JC / Railbird

Extremely well written, but I completely disagree.
Where is this sense of outrage that the three-year-old fillies play on Friday while the boys go Saturday? Or that many of Saratoga’s top races for females are on Friday versus bigger races on Saturday?
Jay speaks of “sense of history” when talking about a 25-year-old event. These very important races for females (Oaks and Personal Ensign) are at institutions a lot older than the BC, so that makes it OK?
Listing Breeders’ Cup winners and expecting the reader to say, “Yeah, those horses should race on Saturday” is a trivial exercise, as you could pick any race and come up with superstar horses worthy of Saturday performances.
Who can forget Storm Flag Flying re-rallying against Composure or Ouija Board’s great wins here?
The Breeders’ Cup wanted a championship Friday and Saturday not an undercard Friday leading up to big races on Saturday. Friday is now a better day of racing. What’s wrong with that?

Posted by EJXD2 on March 1, 2008 @ 8:48 am

It’s all about context and place on the racing calendar: You’re right that running the Oaks or the Personal Ensign on Friday doesn’t cause upset and that such races being on weekdays doesn’t diminish the quality of those race or the talents of the winners.
The Breeders’ Cup, though, is a very different event. It’s not a race meet, it’s not a festival. The BC is the culmination of many campaigns; its winners are almost automatically named Eclipse champions. Given the event’s meaning and structure, it’s hard to see the renaming of the Distaff to the Ladies’ Classic and its relegation to Friday as anything other than a demotion.
I get that the BC is trying to make Friday a championship day of racing, but the more I think about these recent changes, the more I believe an effective split would have been to run the juveniles on Friday and the rest on Saturday. Such a schedule would have been promotable — trot out the Stars of Tomorrow marketing plan, tie-in with some children’s organization, offer free admission to kids and family-friendly events — it would have made the day championship-caliber, and it would have made thematic sense, both within the event and year-to-year.
There’s nothing wrong with making Friday a better day of racing — what’s wrong is that the BC has chosen to minimize the distaff division in doing so.

Posted by Jessica on March 1, 2008 @ 12:33 pm

The three-year-old filly division has benefited from Churchill promoting the Friday before the Derby card. The Oaks would not nearly be the race it is if it were on Derby day.
You say that the Breeders’ Cup is not a meet or a festival, and that’s exactly why the Breeders’ Cup did what it did. It’s trying to make Friday as important as Saturday. The powers that be don’t want people to distinguish between the two days. They’re BOTH championship days, and to select the Distaff as the headline event speaks to the importance of the race.
I’m one of VERY few people as far as I can tell who doesn’t mind the change. Here’s a good idea: If you don’t like it, then don’t support it. If everyone bitching goes out and bets both days with two fists, then all this whining on the web will have just been lip service. If you really don’t like it, then don’t participate.
I agree that moving all the 2YO races to Friday (plus the dirt marathon and turf sprint so you could go 6+8) would have been better, but Greg Avioli told a reporter for Thoroughbred Times that Breeders’ Cup didn’t even consider that option. The Female Championship Day was what management wanted the board to approve.

Posted by EJXD2 on March 2, 2008 @ 10:00 am

Ed, that’s interesting and I hope you have a reporter at work on that story — I know that I’d like to read a good, in-depth piece in which Avioli discusses why the BC made the changes they did, what the market research said, why they felt the female championship day was the way to go, and what his take is on the response and discussion that’s followed the announcement.
As for not supporting the changes by not betting — shut up or get out is the default rejoinder of every industry hack to every fan complaint or concern and it does nothing to move our sport forward. I know you’re a serious player and you want to see racing thrive, but all or nothing statements don’t help anyone in this game.

Posted by Jessica on March 2, 2008 @ 10:44 am

I agree with Jessica, it’s the reductive equivalent of “if you don’t like it, move to Russia”.
Actually, this brings up a point I’ve been mulling over. I’m considering starting a petition that states that the signers will not wager on the Friday card in protest of renaming the Distaff.
One of the only ways fans can be heard and taken seriously is when they can withhold precious handle. It’s sort of an aikido move on the “if don’t like it, don’t play” mindset. The only measure of whether the new changes have worked is whether attendance, handle and ratings are up.
I’m willing to publicly put my money where my mouth is, is anyone else? If so, let’s start the petition!

Posted by dana on March 2, 2008 @ 2:34 pm

I’m confused… I say, “If you don’t like it then don’t participate,” and Jessica and Dana both tell me they don’t like that attitude.
Then Dana says she’s putting together a petition in which the signers would not bet on the Friday card, which is exactly what I suggested.
What’s the difference?

Posted by EJXD2 on March 3, 2008 @ 7:35 am

One is a sour argument stopper, the other is a bit of constructive bluff-calling (or an aikido move, as Dana phrased so well).

Posted by Jessica on March 3, 2008 @ 8:33 am

Huh? Dana’s comment, “One of the only ways fans can be heard and taken seriously is when they can withhold precious handle” is exactly the same as “If you don’t like it then don’t participate.”
I completely agree that any time you actively do something in protest that you should let the offending party know what and how you’re protesting.
I really don’t get how “if you don’t like then don’t participate” is any different from the new name of the Distaff stinks so I’m not betting on that race.

Posted by Eddie D. on March 3, 2008 @ 1:47 pm

Eddie, you’re right, I suggested doing exactly what you had suggested.
You said “If you don’t like it, then don’t support it. If everyone bitching goes out and bets both days with two fists, then all this whining on the web will have just been lip service. If you really don’t like it, then don’t participate.”
The only difference (that I can tell) is that me as individual deciding to not the bet race is different and less “powerful” as a tool for change than a group of individuals banding together to take a public stand to not the bet race. And by public stand I mean creating an a petition, delivering it to the Breeders’ Cup and not betting the race, or actually the full card… stayed tuned for the details of the petition.

Posted by dana on March 3, 2008 @ 2:51 pm

I really don’t understand the wringing of hands and nashing of teeth about the BC changes. I always love the Distaff and think it’s great that it will take the spotlight on Friday.
And how “Lady” is more derogatory (as some bloggers have said) than “Distaff” will take some explaining.
Friday Horses:
Davona Dale, Princess Rooney, Tiffany Lass, Open Mind, Silverbulletday, Ashado, and Rags to Riches (here’s hoping we see her on BC Friday)

Posted by ljk on March 3, 2008 @ 3:25 pm

Lady has a very specific connotation in American culture, as you may have noticed from the reaction.
Distaff, while not so hot in the pro-lady department, is not currently used the common vocabulary.
I would bet if you randomly polled people on the street (history/literature/women’s studies majors and textile buffs notwithstanding) about the meaning that you would find more people who thought it was only horse racing term than actually knew the meaning. I have to admit, that was the case for me until I looked it up.

Posted by dana on March 3, 2008 @ 5:08 pm

I don’t think that “distaff” was such a hot name, and if I were choosing a name for female races today, that would not be it. That does not mean that, when given the opportunity, we choose an arguably-equally outdated and sexist word. I’m all for re-naming if it’s an improvement, and if it’s accurate; “Ladies'” is neither.

Posted by Teresa on March 3, 2008 @ 5:56 pm