile races for 2 year olds.

It's also not a certainty, at least to me, that the best dirt sprinter will beat the best turf sprinter on the turf. Until that's proven to be the case, there's a place for the turf sprinter.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

Frankly, I'd much rather have seen a BC turf sprint at MTH (friday's card) than 2 mile races for 2 year olds.

How about running a $250K for turf sprinters in addition to the 2YO fields? Certainly that would have gotten the same field as a phony BC race would have gotten.

Frankly, the BC needs to find a way to facilitate foreign participation, like every other country does. That is a far more pressing need than adding races of dubious quality.