Married jockeys coupled in wagering

[FenceBored]

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?

Jockeys Trevor McCarthy and Katie Davis received a surprising wedding "present" earlier this week.


The couple, who were married in mid-December, were stunned to learn that due to New York State Gaming Commission rules their horses must be coupled in the wagering whenever they ride in the same race at New York Racing Association tracks.


https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-rac...-riders-unfair

[Andy Asaro]

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.

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by FenceBored

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?

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.

[BarchCapper]

Originally Posted by mountainman

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.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by mountainman

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

What a country.

[pandy]

Originally Posted by FenceBored

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?

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

[GMB@BP]

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.

[dilanesp]

So do they put this in the wedding vows?

[Spalding No!]

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...

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by Spalding No!

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?

[metro]

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.

[Spalding No!]

Originally Posted by the little guy

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

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..."

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by Spalding No!

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

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.

[foregoforever]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

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.

[Spalding No!]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

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

That's what I said.

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

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

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.

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...