Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board

Go Back   Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board > Thoroughbred Horse Racing Discussion > General Racing Discussion


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 01-02-2021, 02:25 PM   #1
FenceBored
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,761
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?



Quote:
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
FenceBored is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-02-2021, 02:28 PM   #2
Andy Asaro
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 3,684
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.
Andy Asaro is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-02-2021, 03:00 PM   #3
mountainman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 3,876
Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceBored View Post
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.
mountainman is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-02-2021, 06:38 PM   #4
BarchCapper
Registered User
 
BarchCapper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Hot Springs Village, AR
Posts: 414
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post

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.
__________________
Tom in HSV
——————
”She's pert ... if you like pert.” - Let It Ride
BarchCapper is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-03-2021, 09:10 AM   #5
classhandicapper
Registered User
 
classhandicapper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 16,828
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
Some outfits run horses only to secure that pension and make no effort whatsoever to field even remotely competitive stock.
What a country.
__________________
"Money won is twice as sweet as money earned." Fast Eddie Felson
classhandicapper is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-03-2021, 09:36 AM   #6
pandy
Registered User
 
pandy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Lehigh Valley, PA.
Posts: 7,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceBored View Post
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.
pandy is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-03-2021, 10:44 AM   #7
GMB@BP
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Posts: 5,302
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.
GMB@BP is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-03-2021, 01:33 PM   #8
dilanesp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 7,248
So do they put this in the wedding vows?
dilanesp is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-03-2021, 04:03 PM   #9
Spalding No!
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,529
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...

Last edited by Spalding No!; 01-03-2021 at 04:05 PM.
Spalding No! is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-03-2021, 05:59 PM   #10
the little guy
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 6,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spalding No! View Post
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?
the little guy is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-03-2021, 06:42 PM   #11
metro
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 291
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.

Last edited by metro; 01-03-2021 at 06:43 PM.
metro is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-03-2021, 06:50 PM   #12
Spalding No!
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,529
Quote:
Originally Posted by the little guy View Post
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..."
Spalding No! is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-04-2021, 10:56 AM   #13
GMB@BP
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Posts: 5,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spalding No! View Post

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.
GMB@BP is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-04-2021, 11:26 AM   #14
foregoforever
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMB@BP View Post
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.
foregoforever is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-04-2021, 11:34 AM   #15
Spalding No!
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,529
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMB@BP View Post
we should eliminate all conflicts of interest between owners, trainers, track operators, jockeys, etc.
That's what I said.

Quote:
The field for the Ky Derby has just been reduced to two horses.
Seems like a non-sequitur, what am I missing?

Quote:
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...
Spalding No! is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Reply




Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

» Advertisement
» Current Polls
How would 12 mins between races effect your play?
Like to see it, Would probably bet more - 25.30%
21 Votes
Like it, Would bet the same - 36.14%
30 Votes
Like it, Would bet less - 2.41%
2 Votes
Wouldn't like it. - 36.14%
30 Votes
Total Votes: 83
This poll is closed.
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2021 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program
designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.