Saturday, November 14, 2009

Breeders’ Cup Suffering From Identity Crisis

SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY, November 13, 2009--Was it me, or did you also get the sense that this year’s Breeders’ Cup didn’t feel like the usual championship event until Goldikova unleashed that powerful kick midway through Saturday’s program?

Whether this perception is accurate or not, Breeders’ Cup Ltd. Ultimately must decide whether it wants to stick with the original model and mantra, “Racing’s Crowning Event,” or whether it wants to be the Breeders’ Cup International Racing Festival.

As currently structured, it falls a bit short of achieving either goal.

Don’t misunderstand. Breeders’ Cup will crown its share of champions again this year. It never has failed to do so. But unlike in the early days of the event, the overall quality in majority of the races was lacking.

The only notable progress--which may be the only measure that interests current organizational hierarchy--has come in the area of betting handle.

Just as expansion has reduced the overall quality of the four major sports leagues, large-market Major League Baseball teams notwithstanding, so, too, has expanding the championship format to two days and doubling the number of the original seven events failed to achieve the desired results.

It remains early in the Filly Friday experiment but thus far it’s been much ado about very little, except for the negative publicity generated by the renaming of the Distaff to Ladies Classic. In my view, the name isn’t as politically incorrect as it is pedestrian.

The filly concept hasn’t really caught on or ignited a fire under the brand. Ironic, too, that in 2009, “the year of the filly” featuring the two best thoroughbreds in America, one was a no-show and the other raced on Saturday--and gave the boys a fine spanking, at that.

Was I the only observer that found it curious that Filly Friday began with an open 14-furlong marathon? Facetiously, did Breeders’ Cup run out of fillies or only filly races? And, come to think of it, why is the Filly & Mare Sprint seven furlongs and not six?

Why does that race even exist? Very Subtle’s 1987 victory at Hollywood Park gave that renewal of the Sprint a special excitement. And even if she were lucky to take advantage of the gaffe made by shadow-jumping Dayjur, was anyone at Belmont Park, bettors notwithstanding, upset when Safely Kept became the Sprint beneficiary?

And was a F & M Turf really necessary? All can surmise the answer but that’s still not a good reason. So maybe Miss Alleged wasn’t all that compelling when beating the boys at Churchill Downs in 1991, but Pebbles Turf victory at Aqueduct in 1985 was an unforgettable Breeders‘ Cup moment.

Wouldn’t the Turf renewals of 2004 and 2006 been better off with Ouija Board than without her? And what about Banks Hill in 1991? Certainly, Midday would have been a welcome addition to this year’s Turf, easily the weakest running in recent memory.

The Dirt Mile was not run this year although history will recognize Furthest Land as the 2009 winner. The notion was a poor conception from the outset. Two-turn milers simply don’t enjoy the same stature as one-turn milers but most tracks lack a mile chute.

Sprinting eight furlongs proves something, especially to potential breeders. Two-turn milers might appear black-type attractive in sales catalogues but the uninitiated don’t know any better. Maybe that was the point all along.

Turf sprints are fun unless, of course, you spend summers in Saratoga where the novelty wears off in a few weeks. Why any “championship race” exists without a nominal champion in that category is lost on most fans, myself included.

Juvenile turf racing, however, like grass racing in general, is easier on the youngsters and can help predict the success of future campaigns. It probably will have its own Eclipse category before long although it’s not critical to the success of this program.

As long as future Breeders’ Cups are held at venues in Lexington or Chicago or Southern California or Toronto, for that matter, Eclipse Awards should recognize accomplishment on all three surfaces; dirt, turf and synthetics.

“Dirt” horses went zero for the last two Breeders’ Cups. Until and unless some venue can offer championship racing on all three surfaces, or concurrently at different locales, many of America’s best dirt horses will continue to avoid Breeders’ Cup day, especially if the following year’s campaign is predicated on winning traditionally prestigious dirt fixtures.

Finally, it is hoped that the tweaking of the wagering menu--following the lead of handle-hungry racetracks--will cease. Back in the day of the original seven-race event, the Sprint opened the program and the Classic closed it; the Turf has always been the penultimate race and it followed the Distaff every year. Races were set in stone and fans could name them in order. So much for building tradition.

And so Breeders’ Cup Ltd. must decide what it wants to be. CEO Greg Avioli has said the event could remain in a state of flux for the next few years until planners can grow the brand going forward, hopefully recapturing the excitement of its early days.

If this truly is its aim, to give Breeders’ Cup an identity with sports fans that it doesn’t enjoy now because of seasonal competition from the World Series and college and pro football, it has an enormous opportunity to shake itself and the sport out of its lethargy come next November.

Call it “The Breeders’ Cup: Late Night Filly Friday” or “Breeders’ Cup Friday Night Lights” as a prelude to the next day’s program. Or simply go all out for two days and call it “Breeders’ Cup Prime Time.” With clever promotion and unprecedented support from horsemen, wouldn’t this grand one-time experiment be worth the risk?

Comments (9)