Well unless CA is on fire again ...... still remember my charcoal brews, and not stoned BLOOD SHOT eyes from my last SA BC visit. We had plans to site see, but roads closed, we just went back to Vegas. I really wanted to walk in the Pacific too.
LOL you try driving around CA with roads closed. It was damn near impossible to even get to the ocean. Hell I took pictures at SA. The mountains that you see from the grandstand, NOT EVEN VISIBLE in the picture!!!!!! or is that just normal for a smoggy day
If you have plans to go, fly to Denver, take the train to Vegas. The Rockies make that little side excursion so worthwhile. Spend a few days in Vegas, rent a car and drive to the SA area for the BC and a few days of pre-race perusing. The motel/hotel that we stayed in wasn't far from the track, coffee, microwave, small fridge in the room, a handicappers dream.
LOL want to make it really memorable, take the train from the east coast to Vegas, via Denver. Get stuck near a door that sticks on the train, right by the observation car so you get NO sleep. Have some really, REALLY good weed packed away and arrive in Vegas on Halloween morning. Smoke a little before going in the casino at 10am. It was almost like an acid trip ..... the guy holding the door for us in a wicked costume, eyeball hanging out.
On the weed front, I saved some very good stuff from that SPRING. A week before the trip, something wildly better fell in my lap so before going in I had my friend pick a hand. Either way it was going to hammer us .... he picked the right hand. Two hits later what an interesting and memorable day that made. I think I floated down hallways <G>.
Zig, I was at that Cup and the fires did rob SA of one of its nicest features, i.e., the view of the mountains. The unseasonable heat didn't help matters, either. Give it another shot--it's my favorite track and, IMO, a real cathedral of racing. And the view is even nicer with a few puffs beforehand....
This message has been edited by frangooch on Nov 12, 2007 2:29 PM
LOL well If I could remember where, there's a couple joints stashed in Vegas. I know whoever might have found them got their socks rocked off.
Two reasons we took the train ..... I'd never flown and heights freak me the hell out and hooch on a plane, uh no I'm not that dumb which is why a few J's were left behind as well as the 'homemade pipe'. Much to my surprise flying home didn't bother me at all, whereas the 24th floor with floor to ceiling windows in the hallway in Vegas did, go figure.
Cup's blundering runneth over
By STEVEN CRIST
NEW YORK - The announcement Thursday that the Breeders' Cup will be run at Santa Anita in both 2008 and 2009 was not a proud moment for American racing. It betrayed the history and ideals of the event and cast an unfortunately accurate picture of a dysfunctional industry that is in crisis on several fronts.
While Cup officials are bravely maintaining that this is a positive experiment that may provide some marketing benefits, those involved in the process concede privately that they were making the best of a bad situation.
The 2009 Cup had been expected to go to either Belmont Park or Churchill Downs, which last hosted it in 2005 and 2006, respectively. The Cup is supposed to move around the country, generally rotating among California, Kentucky, and New York with an additional track outside that axis (such as Arlington, Lone Star, or Monmouth in recent years) completing the lineup.
Instead, neither Belmont nor Churchill was awarded the 2009 Cup, for different disturbing reasons.
Cup officials say that the New York Racing Association's all-consuming efforts to get its franchise renewed prevented it from seeking the 2009 event, and that the Cup board did not feel comfortable awarding it to a track that is in bankruptcy and subsisting on a series of three-week renewals.
Churchill's case is just as discouraging. Officials of the publicly held company reportedly have been seeking a higher revenue stream from the event - the Breeders' Cup basically rents your facility for the price of what you would make on an ordinary Friday and Saturday - and were unable to come to terms on a richer deal with Breeders' Cup. So we have the nation's iconic Derby racetrack essentially refusing to host the sport's year-end championships, something once considered an honor, because of a disagreement over hot-dog and souvenir commissions.
And some people wonder why sponsors and broadcasters don't consider racing a major league sport.
It's also entirely unclear why the venue for a November 2009 event had to be announced 21 months in advance. A deal renewing NYRA's franchise could be in place by this week, and it's hard to believe that another month of discussion might not have yielded a palatable deal with Churchill Downs. The official explanation, that there was a Breeders' Cup board meeting scheduled for last Thursday and that it always helps to have as much time as possible for advance planning, is not particularly compelling. It's difficult to believe that only 19 or 20 months' notice, rather than 21, would have hampered the 2009 event.
The timing is all the stranger given Santa Anita's ongoing drainage problems with its Cushion Track. There is little doubt that it will be repaired by this October, much less the following November, and everyone denies vehemently that the 2009 award was a precursor to relocating this year's Cup. Still, it seems odd to tell the world with pride that you're running your championships for an unprecedented two straight years over a track that has been unsuitable for racing most of this year. Why not hold off on the decision until after the repairs have been made instead of ratifying and releasing it the same day that Santa Anita announced yet another cancellation?
Cushion Track itself is another reason the choice of back-to-back Santa Anita Breeders' Cups is an unfortunate one. Regardless of how one feels about artificial surfaces, their introduction into American racing is clearly having its growing pains. No one can say with any confidence whether a decade from now they will be widely used and beloved, used for training rather than racing, or have been relegated to the scrap heap of noble failures. Nor has there been enough top-grade racing on these surfaces to say whether they are the fair and proper venues on which to conduct the sport's richest races and determine its champions. The premature and haphazard way they have been foisted upon the sport has left everyone in a state of confusion.
Running the 2008 races on Cushion Track was already an iffy proposition, and deciding this early to do it two years in a row is an unwarranted leap of faith. No track should be given consecutive Breeders' Cups, regardless of whether it's in California or New York or somewhere in between, but at this juncture in history it is even worse to schedule two straight Cups on a new and unproven synthetic surface.
Perhaps the saddest thing of all is that once Belmont and Churchill were deemed unsuitable candidates for 2009, there apparently was not a single alternative among the more than 100 other racetracks in America. There's something to be said for holding the event in the largest possible media market, but whatever tiny gains might accrue on the marketing side seem smaller than what is being lost in the way of the fairness and credibility of the racing itself.
Do you think they maybe gave them '09 because they're gonna take '08 away from them because of the track problems? A friend of mine is pretty convinced this is the reason...20 months ahead of time does seem unnecessary....
Makes some sense. Question is, where to? Maybe they would just move across town to Hollypark, which would ease the effect on any other local arrangements they've made. The so-called problems with NY and Churchill don't get any better a year sooner. Gulfstream? Oaklawn?
Another question is what evidence about the SA track's improvement would be enough to lure world class horses from Europe and elsewhere? They certainly won't travel to the current mess. High stakes decision.
I've never had the pleasure of going to Santa Anita, but I love what it represents in terms of tradition, beauty and SoCal locale. But awarding it the BC in '08, in light of uncertainty about synthetic surfaces (and SA's in particular), is dubious enough. Awarding it to SA in consecutive years is loco.
The majority of U.S. horses are bred for dirt, not faux dirt. Until that changes, major contenders, like Curlin, will avoid the surface -- or use it as an excuse for defeat. What kind of "championship" is that?
At this point in history, staging the nominative World Championships on a synthetic surface is like staging the Super Bowl in Winnipeg, on a CFL field.
Isn't it more like staging the Super Bowl for the first time on an artificial surface whenever that was?
I don't get the two years in a row and given the specific problems that Santa Anita has had with its surface, this year is a concern, but the move to having the BC on a synthetic surface (except for the turf events) was inevitable.
I wish I were going this year but its not in the cards.
>>>>Isn't it more like staging the Super Bowl for the first time on an artificial surface whenever that was?
Good point, shoes. I hadn't thought of that.
I was just a kid when Astroturf came on the scene. I don't remember the initial reaction. Was it as pronounced as the synth dirt thing?
Maybe it was and people just got over it. But there's a difference between being superficially different and fundamentally different. Synthetic dirt seems to be fundamentally different. Top class horses, like Street Sense, are markedly less successful on the fake stuff. I don't recall that being the case with human baseball/football players on Astroturf.
Maybe the difference between Pro Track, Polytrack, etc., is more imagined than real. More of an excuse than a explanation. But the jury is clearly out on that account. Staging the alleged World Championships on that surface for two straight years, at this point, is not a prudent move.
I'm glad that Curlin is aiming at the Arc. But it seems that the decision was heavily influenced by the footing at Santa Anita. That shouldn't be a factor. The lone inert component of a horse race should not discourage the participation of a top class horse in a championship race.
I saw a ranking of the world's best t-breds the other day. Curlin was No. 1, Big Brown No. 2. Both are dirt horses whose connections seem totally or partially disinclined to run their animals at the SA Breeders' Cup. That's not a good thing. It hurts the event and the sport.
It's an indefensibly idiotic decision given the fact that Yanks and Euros alike enjoy running at Churchill and Belmont -- and have given positive reviews to Arlington and Woodbine.
Nobody ever dissed a Super Bowl winner because of the "track." The NFC/AFC champion never begged out of the big game because it was on Astroturf. Nobody ever blamed a Super Bowl loss on the footing. It's highly unlikely that '08/'09 Breeders' Cup will be able to say the same.
Some horses will skip the event and others will, after the fact, lobby us to "draw a line through it." That's no way to conduct a championship.
Actually Astroturf's introduction in baseball had a pretty profound impact. Groundballs that were routinely fielded in the past, now skipped through the infield, because of the harder surface. Middle infielders played deeper, actually into the outfield in an effort to compensate, which in turn led to more leg hits on slow rollers. A different style of play or "small ball" became more successful. The wait for the 3 run homer style advocated by Earl Weaver and his Orioles gave way to Royals and Cardinals stringing together singles that shot through the infield and doubles and triples that got through gaps. Then this trend got reversed in stunning fashion with the introduction of steroids which is a whole 'nother story.
There was an impact on football as well, though probably not as pronounced. Speed always important became more important, pass defenses went from a lot of man coverage to almost all zone, much of this IMO (not exclusively for sure)because of the faster "tracks."
I love the tradition of thoroughbred racing and shudder at the thought of CD going poly etc but I also fear in general for the future of our sport. The conversion to synthetics has the look of inevitability to it.
Didn't baseball's Dick Allen say something like "if a horse can't eat it, I don't want to play on it"?
I have been wavering about poly - good for Turfway & probably good for Golden Gate & Woodbine - bad every where else. Do we know that all 4 types are similar enough to be lumped together, or do we now have six different surfaces to 'cap plus the significant differences between turf courses? I now do not play poly exept for major races.
The biggest unanswered question relates to long-term human exposure to the "dust". In Europe they don't race enough to have good data. The jocks in CA are on it almost 365.
AP's change was a knee-jerk reaction for PR purposes.
As far as the BC, it is headed toward minor status with the money grubbers now running it. I applaud Mr. Jackson's old-style-owner attitude.
Steve Haskin has been as down on the synthetics as anybody I've heard or read on the subject. His frustration with them really showed through during his always-anticipated pre-Triple Crown coverage, causing him to be much more negative than he's ever been.
The link above is to his latest blog entry at the Bloodhorse, and judging from that, he's nearly over the edge. The sarcasm is almost palpable! Entertaining, I guess, but I'm kind of sad to see Haskin write like this.........
2008 Breeders' Cup ~ Friday & Saturday, October 24 & 25, 2008
...... still remember my charcoal brews, and not stoned BLOOD SHOT eyes from my last SA BC visit. We had plans to site see, but roads closed, we just went back to Vegas. I really wanted to walk in the Pacific too.
