Weekend guest: Girlcott filly Friday

By Indulto

As I try to find tote board value when two-year-olds test their breeding beyond sprint distances and three-year-olds take on their elders, I find it ironic that supposedly less-sound juveniles now have more opportunities to run beyond a mile; although the Breeders' Cup did back off from its nine furlong experiment with them. As the BC continues to expand the number of what it considers “championship” races, we can expect to see more “preps” inserted during the next two months.

Like the BC expansion, races themselves, newly created preps, will be ungraded. On one hand we now get to feast on at least two successive Saturday-Sunday weekend simulcasting sessions into which graded stakes that once traditionally determined divisional champions are compressed. On the other hand we seldom get to see most of the participating equine stars face each other prior to Cup Day. So now everything hinges on how a horse is feeling -- and how well it can adapt to its surroundings -- on one particular day of the year.

In the past two years, post position -- and then weather conditions – also became factors affecting the once-in-a-lifetime chances of some BC contestants. This year, the Breeders’ Cup brain trust has taken a lot of heat for some very unpopular decisions:

1.) Awarding a single track two successive opportunities to host the cup and thus penalizing fans and owners in other geographic locations. Eastern horses have generally underperformed in BC races held in California.

2) Asking the owners of the best horses in training to experiment with their horses’ ability to handle synthetic surfaces and possibly altering their running styles.

3) Forcing owners accepting that challenge to run their horses on a problematic surface without long-term confirmation that known problems have been solved and unknown problems aren’t likely to manifest themselves again.

4) Shifting the balance of participation in BC preps to synthetic surfaces at the expense of tracks with traditional dirt surfaces; lowering their field size and quality, and possibly attendance and handle as well.

5) Unilaterally deciding to move the races for the best females from their traditional grouping with races for the best males to the secondary expansion day where fewer will see and bet on them.

6) Creating a distraction from the original emphasis on “showcasing champions” with a gender-based marketing promotion.

7) Trivializing the name of the best race restricted to females by changing it from ‘The Distaff’ to ‘The Ladies’ Classic.’ There is only one “Classic” and it is open to females as well. Arguably this reinforces the concept of equine female inferiority almost as much as the F&M Sprint. Are a F&M Mile and/or a F&M Dirt Mile in our future as well?

8) When a wave of protest from both media and fans occurred in reaction to those decisions, the BC power structure virtually ignored them.

9) By restricting television coverage of the best racing has to offer to cable and satellite, they are compounding racing’s invisibility to the general public.

10) By refusing to offer a lower Pick Six wager minimum on a day when there can’t be a carryover, many fans are priced out of participating as enthusiastically in that pool as they might on the day competition runs deep in all legs. If fans got the impression they could hit a Pick six on BC Day, such optimism might “carry over” to the rest of the year.

Is it a function of the BC to promote racing and support year-round prosperity for tracks and horsemen, or is its purpose to milk the declining fan base hungry for high-quality racing as well as the owners of price-inflated horseflesh thirsty for stud fees?

What objectives justify a grueling two-day viewing marathon once a year that devalues traditional divisional champion-crowning stakes races? With truly cooperative scheduling coupled with bonuses for performances across multiple races, tracks themselves might revitalize those stakes and fuel interest in racing throughout the year.

Last year, debate over BC expansion centered on potential for diluting the quality of fields. Would the F&M sprint eliminate any incentive for female sprinters capable of beating their male rivals to do so? Would the Dirt Mile cannibalize the Sprint and the Classic?

This year’s debate focuses on whether Friday’s farce is diluting Saturday’s specialness, and compromising the energy and endurance of fan interest in Saturday’s events.

So, yes, fans of any gender should feel free to GIRLcott silly Filly Friday!

Certainly the Ladies Classic deserves to be ignored to the same extent it was by BC planners. Save your money for Saturday to show the industry they had better start listening to those who bet for entertainment; players they continually ignore despite the fact they represent the greatest potential for handle growth. This is an opportunity waiting to happen for horseplayer groups trying to attract membership to influence change in the industry.