Rolling back coupled entries rolls back insurance, trust

Bashing horse-racing's oft-maligned coupled-entry rule is getting increasingly popular amongst horse players. But rules can also be like cops - never there when you need them.

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.

U.S. horse racing needs cameras in stewards' rooms

There's an old saying in legal circles: Justice should not only be done, it should be seen to be done. Nowhere is this more true than in American horse-racing.

Each day, horse-racing stewards - the judges, juries and executioners of our sport - make decisions at tracks that can affect hundreds of thousands - even millions - of dollars of wagering money. They hear protests from jockeys, launch inquiries of their own and collect evidence from all sides. They listen, weigh, decide and sometimes overturn race results that can turn winners into losers and vice versa.

All in secret.

No cameras, no microphones, no way of verifying the stewards' rulings, no recourse. The result is a sense of mistrust and - occasionally - even outright disbelief. U.S. horse-players are for the most part still recovering from the shocking non-disqualification of Bayern for causing massive interference at the start of America's premier race, the Breeders Cup Classic, more than a week after it happened at Santa Anita racetrack in California.

The worst part of it is: we don't know what happened in the stewards' room after the race was run. Did Bayern's trainer, Sanat Anita-based Bob Baffert, telephone the Santa Anita stewards in the midst of deliberations as he has previously? Did the stewards discuss Bayern's previous race habits? Was the decision unanimous? Were American race-goers who bet on the favorite Shared Belief robbed?

In the land that invented live legal television news with the groundbreaking CourtTV in 1991, that's just not good enough. CourtTV pioneer Steven Brill, who also founded American Lawyer magazine, understood that the public couldn't retain faith in a criminal-justice system that kept its most important process - the criminal trial - largely hidden from public view. So he set up cameras and micophones in courtrooms and broadcast it on television, creating an American phenomenon.

As Wired magazine journalist Jeff Goodell wrote in a 2003 interview with Brill: "Court TV destroys the wall between society and its laws, making reporters and jurors of us all."

So it goes with horse-players. In the 21st Century, we all have to be our own jurors and reporters. And so a sector like racing that exists on open information cannot function effectively with a judicial system that resembles a Freemasons' meeting. Heck, even Congress telecasts its deliberations, for better or for worse. American horse-racing needs to do better.

If that sounds hard, consider the situation in Australia. There, all proceedings involving decisions that could theoretically overturn a race result are broadcast and aired live over the track feed. No more guessing what the stewards are accusing the jockey (or trainer) of or what kind of defense they are mounting. It's all out there, and the bettors love it - as the Twitter feeds of American players who have discovered Australian tracks will attest.

The idea was so good that the British adopted it in 2007 and it is now a standard feature of their race broadcasting as well.

American horse-players are now starting to advocate for more openness in the sport. Let's start by imitating the Australian model and broadcasting all stewards-inquiry deliberations live over the track feed. It's good for the players and good for the sport. More openness in the system means more confidence amongst the customers, and that's good for everybody's business.