(CHICAGO, IL – June 14, 2010) In a time of Tea Party ascendancy, one should be pleased with the word “moron” as an insult after writing something that somebody else disagrees with. That’s about the worst that you get for calling a Louisville a Louisville.
After the point was made in a brief, five-paragraph blog item on Friday that the Breeders’ Cup erred in awarding Churchill Downs back-to-back stabs at hosting its championship event, the horse country wing of horse racing nation came alive to launch a defense of the Derby City that made Tunney Hunsaker’s pummeling by Cassius Clay in old Freedom Hall look like offense.
Churchill Downs is indeed an accomplished operator, a fitting place for the Breeders’ Cup program. Louisville’s okay as a tourist destination. But that’s all it is - okay. It’s not someplace you would choose if your goal was to promote the Sport of Kings to curiosity seekers outside the sport’s hardcore constituency. Furthermore, the selection was made because Oak Tree at Santa Anita is awaiting Frank Stronach’s California master plan on June 22 without a contract to operate and Belmont Park has no money other than that which it borrows. Neither of these choices was tenable.
The Breeders’ Cup championships lack a sense of celebration. A shortage of atmosphere has kept the event back from gaining extravaganza status. In recent years, the organizers have tried to introduce fun into a supporting role to the main attraction. But, now, organizers seem convinced that by anchoring the event at one site they can develop its identity in a broader, more popular manner.
The bean counters note that financial benefits accrue when the championship races remain at the same racecourse in consecutive years. Like good corporate practitioners that hire mercenary consultants to tell them that which they want to hear, the Breeders’ Cup people have a strong recommendation from William Field - an expert in suck-up - that a permanent location serves the interests of developing identity Yet, the majority of fans, the horseplayers and the media disagree with these findings.
As horse racing is pulling back, the National Football League is expanding by considering a plan that would move its annual draft away from Radio City Music Hall to theaters in cities other than New York. Even the National Hockey League believes moving its Winter Classic from one city to another provides enormous benefits in developing its fan base.
Now holster your pistols for a minute as a few things are put into perspective. There is nothing wrong with Churchill Downs, nothing lacking in Louisville. These venues serve adequately when they’re the sites for a party that’s a “must” on the social calendar. But, in 26 years, since the Breeders’ Cup began, not many people have gone to horse racing’s end-of-year festivities and concluded, “We had such a good time, I’m exhausted” - unless hunkering down in your hotel room with a Racing Form is fatiguing.
In the public realm, the Breeders’ Cup championship races have never caught up with its springtime equivalent. That was the goal of the Breeders’ Cup founders – to find new customers where they didn’t exist. Without razzmatazz, the Breeders’ Cup appeals solely to horse racing people and gamblers. Stated plainly, the Kentucky Derby causes Louisville to come alive, not the opposite.
Most sporting events that have reached beyond their fan base play the game outside the lines of competition. Just a glance at the World Cup Soccer coverage provided by ABC and ESPN, the same providers of Belmont Stakes drivel, reveals that what you have to work with determines the effect you create. From lessons about apartheid to vuvuzelas, the network telecasts have described the country of South Africa like a travel agent would. People become engaged in the biathlon and Greco-Roman wrestling, for goodness sake, because the Olympics are more than the Olympic Games.
At this point in horse racing’s history, decisions like venue shouldn’t be about operating efficiently but about managing assets. Of course, the sport should make money at each opportunity to satisfy the need of its base to produce products that are consumable. But considering that horse racing’s base is decreasing, prudent economic behavior shouldn’t be the priority.
The danger of having the Breeders’ Cup in Kentucky repeatedly or always is that a routine like this levels horse racing with the weighty impression that it hasn’t spread forth from its roots. Having the Breeders’ Cup visit different cities from year to year promotes the thought that the sport is both viable and popular everywhere. Quite honestly, it matters little to the presentation of the races on which track they’re held – a horse is a horse is a horse to most people. What does matter is that the spectacle isn’t of regional interest, but national.
It’s sad that Gulfstream Park no longer exists in a form that will meet the event’s criteria. Some of the best Breeders’ Cups were held in South Florida where there was plenty to do once the visiting horseplayers left the building. Arlington Park’s only Breeders’ Cup was the coldest on record, so that leaves a bona fide tourist town out. “Aboot” perfect in every sense, Woodbine could be having snow just as easily as the 22 degree celsius it enjoyed when Alphabet Soup won his Classic.
Nevertheless, it wasn’t long ago that the Breeders’s Cup CEO, Greg Avioli, toyed around with a selection of 10 different racetracks that could form a rotation. Here’s hoping that two straight years of Churchill Downs – a venue that’s certain to produce a glittering financial result – won’t cause people to take the short view on building the product.
Follow Vic Zast on Facebook and Twitter. To learn who wrote last week's "Comment of the Week," see the first comment written this week.
14 Jun 2010 at 01:10 am | #
Comment #7 from Kevin A. Burke has been designated last week’s Comment of the Week. Burke offered his suggestions on three points that were made in the column and added a fourth – that the Belmont Park detention barn should be eliminated – in a clearly presented argument. His comment was well written and expanded the topic. Congratulations, Kevin A. Burke.
Honorable mentions go out to I. Davis for Comment #12 and Hairy Henson for Comment #13. Comment #12 gave evidence to the fact that I. Davis is a real horse racing fan. The item was enjoyable to read for its passion and depth of understanding of what makes the sport enjoyable to many. Comment #13 was brief, witty and accurate. Hairy Henson is correct that racetrack announcer Tom Durkin has been “vomiting” the words out and missing horses at crucial points in races.
For a complete reading of Kevin A. Burke’s Comment of the Week, go to Vic Zast’s FastWords. Please add your comment about this week’s TrackWords below. Write on!
14 Jun 2010 at 02:13 am | #
Does anybody know what happened to the Equidaily web site? It was accessible yesterday, June 13, but today the only thing I get is a 3-colored blob which tells me that the site may have switched to a pay service, but I can’t find it!
If anybody has any information about it, please post it here! Thanks!
14 Jun 2010 at 02:27 am | #
How about San Antonio, Texas --amazingly fun town with tons to do and centrally located. How does the nomination work?
14 Jun 2010 at 04:02 am | #
To poster #2 - Are you serious?
Click onto the “3-colored blob” and you will get to the content of the site. Do those colors look familiar to you at all?…
14 Jun 2010 at 04:36 am | #
I agree with you. The Olympics have kind of gotten out of hand as far as money spent to create a spectacle goes, BUT that spectacle draws people in and interests them. When you watch Olympic coverage, they spread outside of just the Olympics and give info on the history and beauty of the area and its people. When I watch racing from overseas, it’s not just the racing that draws people in, it’s the celebration - of the event, the horses and the people. If you look at racing in Asia and in Dubai, those are Events. Now if we had a facility like Dubai’s, there would be no question of where Breeders Cup should be held. But we don’t. And I can understand why financially it makes sense to have it at one place or the same place two years in a row. But why not celebrate, not just do, what it was intended to be from the beginning? Have it at different venues and reach outside the box for fans? I know people would come out for something different in their area IF they know they will be in for a celebration. But not if it’s the same old thing.
14 Jun 2010 at 04:49 am | #
JoAnna: Yes, I was serious! It simply did not occur to me that Equidaily had honored Zenyatta by posting the “3-colored blob” to mystify visitors to its web site! I’m not skilled in computer techniques, so I didn’t even try to click on one of the colored blocks; I thought Equidaily had decided to charge for its services!
Thanks for the tip, and good racing!
14 Jun 2010 at 06:15 am | #
No problem. Everyone is honoring the queen today
14 Jun 2010 at 08:03 am | #
After two years at anta Anita, a Breeders’ Cup at the Kentucky Derby venue should be a relief, but the memory of the souped-up rail the last time the event was hosted there leaves a bad taste. In fact, the last four BC renewals have been characterized by circumstantial compromising of contender chances for a championship.
Then there’s the horses-for-courses condition to consider. Alliteratively-named Super Saver and Street Sense both showed a preference for that surface in successive years. Sunday Silence won the Derby and the BC Classic there in the same year. Factor in Mr. Bo-rail’s mastery of Twin Spires geometry and you’re looking at the favorite if you’re not lucky. No wonder a bon vivant like Mr. Zast is overly concerned with entertainment opportunities outside the racetrack.
But what really concerns me is Churchill Downs management’s penchant for saving dime supers for days with smaller crowds. The prospective 13-month prohibition (19 if you include the 2012 Derby) of my most successful wager from championship racing is cause for depression. Indeed “decisions like venue shouldn’t be about operating efficiently but about managing assets.” Mr. Avioli and his callous comrades are coming off as “Looney Tunes maroons” by not enabling me to manage my own.
14 Jun 2010 at 10:42 am | #
If you can win for a dime, you can win for a dollar!
14 Jun 2010 at 11:55 am | #
Indulto - Sunday Silence won the BC Classic at Gulfstream, not Churchill.
14 Jun 2010 at 02:12 pm | #
Thanks, SS.
Both my memory and my spelling checker seem to be on the fritz today. I may have to give Frank’s Energy Drink a try after all.
Chasham,
I could win for a dollar if I could afford all the combinations I can play for a dime. Don’t forget the attraction for the autograph-averse.
14 Jun 2010 at 02:17 pm | #
Chasham,
Wrong: The superfecta success rate, as with other super-exotics, is more a function of bankroll than handicapping skill. The score is not only the lure but, given high takeout rates, is necessary if a player is to stay liquid. Plus it’s a great way to get a newbie engaged. Big day tourists lacking any handicapping skill will bet their $2 to place or show and get back even money if they’re lucky. For $2 they could get 20 different bets, win $10 or $20 or $100 if they’re lucky. Dime Supers have promotional value that even tracks allowing the wager fail to take proper advantage.
Thanks all,
JRP
14 Jun 2010 at 03:44 pm | #
To Indulto and JRP: Of course, I agree with your thoughts about dime superfecta play! I play them all the time, often to the costly exclusion of exacta and trifecta play. I’ve hit some big ones thanks to the “all button”, but then I’ve realized that I HAD the winner, and I HAD the place and show horses, so why did I not play the $1 superfecta and get back ten times what I received! I understand that the bankroll goes farther with dime superfecta play, but I think you will realize that IF you knew what you were doing when you bought the ticket, you would have been MUCH better off if you had played the horses you liked for a buck than for a dime! I suppose there really is no inconsistency between my earlier comment and your responses!
14 Jun 2010 at 04:50 pm | #
I think it’s a joke that Belmont isn’t the site for 2011. Have you ever tried to get to Churchill? It’s not very easy. How many people do you think the Breeders’ Cup would get if racing fans flew into the country’s #1 media market? The BC wants its event to be more international, right? Isn’t NYC a logical and more accessible city??? I was shocked when I read Hayward had not been in discussions with the Breeders’ Cup for 2011. How could that possibly be??? Greg Avioli is running this once great organization into the ground! He’s a puppet anyway, so I guess we should have expected this much.
14 Jun 2010 at 05:59 pm | #
Joey B: I suspect that you live somewhere near Belmont Park, and that the Santa Anita advocates live somewhere near California. Personally, I prefer Churchill Downs as the BC site because I live fairly close to Louisville. If the BC is to realize its full potential, the races should be rotated among Belmont, Churchill and Santa Anita.
If an occasional exception is made, such as Monmouth in a Belmont year, or Arlington in a Churchill year, it might spice up the program.
If a fixed site is chosen for the BC every year, 2/3 of the country would be frozen out of meaningful participation.By the way, NYC is a “more accessible” city only for people on the East Coast!