Maybe I was too over the top about Belmont. To be honest, my issue is not as much about it going to Belmont as about it getting a change of scenery from year to year.
I spent a lot of years in europe and even though a lot of those guys are watching from overseas, they love the variety associated with different racetracks and different regions in the US. There was a lot on TV about Dallas and Texas and Lone Star when the cup was held there and there was definitely a fresh excitement in England about that choice of venue. If there were not so many barriers put up, we could get a huge influx of foreign money into our big exotic pari-mutuel pools and rotating the venue would definitely help pump that up. there are places where there is a vibrant, vital, interested horsebetting public. Those people have money and want to bet. We need to include them.
My friends who do go to the Breeders Cup regularly, loved the opportunity to go to new or rarely visited places and definitely miss the travel variety for years back. Santa Anita is the great race place and it is a great place for the races. I am not against Santa Anita, only against concentration of the venue into a rut.
Also, for horses shipping from other countries, climate issues may suggest that a range of options is more inclusive. Also, all racetracks have idiosyncracies. Santa Anita has the unusual downhill turf sprint. If all turf sprint races were the downhill sprint, you are rewarding a very narrow set of specialists at the expensive of the rest of the class. Rotating the cup allows all horses in the class a fair shot, and healthy and fair competition is going to help increase the betting attraction. If a great horse comes around that has a distaste for a particular track and that track is the one that hosts all breeders cups, then we will never see that greatness on display in what should be the showcase. Also, if the cup is at one place, a one track specialist may all of a sudden be viewed as one of the great ones just because he or she was lucky enough the he or she was the horse for the course of the only course that matters.
I am not expert on sports marketing and what is required to get more money into our pari-mutuel pools, but I would feel a whole lot better about the choice to concentrate the venue if it were accompanied by a detailed well-reasoned analysis of why that choice is going to help the sport attract more betting dollars than any other option would. If such an analysis were published, it would help get a lot of people who have a knee jerk reaction against the choice to reconsider and support it. The fact is, we all want horseracing to succeed and thrive and there is not a lot of confidence out there that the decisionmakers either share that goal or are competent.
P-Dub Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Richie makes a great point about lighting and time
> zones. That is a logical consideration when
> appointing sites.
>
> As for attracting people to a dying sport, why
> would holding it in NY have more appeal than any
> other venue?? The vast majority of people won\'t
> be on-track. Super Bowl, Final Four, do people
> really care where those are held??
>
> Grow the sport?? Hold it in a time slot that
> reaches the biggest audience, and hold it in a
> venue that can accommodate that. Santa Anita and
> Churchill Downs are 2 of the most picturesque
> venues in the country. They also have the ability
> to run the races in prime time.
>
> Yes, weather is part of sport. I attended the BC
> at Monmouth, and despite having a great wagering
> weekend thanks to Thorograph, it was miserable.
> That track was flooded, the turf course a bog, a
> horse got put down on track (can happen on a dry
> track too), traffic was crappy, it was
> uncomfortable if you were uncovered (many seats at
> BC locations are uncovered). Not once did I go
> down to the paddock in the pouring rain. I
> wouldn\'t think this is the recipe for growing the
> popularity of the sport.
>
> I have nothing against Belmont Park. It seems that
> if you are concerned about helping a dying sport,
> then fairness about the rotation should be far
> down the list of concerns.