Win and You're What?

re: Win and You're What?

srmsoft12 — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 09:27:42 GMT

Today getting help with that small extra need for cash is easier than ever.So if you find yourself short of cash and need that "little extra" consider an online cash loan.

<a href="http://www.onlineearningssupporter.com">clickhere</a>

re: Win and You're What?

TBOwner — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 01:33:35 GMT

PomDe Terre, I think you are a bit confused as well.

This is the foal nom guideline and the $400 is only if nominated online by 8/1/2010.

"Late nominations of 2010 foals may be made from October 16, 2010, through December 15, 2010, by the payment of a late fee equal to three times the standard nomination fee {currently 3 times $500 = $1,500 (U.S.)}."

"A NON-NOMINATED horse may be nominated at any time DURING ITS RACING CAREER by payment of a LATE nomination fee = $100,000 (U.S.) if sired by a properly nominated BCL, EBF or Common Fund stallion or by payment = $200,000 (U.S.) if sired by a non-nominated stallion." Also 2010 foals nominated are eligible throughout their racing career.

This all doesn't include the pre-entry fee which is 1% of the purse and is required for each race if you pre-enter two races.

Then you have the rest of the fees.

Not sure if you said you have ever had one in the Breeders Cup?

My thought on the Win and You're In is it hasn't proven to actually have any of those winners who aren't nominated as foals, actually supplement in. It more or less is a win a big purse. Now if those winners DID supplement in, it would really raise the purses for those who are in. Maybe a stipulation of entering a Win & In would be they must be nominated to the BC to run in the WAYI?

re: Win and You're What?

PomDeTerre — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 22:07:41 GMT

Slew-

Have to agree with you, it is onfusing, but the nomination fees for 2010 foals is $400, assuming the stallion/sire was nominated in year of conception (2009). (And that fee is down this year to encourage nominations in this economic market.) If one misses the 2010 calendar year, the fee sky rockets up to the $ 100,00 mark or more. Most breeders will pay the early nomination fee if foal is correct and with a good pedigree, particularly if they are going to auction. I have a real cutie pie 1st crop Bustin Stones filly- they will probably be sought after at auction as yearlings, so, as a breeder, you can't afford not to pay the fee; otherwise in eyes of bidders, the value is reduced.

It's after that - if the horse is successful, that the BC nomination fees kick in- $150k- $ 300k for the classic. So it really should be "win & yer in with a pocketful of cash". But frankly, if the horse requires a win and yer in, it probably shouldn't be IN in the first place.

re: Win and You're What?

weatherbird — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 00:34:15 GMT

Steve- HRTV of course! Okay, having reviewed the schedule at the BC web site, I don't get it. Is it possible that ESPN is not planning any BC prep coverage?

re: Win and You're What?

Tim G — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:27:51 GMT

Slew, I think you're confused about the difference between the nomination and the entry.

You can nominate your foal whether early, late or standard, you can nominate horses of racing age and stallions. For the noms:

www.breederscup.com/content.aspx

If the fields are over-subscribed that is when the criteria of the points etc come into play:

www.breederscup.com/content.aspx

"Horses will be allowed to pre-enter a maximum of two races. The races in which the horse pre-enters must be designated in order of choice at the time of pre-entry on Monday, October 25, 2010, Noon, local time. Performance in Breeders' Cup Challenge Races and points earned in American Graded Stakes Races HAVE NO BEARING on a given Championship Race field UNLESS THE FIELD IS OVERSUBSCRIBED(more than twelve or fourteen, as applicable, pre-entered).

Once a horse has been ranked among the first twelve or fourteen horses, as applicable, in its race of first choice at pre-entry, its ranking in its race of second choice will be based only on the judgment of the Panel regardless of the number of points earned in American Graded Stakes Races. If a horse is not ranked among the first twelve or fourteen horses in its race of first choice, then its points earned in American Graded Stakes Races will be utilized for ranking in its race of its second choice."

Didn't you watch the movie Dreamer? LOL

If someone is willing to pay the nomination fees, pay the entry fees etc, chances are the horse is legitimate. If the field is oversubscribed then it takes more than just a nomination to get them in.

re: Win and You're What?

Mike in SB — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 16:00:08 GMT

I love the Breeders Cup, racing needs one weekend that showcases the best horses in all divisions, sprinters, milers, turf horses and classic horses. But I don't think there is any question that it has lessened the importance of many of the old traditional races like the Woodward and Jockey Club Gold Cup. The Breeders Cup needs to be expanded to a series of races leading to the Breeders Cup weekend. Take the Classic for example, there could be a race a month at differest tracks, a race at the Fair Grounds in January, the Donn in February, the Big Cap in March, the Oaklawn handicap in April, the Pimlico Special in May, the Stephen Foster in June, Hollywood Gold Cup in July, Pacific Classic in August, Woodward in September and the Jockey Club Gold Cup in October. The top finishers get points for these races and also for the Breeders Cup. The horse with the most points gets a nice bonus. This would renew the importance of these traditional races and would also encourage the owners of the best horses to face each other on the track. This could be done in every division, a series of races around the country for milers, turf horses, sprinters and fillies and mares.

re: Win and You're What?

Slew — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 07:51:29 GMT

I checked eligibility requirements at the BC. It all comes down to the fees. The sooner a horse is nominated (as a weanling)the lower the fee. And having a sire that was nominated lowers the entrance fees. No points are discussed..

...only fees. "Horses not nominated as weanlings may be nominated at any time during their racing careers by payment of $100,000 if sired by a nominated Breeders' Cup, European Breeders' Fund or BCL/EBF Common Fund stallion (stallion nominated in the year of conception) or by payment of $200,000 if sired by a stallion that was not nominated to any program in the year of conception. This nomination payment will make the horse eligible during their entire racing career for Breeders' Cup Championships races, or any other Breeders' Cup purse or awards programs for which they otherwise qualify." It remains lost in a sea of confusion for me.

re: Win and You're What?

ETHAN — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 02:57:39 GMT

I have gone to the Breeders Cup site to see what the points are right now and all it says is "check back in April 2010"

It is nearly July so I wanted to Know if they are being kept somewhere else that I haven't checked or The Breeders Cup hasn't started counting yet or what ...

re: Win and You're What?

Secretstuff — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 21:56:39 GMT

Dr Drunkinbum,

Calvin Borel can be Superman on KD day when he wins the TC. I was not an Affirmed fan, Alydar was my choice, but Steve Cauthen won it at 17 years of age, as we all know. HE was Superman.

re: Win and You're What?

TBOwner — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 21:37:12 GMT

slew, maybe you're thinking of automatic eligibility for foal nomination?

As prolific as stallions are, that could mean that 100-120 foals from ONE stallion could be automatically eligible to run. I doubt that is a criteria unless it comes into play by the "expert panel".

Duncan, I'm not familiar with your breeding operation but I did read on Bill's blog that you said you were taking your $500 nom fee and using it for a weekend getaway. I don't know if a breeder with one nom would have much influence on other breeders who know that owners and trainers DO want a foal that is nominated but I might be wrong.

To me the Breeders Cup is still a goal of almost every upper level owner and a dream of the smaller outfits. What I think happened is the synthetics and how so many of us feel about running on that surface, the fact that a lot of the biggest owners and trainers made either a limited appearance or none at all. Even if we want to win a BC we don't want to go where we know our horse will be at a disadvantage or like Nick Zito and Wayne Lukas, just hate the stuff. The breeding hasn't caught up with that and now I doubt it ever will, or will have a reason to.

re: Win and You're What?

Larry Ensor — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 16:45:16 GMT

I agree with Ann in Lexington 100%. That being said there is an argument to be made in support of the Win and You're In. If the races were only run late in the season for late developing horses for what ever reasons, that have the talent but not the earnings or appeal. From the tracks point view I am sure they hope that it will attract a larger and higher quality field and improve the stature of the stake.

Sunny Farm, like you we are small breeders also. But in no way shape or form do I feel the Breeders' Cup helps me and our business. If one is lucky enough to own a horse that has the talent to be considered a Breeders' Cup starter the horse will take them there. The most expensive part is the first 6 to 12 months of training fees to see what you are holding. The reason you don't see small breeders in the Derby or Breeders' Cup has nothing to do with resources to get there but everything to do with money. We can't afford to turn down the huge offers that will be made. Though that has not always been true in my case. And I wished I had heeded the words of the late great Horatio Luro every time. Larry, it is always better to regret selling the horse then to regret having not sold the horse.

re: Win and You're What?

Susan — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 15:56:26 GMT

TB Owner: The current system is inherently flawed. IMHO, if the BC races are to be called true championships, it becomes mandatory to formulate an objective methodology to rate the best of the best of the eligible horses. A point system is the only fair way. Thus I would propose the following:

1. The first 3 finishers in all Grade/Group 1, 2 & 3 races receive points. Gr 3 races receive base points, Gr 2 races receive double points and Gr 1 races receive triple points.

2. Bonus or star points would be earned depending on the number of graded stakes winners defeated. For example: A horse winning a G1 race would earn an additional 3 star points for each G1W defeated in that race; a G2W defeating a G2W would receive 2 star points and a G3W defeating a G3 winner 1 point. The bonus point system would bring about larger, more competitive fields to maintain eligibility while simultaneously increasing fan interest and handle. It would discourage the current practice of winning graded races early in the year and then putting those horses on the shelf to have a fresh horse for the BC.

3. Because so many of our graded races, especially G1s are barely able to fill, oftentimes there are only 1-2 legitimate graded stakes horses in in a 5-6 horse field, it becomes an incredible opportunity for a trainer to artifically inflate the ranking/value of his horse. Example: Assume a G1 race with 5 horses and only 1 horse has been competitive at that level. A trainer has a horse which is a non winner of two races lifetime. He knows his horse can't beat the class horse, but assuming his horse is competitive with the other 3, his horse has a 25% chance of becoming G1 Placed. That's incredibly better odds than running in a 10 horse NW2R LF, for a fraction of the purse, not even including the tremendous value of the horse by the G1Pl status. If he enters 3 out of the 5 horses, the chance for success is a whopping 75% ! One way of addressing this issue might be to add/subtract points or percentage points based on the number of horses in a field and their racing class level.

Certainly this could be done with a web based program. My personal opinion is that the Graded Stakes Committee needs to be the one determining the formula and then a standardized point system for each Graded race level would more accurately reflect the quality of the individual catalog page. Breeders Cup championships' eligibilty for nominated horses would then be based on current standings.

I fully agree with you regarding the WAYI opportunities for small breeders. But I do think 65 is way too many races and perhaps should be limited to 1 or 2 spots in each race. Instead, I would divide the US into 3 regions, thus giving local breeders a chance to compete initially with less expense. I would think that if most small breeders had the opportunity to be 1-2-3 in one or two graded races, and thought their horse had a good chance of being competitive at the championships, they will have earned enough money to travel to maintain eligibility.

A thought I have for the BC is a race for International Championship quality horses based on a point system with a cut off date for points. It would be a race with no age or sex restrictions, surface determined by the main track surface of the host track and a classic distance determined by the individual track configuration. Overall, I am against handicapping weights in graded races, but for an international race, I believe 5 and 7 lb weight allowances would be fair for 3&4 year olds bred in the Southern Hemisphere because of the discrepancies in " TRUE AGE." Northern hemisphere foals have a birthday of January 1 with the largest percentage being born in March-April; So. hemisphere foals have a birthday of August 1 with the largest percent of their foals born in October and November. Physical maturity is at least 6-7 months behind our horses making them noncompetive without some form of allowance.

I firmly believe all Grade 1 races (except as noted above) should be run at equal weights. I wish you luck and hope that someday soon one of your horses will be on the road to the Breeders Cup.

re: Win and You're What?

Much ado — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 15:53:38 GMT

In the history of the WAYI program no horse has ever been excluded from a BC race. Since 20 betting interests have been allowed in the Derby, about a dozen horses have been excluded. The term is catchy and used in other sports (prominently this past week with the US soccer team). At worst the program is confusing to dedicated fans, but it is an effective marketing tool for tracks that could use the help like Arlington or Hawthorne. It isn't some kind of injustice or ruinous of the game.

And why is it bad for Grade 1 races like the JCGC to be peeps but it is ok for races like the Grade 1 Florida Derby or Santa Anita Derby to be stepping stones?

re: Win and You're What?

Dawn — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 14:51:28 GMT

I've always had mixed emotions about the BC. Yes it's always had really good fields, but it's made mincemeat of the rest of the racing calendar. Yes, I remember the DC International, and I also remember what used to be informally called the Fall Handicap Series. Now it's just Classic this and Classic that with races like the Whitney, the Woodward and the JCGC being reduced to chopped liver status.

Zenyatta for president?! She has her pride and she wouldn't like the pay cut!

re: Win and You're What?

Giddyup — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 14:24:28 GMT

To say that the winner of the Washington Handicap will be cheating a more deserving horse from competing in the BC Classic is pretty insulting to say the least. I seem to recall that the first Classic winner didn't get much respect from the betting public either.

re: Win and You're What?

YourHost51 — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 13:37:14 GMT

Steve/Windy City:

Northern Dancer 2:00:00.

re: Win and You're What?

Duncan Chambers — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 13:31:29 GMT

Ann in Lexington is so right. The BC has been a part of what has ruined Horse Racing and has failed it's stated goals. We breeders created this monster, now it's time to kill it. No more nomination fees!

re: Win and You're What?

berttheclock — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 11:37:09 GMT

Surprised that the San Diego Handicap is part of that system, as this race has become a prep for the Pacific Classic. This was best illustrated in 2004, when Pleasantly Perfect had returned from Dubai and needed a prep. He went off the heavy favorite, but, lost to Choctaw Nation. In the Classic, PP was perfect, with Perfect Drift beating out the fading Choctaw Nation.

However, it would have worked in '84, when Skywalker won both the San Diego and the BC.

Ah, but, the year of '82, when the marvelous Wickerr won under Eddie D with Bobby Frankel having him dead fit and paying a splendid $38 to win the SDH. He would not have fit the BC, if they would had one, as Wickerr was, indeed, a horse for the course.

I, unfortunately, was late to the game and missed the great runs of Lucky Debonair. However, I did see his grandson, the speedy Debonair Roger, run. Lucky Debonair was the dam sire of DR. If one persuses the dam side of LD, you will find Teddy and Bull Lea. Very well bred stallion.

re: Win and You're What?

Slew — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 10:53:39 GMT

TBOwner...aren't they also automatically in if their sire won a Breeders' Cup? There are so many differing qualifications in place, how does one keep track? Perhaps that's what's most confusing.

re: Win and You're What?

Dr Drunkinbum — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 04:32:22 GMT

Calvin Borel rode at CD today, then hopped on his horse and high tailed it to Prairie Meadows in time to ride there today too !! Or maybe he tied up his horse just outside of Louisville, changed into his Superman costume and flew to Prarie Meadows. We know he is Superman on the first Saturday in May, maybe he is other times also. Speaking of superheroes, how about Baffert and Garcia winning again with Concord Point and setting a track record. That kid Garcia can ride. Horses relax for him and give it their all. It was Concord's first try at a route. Baffert and Garcia have a 40% win rate together last 60 days.

re: Win and You're What?

TBOwner — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 01:11:39 GMT

Sunny Farm, it takes the whole purse from the Win and You're in if your horse isn't nominated to supplement.

Few if any of the horses who run in the Win and You're in races who aren't originally nominated will supplement in. It's more or less a "win a big purse" race or "win and pay through the nose to supplement". Which when you think about it is really the only fair way to those with enough confidence and foresight to nominate from the getgo.

slew? There is a point system in place. The Breeders Cup entrants are selected upon (1) performance in Breeders' Cup Challenge Races, (2) a point system, and (3) the judgment of a panel of racing experts

re: Win and You're What?

Ida Lee — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 01:01:51 GMT

Yeah, I agree with you Mr. Haskin. Win and your in! Doesn't make sense to me. And I also agree with the comment above that if you have our big, beloved Superstars (Zenyatta, Rachel, Quality Road, Lucky) we're going to watch the BC and even people who normally don't watch horse racing will watch. And you don't need any extra incentives...All you need is that "special" horse running whoever he or she may be.

re: Win and You're What?

Zenyatta4president — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 00:33:46 GMT

@Dr Drunkinbum, Zenyatta would get my vote as well. I really wish Sherrifs would consider running her in the Gold Cup. She

d destroy anything that field would have to offer.

And I agree with Steve, I don't see anyone televising the Washington Park Handicap. It never gets a good field. The Travers isn't getting televised this year? Kind of a bad year for that considering we might get Derby, Preakness and Belmont winners in the race.

re: Win and You're What?

Steve Haskin — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 22:49:36 GMT

Weatherbird, Television? the Washington Park Handicap? Surely, you jest. Television couldnt even get the Travers this year, other than MSG-plus for New York viewers. You tell me who is going to televise the grade III Washington Park Handicap?

re: Win and You're What?

Dr Drunkinbum — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 21:27:00 GMT

Zenyatta4president

Zenyatta would get my vote for President. And if she won we'd get the whole horse for a change, not just the rear end. But I suspect that she's too smart to run.