Take a recent example at Santa Anita racetrack in California (see replay below). Hall of Fame trainer Bob Baffert had two horses - second favorite Fed Biz and longshot Sky Kingdom - entered in the Grade One Awesome Again Stakes (purse $300,000) up against red-hot favorite Shared Belief, who looked unbeatable. From the break, Sky Kingdom's jockey Victor Espinoza took the very unusual move of running his horse in the 4-wide lane around the long first turn, pushing Shared Belief 5- and 6-wide. Shared Belief was forced to come from several lengths behind after covering significant extra ground to beat Fed Biz by just a neck.
Many horseplayers drew the conclusion - rightly or wrongly - that Baffert had given Espinoza instructions to do as he did, hoping to make the race easier for his first-string horse, Fed Biz. With no proof of this, only Espinoza was punished for his actions. But race replays gave bettors on Sky Kingdom the distinct impression that their money never had a chance.
The coupled entry rule is supposed to head this off. Two horses entered by the same connections in the same race always gives punters the impression that one might be trying help the other. But without the coupled-entry rule, which is which? Realizing this dilemma, racetrack officials con-joined those horses for the betting public in recognition that punters needed to be compensated if they bet the 'wrong one' in the couple.
However, the rule has become unpopular with both the racing establishment and even horseplayers themselves. The California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) voted to eliminate coupled entries in 2006, leaving connections free to enter more than one horse in any race, each as a separate betting entity. Other states have followed or are considering it, while still others have been rolling back the rule by exempting graded stakes races. Plus, existing state-by-state coupled-entry rules often apply only to owners, not trainers.
But without the coupled-entry rule, bettors must figure out which of the owner's - or trainer's - multiple entries is the one 'supposed' to win. With the rule, they get a kind of free insurance that covers the risk of not being party to pre-race discussions, albeit at a reduced price. But that can also be a huge help when betting mulitple plays in the horizontal exotics, which many of us do.
For example, if Sky Kingdom had been coupled with Fed Biz in the Awesome Again, bettors on Sky Kingdom would have saved thousands of dollars collectively on outright place and show bets - plus exacta, trifecta and superfecta bets that combined him with other place-getters - by substiting Fed Biz. Sure, the payout would have been less - but most bettors are prepared to accept the insurance on such wagers. They don't want to have to double their stake by 'bracketing' uncoupled entries from the same connections.
Then there's the bigger issue of public trust. Unwitting newcomers who bet on Sky Kingdom might never make another wager on a horse race again out of sheer disgust. Experienced players were shocked at the egregiousness of the tactics employed and might well begin questioning the results of other top events, too.
That would seem to be exactly what racing doesn't need. Opponents of eliminating coupled entries often claim it will increase a track's betting handle by making more betting choices available. But at what cost? Ask the average joes who dropped some hard-earned on Sky Kingdom in the Awesome Again.
Incidents like this seem to point to the need for tightening coupled entry rules, not further loosening. But on that, horse-racing administrators appear to be sitting in the squad car eating donuts.
No comments:
Post a Comment