Married jockeys coupled in wagering
 

Not sure how I feel about this. Is the rule about married people limited to jockeys or are married trainers also coupled in the wagering?

There are a bunch of conflicts. The highest profile one is the Ortiz Brothers.

Given the other potential conflicts I have no idea why they're picking on these two.

Married trainers have long been coupled in wagering, but that has changed dramatically with an increasing horse shortage that has led to some tracks discontinuing ALL coupling of entries. Even sans coupling, regulations still prohibit husband and wife competing in the same race, but in attempting to create as many wagering interests as possible, tracks fudge more on that than Willy Wonka.

And whereas traditionally just one spouse has called the shots and been trainer of record, both, more than ever, take out licenses these days and actively compete. That way, both can sock away an official "pension year" as calculated by minimum number of starts set forth by the HBPA.

Some outfits run horses only to secure that pension and make no effort whatsoever to field even remotely competitive stock.

I learned something today. Thank you.

What a country. :lol:

Entries, in general, are counterproductive and bad for gamblers but this particular reason for coupling is just plain stupid.

if they allow brothers and not wives (or husbands but lets be honest this is rule was set up about the wife) than this certainly feels like something that would not hold up in court.

So do they put this in the wedding vows?

From the standpoint of the trend towards eliminating coupled entries, the rule ought to be reviewed to evaluate it's ongoing necessity.

But to play Devil's Advocate, the heart of the rule is to eliminate a distinct conflict-of-interest.

I scanned Twitter to see what justification there was to overlook the obvious conflict-of-interest involving 2 people from the same household (and thus in a position to financially benefit from each other) riding in the same race.

I don't know, I'm worried I am not "woken up" enough, but so far:

1) The Ortiz Brothers are not likewise coupled, with the inference that the 2 are up to no good - So shouldn't the NYGC look at that as another conflict-of-interest issue rather than looking the other way on this one?

2) The rule is sexist - From the quoted rule I read (DRF article) it does not penalize one spouse over the other and there is no exception made for same-sex marriages, so I fail to see how the rule is directly sexist

3) The rule diminishes the standing of female jockeys - Again I fail to see how the rule is sexist or misogynistic

Speaking of sexism, referring to today's dilemma of Trevor McCarthy and his pick-up mount starting for "purse money only", one of the commenters on Twitter didn't understand why it wasn't the Katie Davis horse that was excluded from the betting pools rather than McCarthy's horse.

Not sure if the people bringing up sexism are presuming that the rule targets wives only or if they assume Katie Davies is on the hook for surrendering her license since McCarthy is the more successful of the 2...

Honestly, I wonder if this rule didn't exist whether or not there would an uproar on this message board arguing the exact opposite in the event of a questionable incident during the running of a race involving these two. There certainly seems to be such complaints when Baffert has a hopeless long shot arguably running interference for his odds-on stablemate in the same race or when the Ortiz brothers do whatever it is that they do...

Last thing to keep this tongue-in-cheek, Dave Grening on Twitter says that by the time they get the NY rule changed the 2 will be back riding in Maryland, but this being America and with the sport reliant on gambling, I'd wager that by the time they get the rule changed these 2 will be divorced...

Wait, I'm confused here.....are you saying people say dumb stuff on Twitter?

Example #873 why horse racing can't get out of it's own way.

Example #874 is requiring an entry at a NYRA track to run for purse money only when Davis or McCarthy fill in due to a late jockey change if the other also has a mount in the race. I'm sure that won't create some chaos for bettors down the road, especially the horizontal wagers.

Literally was planning to put in a qualifying statement regarding my brilliant plan to use Twitter as a resource of valuable public opinion.

But then I thought "nah, why bother, nobody is gonna read that far..."

we should eliminate all conflicts of interest between owners, trainers, track operators, jockeys, etc.

The field for the Ky Derby has just been reduced to two horses.

I am not sure what "distinct" is supposed to somehow differentiate this case when you literally have two brothers riding in the same race, and many times questionable riding tactics has arisen as well, in those some races.

According to the article in today's TDN ...

https://www.thoroughbreddailynews.co.../tdn210104.pdf ...

the rule would apply to the Ortiz brothers if they were living in the same house.

The big problem, as noted in the article, is when there are late rider changes that force "for purse only" situations. Plus, I'm sure that the owners who get coupled in this manner aren't too thrilled about it, particularly if they like to wager on their own horse.

That's what I said.

Seems like a non-sequitur, what am I missing?

I believe one is legally bound to support one's spouse (and vice-versa) while siblings are not required by law to support each other (otherwise I'm in big trouble).

I wouldn't be worried if Cain and Abel were jockeys, at least not as far as race fixing goes...

Is this why the :6: ran for purse money only in the last at Aqueduct yesterday? I was wondering what was going on.

Yes, and since the post time favorite won, bettors who were live to the :6: in their horizontal wagers still cashed their tickets.

Conversely, same scenario, what if a bettor had the :6: for a huge score on the line, and this "purse money only" horse wins by a pole? They only cash if they also had the 2nd place finisher on their tickets.

There are conflicts of interest all over the place.

It doesn't matter whether you are married, dating, living together, brothers, sisters, brother and sister, best friends, there are 2 horses trained by the same trainer and the weak part is used as a sacrificial lamb on the assumption the favor will be returned at a later date, a rider not going after a loose speed because that horse is trained by a trainer that gives him valuable mounts, a rider that opens up the rail for a horse trained by a trainer that gives him valuable mounts etc..

I could go on and on.

I even think there are politics involved in stewards decisions.

Good luck finding a solution.

Good luck proving any of it.

But better luck if you are naive enough to think everything going on out there is on the up and up. You are going to need it.

In theory, what you need are good stewards. I don't know if you get that in practice, but I'll use the obvious example of this, Justify's Belmont, where the other Baffert horse appeared to run interference for him.

In that situation, what the sport should have done (but didn't, because of course the breeders control everything and would have made life miserable for any racing official that disqualified a TC winner), is investigate fully. They should have taken the deposition, under oath, of the riders of both horses. They should have subpoenaed cell phone records and text messages. (And by the way, there should be a rule that all licensees have to preserve their text messages and cell phones for review for a certain period of time. This is the rule that got Tom Brady suspended when he was deflating footballs.) And if it turns out there was collusion, they should disqualify all the horses involved and issue suspensions for all the people involved.

Coupling helps sometimes (it lowers the possibility of one specific kind of conflicts of interest), but the only thing that truly works in this situation is an active, aggressive regulatory agency.

Here's another example. It's not 1973 anymore. It's possible to investigate betting coups. Trainers, jockey agents, and jockeys placing bets can be tracked. There's either an electronic record or security camera video of every bet. So why haven't we heard about investigations of betting coups? If a horse has a suspicious form reversal, why aren't betting records routinely examined to determine if the trainer bet on the horse? If a trainer bets on enough of these, it should be an automatic suspension. And don't tell me about due process- it would be perfectly permissible for the sport to ban trainers from betting at all. No other sport allows its participants to bet on the results of the contest. So the lesser rule of suspending a trainer involved in betting coups should be totally legal.

My point is not that it is possible to prevent all conflicts of interest- it's possible for the sport to be a lot more aggressive about conflicts than it is. It just needs a backbone it doesn't have right now, and a mandate to protect the bettors rather than protecting the insiders.

Pete Rose doesn't like that rule. ;)

I wonder how much the handle would drop if everyone with the potential for having inside information about a horse's condition or responsible for its care was barred from betting.

Thoroughbred Daily News

https://www.thoroughbreddailynews.co...g-in-new-york/

Bear in mind, that is the rule (enforced by federal prison sentences!) in the stock market. And yet Wall Street's "handle" is huge. People like to bet in a fairly run pool.

Whoa whoa whoa, stop the clock...you mean I could compete against my wife AND live apart from her?!? (wonder if I could make 118...):lol::lol::lol:

Aqueduct R6 today had a triple coupling of :1: :1a: and :1:x today because of this.

Getting ridiculous now.