- This topic has 160 replies, 71 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
Although it is quite clear from other posts that I would rather be cold at Charing point to point than sit in the comfort of my armchair and watch the Breeders Cup, there is one great result for a traditionalists like me.
Conduit winning the Turf. Maybe at last we can have no more devaluing the St. Leger and that stayers are slow horses. This is a proper horse that has won over an extended mile and three quarters on a great galloping track like Doncaster and on a really sharp American turf track which makes Fakenham look galloping.
There are
those who crab Leger winners and want the Triple Crown to be something over a mile and a quarter (not saying that they are on this Forum).Lets hear it for the proper stayers and lets see a good horse have a go at the Triple Crown again. I can remember Nijynsky winning it and it really aroused interest in the sport. Good grief, I might even take a bigger interest in flat racing it it happened (heaven forbid).
Can’t see it happening Bob not unless we have a very bad 2000 guineas won through sheer class by a staying horse.
There are too may other options for the Derby winner these days where he doesn’t have to be subjected to going over the longer trip.
Nijinsky oozed class and had a terrific turn of foot he could rely on over the shorter distances.
Request denied :lol:
Aye, fair enough, but I can still dream that one day it will happen can’t I.
I can’t comment on the overall TV coverage because I’m over there and watched no content on TVG and HRTV in the week before Breeders’ Cup but have to say this Ryder Cup atmosphere seems like something that PR and media have dreamed up-because it seemed non-existant to me.
I spent 4 mornings at the track from 5am and found no-one trying to belittle the foreign connections or pick holes in the form of different horses-mainly asking questions. The number of Americans wanting to go racing in Europe is on the increase since both TVG and HRTV have shown racing every day for around 2 years.
There wasn’t a single moment in the 2 days of racing where I felt I was spectating in a Ryder Cup type event-and I even asked some of the writers who had been to the Ryder Cup weeks earlier and they commented that not only was that atmosphere non-existant at Santa Anita but they had the times of their lives in Kentucky.
Not sure about the "England" thing but it has always surprised me that a horse is listed in a racecard as (GB) but Graded races are always listed as ENG-even the Scottish Derby! If that hasn’t been changed surely it’s time to change that to GB as well.
As for the World Championships thing. Think they added that around 2001 or so. It was probably a marketing ploy and most American racing fans weren’t happy about it at the time. Breeders’ Cup have looked at the possibility of an overseas venue and I believe that 31 tracks-11 from overseas were written to and asked to submit bids for 09,10 and 11.
It will be back at Santa Anita on the Pro-Ride surface next year and heads to Churchill Downs in 2010 and I guess that Belmont Park may host in 2011-although they appear to have been shafted out of hosting in 2010.
The real flaw of the event this year which became slightly evident last year and now is a huge problem-is the spiralling cost of ticket prices. In the early years of the event seats cost pretty much what they did on other days at the host track. Probably $2,50 or so. By 2003 seats at Santa Anita’s Grandstand-around Section N were $50. Now the same seats were $200 for both days!! which left huge chunks of the top tier of the Grandstand empty-i watched the Classic in a row with probably no people 100 seats either side of me. For around the same price as a pair of Grandstand tickets for the 2 days-you can buy over 20 Grandstand passes for the whole of the 36 Saratoga meet.
There are also not enough things for regular fans to go and do and i’m afraid that many believe that the ramped up ticket prices for the many are funding the entertainment of the few. All sorts of Breeders’ Cup events for the few-including a party with Maroon 5 playing live for about 45 minutes…. What’s happened to the Fan Fest which was a huge event that anyone could go to? What happened to those superb little earpiece radios they sold at Monmouth for the first time last year?
Meydan were keen to host for 2011.
I’m sure they were but surely that’s an impossibility? I’m sure others know how exactly Breeders’ Cup makes its money but don’t they take a huge portion of the handle and the host track keeps everything it makes from food and drink etc. Breeders Cup would end up with nothing-although I did see today that Emirates are just about to fly non-stop from LA to Dubai which may be another reason why it might be on the cards. Hong Kong I thought wanted 2010 or 11 as well?
Perhaps a split European/North American bid might be the answer. A European track aligning itself and offering to host the 5 Turf events with the American track hosting the other 9. Perhaps going in with Oaklawn Park-the biggest American track that can’t host a Breeders’ Cup-or Turfway Park
Andrew Beyer doesn’t seem impressed if his comments are anything to go by…
Perhaps internationalizing the Breeders’ Cup in this way makes good marketing sense, but it still seems an odd priority for the U.S. horse industry. American breeders created this event. Their nomination fees make possible the big purses for the Cup races. The Breeders’ Cup has showcased American racing at its best and produced some of the greatest drama in the sport’s history. Why should the industry want to change a two-century tradition of racing on dirt in order to accommodate the Europeans? It is one of the many questions still unresolved after the first synthetic Breeders’ Cup.
Sour grapes clouding his judgement.
He’s ignoring the fact that Raven’s Pass, Henry and Muhannak are all by US-based, BC-nominated sires. They have contributed just as much to the prize fund as any of the ‘domestic’ winners. Their success at the BC is also an encouragement for international owners to buy into the US bloodstock market, thus improving the selling potential of their homebreds.
In addition, the other European horses are mostly by EBF-nominated sires, who are in conjuction with the BC fund, so also have paid their fees in contribution to the prize fund. Those that have not have to pay a huge supplementary sum. This international money is a big part of the BC process – it is a chance for US owners to win money that they have not put forward, bringing money into their economy.
So, his financial argument is garbage.
And I don’t even want to start on his complete disregard for the evidence on horse welfare. IMO, the first ‘synthetic’ Breeders’ Cup was a vast improvement on last year’s fiasco at Monmouth, and long may the improvement continue.
Bbobell / FOF –
You surely ignore one who could have feasibly done it within the current season. New Approach was only one stride away from having the Guineas in the bag, indeed with no Henry he wins easily, and then obviously we all know what happened at Epsom.
He would surely then have been aimed at the Ledger, and would more than likely have won it. It can be done, and will again be done.
Quote from Cormack15 – "What’s the betting that the Classic is back on dirt pretty quick?"
Quote from Andy Beyer – "Why should the industry want to change a two-century tradition of racing on dirt in order to accommodate the Europeans?"
See, they’re at it already. Also using words like ‘synthetic’ to imply there was something unnatural and therefore somehow less worthy about the wins of teh European trained horses.
Andrew Beyer doesn’t seem impressed if his comments are anything to go by…
Perhaps internationalizing the Breeders’ Cup in this way makes good marketing sense…
Perhaps it is worth pointing out to Mr Beyer that ‘internationalisation’ is pretty much a prerequisite to heralding an event as a ‘World Championship’.
Beyer hates synthetics with a passion, perhaps because they remove the overwhelming emphasis on pure speed from American racing and as a result mean that his Beyer speed figures, which must make him a fortune, have much less relevance.
He is, of course, entitled to his view, but certainly can’t be seen as any sort of detached commentator. Try the Paulick report for links to other American responses to the Breeders’ Cup, including one pointing out that it was the first steroid-free running too, which help to even things up a bit.
Quote from Cormack15 – "What’s the betting that the Classic is back on dirt pretty quick?"
Quote from Andy Beyer – "Why should the industry want to change a two-century tradition of racing on dirt in order to accommodate the Europeans?"
See, they’re at it already. Also using words like ‘synthetic’ to imply there was something unnatural and therefore somehow less worthy about the wins of teh European trained horses.
Firstly the Breeders Cup is going to Belmont (back on dirt) the year after next…that was decided BEFORE this year’s Classic result.
Secondly what does "they’re at it already mean"…simply because a few American judges have stated a preference for a surface they have raced on for generations? Look at any of the internet forums from America and there is a general positive response to this year’s renewal so basing the American Racing communities views on just a few peoples comments is a tad unfair.
The Derby is held on a joke of a racecourse, the Grand National itself is not exactly horse friendly (more horses died in it regularly that any dirt race), run the Newmarket Guineas on a all-weather track where there will be no bias or field dividing up……try any of these major changes and there would be plenty of out cry in Europe. This is a major step for the Americans, more all weather tracks and stricter drug control….rather than beating them with a stick maybe we should try and be happy with the steps they are taking.
Just to note that it will be Churchill Downs – currently on dirt – that will host the 2010 Breeders’ Cup after we return to Santa Anita next year.
What ‘they’re at it already’ means, and it was said slightly tongue in cheek, was that if the European trained horse regularly outperform their North American counterparts on the ‘pro-ride’ surface then two things will happen IMO. Firstly there will be a clamour from North American owners and trainers to continue having the BC run on dirt with the chemical aids that are in regular use Stateside. Secondly, the North Americans will simply stop running horses such as Curlin if they feel that they are at a disadvantage (or perhaps don’t hold the advantage they used to). I’d suggest that Beyer’s comment, and he’s a very influential figure in North American racing circles, are the beginnings of that type of thinking. I’m not having a go at North Americans btw – I’m sure we’d be the same if we started running the Derby on dirt and they came over and won it.
Which brings me to…
Epsom is NOT ‘a joke of a racecourse’ and, in fact, is anything but. The mile and a half course at Epsom represents what is, in my opinion, the World’s most complete test of a racehorse. During the Derby, and Oaks for that matter, the horse will have to answer questions regarding temperament, agility, balance, stamina, acceleration and precocity, along with sheer ability. It is very rarely that the Derby is won by the horse who doesn’t turn out to have been the best in the race and, on the occasions this does occur, it is usually because of a misjudgement on the part of the rider rather than the course. There is nothing inherently unfair about the course and Europe’s greatest trainers have all had very little problem with running horses in the major races run at the course (admittedly Fabre doesn’t run many in the Derby but his record in the Coronation Cup indicates that it’s not the course he has a problem with). The only thing that was perhaps a problem at Epsom was the danger of very firm ground but that is a much lower risk today.
Just because the course is unique and different to all others doesn’t mean it is a ‘joke’. It is IMO a better test than Newmarket, Ascot, York or the Curragh, courses where the premium is much more on pure galloping ability and where the other factors are tested to a much lesser degree than at Epsom.
The Derby’s long tradition, which continues to this day, of proving racehorses and identifying the top sires illustrates how effective a test it is.I’d like you to outline exactly what you think is wrong with it. I think you’ll find your fellow countrymen VOB and AOB in disagreement though (although Mr Bolger may be on your side!).
But, if your point is would we be up in arms if the authorities started messing about with our racing and the result was that, for example, the Irish or French started coming over and winning all our top races (doh!)then yes I’m sure there would be an uproar. I wasn’t saying there wouldn’t. I was just pointing out that I expect the Americans to start bleating loudly if Santa Anita next year was to yield another European 1/2 in the Classic.
I am happy with the steps they are taking, I’m just concerned that they’ll backslide if things don’t go their way.
Bbobell / FOF –
You surely ignore one who could have feasibly done it within the current season. New Approach was only one stride away from having the Guineas in the bag, indeed with no Henry he wins easily, and then obviously we all know what happened at Epsom.
He would surely then have been aimed at the Ledger, and would more than likely have won it. It can be done, and will again be done.
But would he Peruvian? I see where you are coming from though, I just don’t think it entered the connections equation with this particular horse. However, the way New approach ran in the Derby and other races definitely indicates to me (a pretty rubbish judge mind you) that he would have got the Doncaster trip no bother at all.
I think Nashwan would have had a big shout at the Triple Crown if he’d have been aimed at the Leger (which, from memory, was diverted to Ayr that year so might have taken the gloss off it)
A great defence of Epsom Cormack. Its true that givenm its unique confirguration, so very few trainers have complained about the venue over the years (and Bolger carries a bit of baggage i think anyway…)
run the Newmarket Guineas on a all-weather track where there will be no bias or field dividing up.
Wouldnt there be? If its a wide straight track still and would need to be for the fields the race can attract) then why do you assume the field wont divide? And if it was a circuit, you can be sure that there would be some draw bias…
What ‘they’re at it already’ means, and it was said slightly tongue in cheek, was that if the European trained horse regularly outperform their North American counterparts on the ‘pro-ride’ surface then two things will happen IMO. Firstly there will be a clamour from North American owners and trainers to continue having the BC run on dirt with the chemical aids that are in regular use Stateside. Secondly, the North Americans will simply stop running horses such as Curlin if they feel that they are at a disadvantage (or perhaps don’t hold the advantage they used to). I’d suggest that Beyer’s comment, and he’s a very influential figure in North American racing circles, are the beginnings of that type of thinking. I’m not having a go at North Americans btw – I’m sure we’d be the same if we started running the Derby on dirt and they came over and won it.
Which brings me to…
Epsom is NOT ‘a joke of a racecourse’ and, in fact, is anything but. The mile and a half course at Epsom represents what is, in my opinion, the World’s most complete test of a racehorse. During the Derby, and Oaks for that matter, the horse will have to answer questions regarding temperament, agility, balance, stamina, acceleration and precocity, along with sheer ability. It is very rarely that the Derby is won by the horse who doesn’t turn out to have been the best in the race and, on the occasions this does occur, it is usually because of a misjudgement on the part of the rider rather than the course. There is nothing inherently unfair about the course and Europe’s greatest trainers have all had very little problem with running horses in the major races run at the course (admittedly Fabre doesn’t run many in the Derby but his record in the Coronation Cup indicates that it’s not the course he has a problem with). The only thing that was perhaps a problem at Epsom was the danger of very firm ground but that is a much lower risk today.
Just because the course is unique and different to all others doesn’t mean it is a ‘joke’. It is IMO a better test than Newmarket, Ascot, York or the Curragh, courses where the premium is much more on pure galloping ability and where the other factors are tested to a much lesser degree than at Epsom.
The Derby’s long tradition, which continues to this day, of proving racehorses and identifying the top sires illustrates how effective a test it is.I’d like you to outline exactly what you think is wrong with it. I think you’ll find your fellow countrymen VOB and AOB in disagreement though (although Mr Bolger may be on your side!).
But, if your point is would we be up in arms if the authorities started messing about with our racing and the result was that, for example, the Irish or French started coming over and winning all our top races (doh!)then yes I’m sure there would be an uproar. I wasn’t saying there wouldn’t. I was just pointing out that I expect the Americans to start bleating loudly if Santa Anita next year was to yield another European 1/2 in the Classic.
I am happy with the steps they are taking, I’m just concerned that they’ll backslide if things don’t go their way.
My point about Epsom was a bit of "devils advocate" ,as while it is not my favourite track nor indeed is it the ideal track your suggesting to test a horse (fairly), I do not have that much of a problem with it. But my point was moving the Derby from Epsom would be a huge move and there would be decenting voices (as there was about moving it from a Wednesday to a Saturday!) so I think it is only fair to cut the Americans a little bit of slack for changing the surface of some of their most valuable races…a surface they have all grown up with. And again….the reports from the US have in the main been far more positive regarding the running of the Breeders Cup compared to the negative ones you have mentioned.
As for the American’s wanting to stop the Euros landing their big prizes, some would say the Brits did the same thing to Irish handicap hurdlers a few years back when they were winning them all before them so they bumped them up the handicap!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.