NYSGC Passes One year on Whip Reform Talk, No Action

The New York State Gaming Commission (NYSGC) Jan. 26 once again elected not to propose or vote upon any changes to whip use that would be more humane to Thoroughbreds, making it now more than a year since that agency first began discussing how it might address one of the sport's hot-button equine welfare issues the way regulators in other racing states have long since done.

“We have a report that just arrived to us in the last 24 hours on the use of the crop. And staff will be spending time with that report–and the commissioners will be spending time with that report–and hope to address the issues at our next meeting,” NYSGC chairman Barry Sample said at the tail end of Tuesday's teleconference, which included only two other rule-making items: The licensure of veterinary technicians and regulating home-delivery sales of lottery tickets.

Back in December 2019, NYSGC staffers were first directed to discuss crop use among industry stakeholders and report back at a future commission meeting.

Despite that directive, whip use did not get brought up the next time the NYSGC met Feb. 10, 2020, for a meeting that lasted only six minutes (By contrast, most state racing and gaming commission meetings last an hour or more, and it is not uncommon for some to stretch to four or five hours).

At NYSGC's May 19 meeting, commissioner Peter Moschetti cited “the length of today's agenda” (32 minutes) as the reason the topic of whip rule reform had to be pushed off until the summer.

When the board next met July 27 for a meeting that lasted 14 minutes, Moschetti cited the need for the board to review a “lengthy memorandum” that commissioners had just received from its staff on whip use before the NYSGC could deliberate any proposed changes.

When the NYSGC again met for another 14-minute meeting Sept. 21, Sample said, “I think we all agree that [whip reform] is a matter that needs to be brought to closure sooner rather than later. Some of us contend that it's been out there too long.”

Moschetti agreed, adding, “I think the time has come. We want to do this. We've talked about doing this. Staff has done their work.”

By that time, paradigm-shifting whip reform changes had either already been implemented or were in the process of being codified in California, Kentucky, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware and Ontario. With the exception of California, whose racing commission had started its reform process several years ago, all of the other jurisdictions had taken up the topic around the same time New York first proposed doing so late in 2019.

While New Jersey eventually banned whipping outright starting in 2021, the other jurisdictions generally carved out new rules based on strike limits, and/or the manner (underhanded or overhanded) in which a jockey can whip.

During the Oct. 19 NYSGC meeting, the board heard 2 1/4 hours of pro and con testimony from industry stakeholders about whip reform. But no new regulations were proposed at that time, nor were any measures floated when the board next met Nov. 30 and proposed or passed more than a dozen other racing-related rules.

If the NYSGC decides to advance whip-related rule proposals at its next (yet-to-be-scheduled) meeting, any proposed measures would (assuming passage) have to published in the New York State Register and get sent out for a general public comment period. Then commissioners would then have to come back for a final vote, pushing the effective date for any whip-related reforms in New York into mid-2021 at the earliest.

The post NYSGC Passes One year on Whip Reform Talk, No Action appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

The Week in Review: Mutuels Entry Rule for Married Jockeys Gets Costly and Confusing in New York

First thing Monday morning, common sense should be enough to get the New York State Gaming Commission (NYSGC) to quickly re-examine a rule that has been on the books for decades, but just surfaced with controversy over the weekend, one race into the 2021 Aqueduct meet.

But in case reason isn’t enough to spark regulators into action, here’s an alarming lost-revenue estimate that might get their attention: Every time the mounts of recently married riders Trevor McCarthy and Katie Davis are mandated to be coupled in the wagering–as required by a regulation ostensibly designed to protect the sport from spousal collusion–the handle has the potential to plummet by $90,000 per race.

Considering the newlyweds rode against each other in six decreased-field races at Aqueduct over the first three days of the meet Jan. 1-3, the running total of theoretically vanished handle now stands at $540,000–with that number ticking upward every time entries are drawn with a 1 and 1A appearing where there realistically should be two distinct betting interests.

Those estimates are based on Aqueduct’s handle-per-interest figure of $90,509 from January 2020, when field size averaged 7.1 starters per race (the source is this national handle chart published last year by Horse Racing Nation).

Although it’s impossible to project the precise amount of handle that evaporates when you lose a betting interest by forcing two independently owned and trained horses into a single mutuel coupling, the comparable per-interest January 2020 figure for Aqueduct (third-highest in the nation for that period) offers a reasonable approximation. Even if the rounded $90,000 per-interest estimate is off by a bit, the potential cumulative handle loss has already spiraled well into six figures–in addition to igniting plenty of confusion.

At a time when tracks nationwide are competing fiercely to maintain attractive field sizes, New York’s antiquated rule is creating a competitive disadvantage for Aqueduct.

It also has the potential to damage the mount-booking business for both McCarthy and Davis, who are trying to re-establish themselves on the New York circuit.

And then there’s the blowback of bad press and undesirable negative attention on social media. People opposed to the rule far outnumber those speaking up in favor of it, and the regulation is being described as sexist, misogynistic, and generally not grounded in reality.

Dave Grening of DRF.com first broke the story last week about McCarthy and Davis getting hitched in mid-December, and how their post-honeymoon plans called for both of them to relocate from Maryland to ride together in New York this winter.

McCarthy, the son of retired mid-Atlantic jockey Michael McCarthy, rode at Aqueduct during the 2018 winter meet. Davis, the daughter of retired New York jockey Robbie Davis, is one of three siblings currently active as jockeys.

They both rode in separate Aqueduct races Dec. 31, but when the Jan. 1 entries were drawn, the couple had mounts in two common races. That necessitated a 1 and 1A coupling, as per state rule 4025.10 (f), which states, “All horses trained or ridden by a spouse, parent, issue or member of a jockey’s household shall be coupled in the betting with any horse ridden by such jockey.”

Since the outset of pari-mutuel wagering in America nearly 100 years ago, it has been customary to–in theory, at least–protect betting integrity by treating two horses that have some sort of commonality (same owner or trainer, or involvement of family relatives) as one betting entity. The idea is that if there is some attempt by the related parties to manipulate the outcome of the race, the “two for one” betting model is supposed to disincentivize them from profiting by arranging for the longer-priced horse to win the race.

But over the decades, and especially in the past few years, racing jurisdictions have largely relaxed or eliminated entry coupling rules because A) They don’t seem as necessary or effective as they were once thought to be; and B) The sport needs every betting interest it can get to bolster handle, the chief driver of which is field size.

New York’s rule does not prohibit siblings from competing while uncoupled in the same race–unless they live in the same household. That’s why the Ortiz brothers–Jose and Irad, Jr.–can compete against each other without forcing a betting entry, and it’s the same reason why the Davis siblings–Jacqueline, Dylan, and Katie–have all ridden together in the same race without triggering a three-way coupling.

Every state is different in its mutuel coupling rules. And if you are familiar with any given racetrack, you can probably glance at an overnight and know who is dating (or cohabitating) with whom, or take a good guess at which longtime allies might be inclined to collude, even if they are not at all related. Because no rule could possibly police against the myriad ways participants could try to conspire to fix a race, why is New York picking on married couples while drastically eroding a racetrack’s potential to generate handle?

It’s mind-boggling to think that most states have rules in place that create clear paths for convicted felons to regain their racing licenses, and many jurisdictions have welcomed back jockeys who have been caught illegally shocking horses with electrical devices.

Yet if two upstanding jockeys with not even a hint of a history of race fixing say “I do,” New York in 2021 still regards the couple with pari-mutuel suspicion in the form of a scarlet-letter 1A winking accusingly on the tote board.

McCarthy and Davis are hardly the first married couple to face resistance to competing on even terms in the same race. In 1995, the Illinois Racing Board (IRB) repealed its regulation that prohibited married couples from riding against each other when that rule kept jockey John Hundley and his wife, apprentice Lisa Nuell, from competing together at Fairmount Park.

“This is the 1990s, not the 1880s. I don’t believe we should be trying to keep women barefoot and pregnant,” then-IRB commissioner Richard Balog said at the time, adding that the rule was “sexist and works against women.”

Married jockeys Amy Duross and Harry Vega were similarly prohibited from competing against each other by the Suffolk Downs stewards in 1998 until the Massachusetts Racing Commission overturned that decision. Around the same time, married jockeys Michelle Luttrell and Freddie Castillo moved their tacks to Suffolk, where that precedent allowed them to also compete without restrictions.

More recently, Kassie Guglielmino and Jake Samuels, married in 2017, have battled near the top of the standings at various tracks in the Pacific northwest and in Arizona.

McCarthy and Davis have expressed frustration at New York’s out-of-step rule, but they have taken the high road in pointing out its shortcomings. Over the weekend, Davis thanked supporters on Twitter, while McCarthy wrote that the couple will respect and follow the rule. “I will continue to do my best as will my wife and keep moving forward no matter what obstacles are thrown at us,” he added.

But by the end of Sunday, New York’s coupled spouses rule had devolved into yet another sub-level of absurdity.

Davis was named at entry time to ride in the ninth race. McCarthy was not, but midway through the afternoon he picked up a vacated mount in that race. Because those two mounts ridden by the spouses had not been coupled at the time of entry, McCarthy’s horse–and just McCarthy’s horse–was forced to run for purse money only.

“It’s too confusing for me to even explain,” Aqueduct broadcast handicapper Andy Serling said pre-race when alerting the public to the reason why McCarthy’s mount was showing as scratched on the tote board. “I’m not that smart.”

Even though the mounts ridden by Davis and McCarthy finished off the board, Pick 4, 5, and 6 wagers placed before McCarthy’s horse was taken out of the betting (when it was 30-1 on the morning line) were treated as scratches that converted to valid tickets on the betting favorite–who, of course, ended up winning the race.

A rule change at most racing commissions generally first must be proposed, voted upon at a public meeting, published in the state register, pass a public commentary period of about 45 days, come up again for a final vote by commissioners, and then be certified by an office of administrative law before it goes into effect. The process often takes months, or the better part of a year in some jurisdictions.

But the NYSGC, like many commissions, has broad powers to implement emergency rule-making if it deems such changes are in the immediate best interest of the sport.

Here’s hoping that an estimated $90,000 per-race handle hit–plus the associated chaos–qualifies as an emergency, and that the NYSGC steps up and makes a swift change in its mutuel coupling of married jockeys rule.

The post The Week in Review: Mutuels Entry Rule for Married Jockeys Gets Costly and Confusing in New York appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

‘It’s Not The 1800s Anymore’: Davis Calls For Rule Coupling Married Riders To Be Dropped

Newlywed jockeys Trevor McCarthy and Katie Davis were made aware of a unique rule earlier this week stating that if a husband and wife are riding against each other in the same race, their horses have to be coupled as one betting interest, according to published reports.

McCarthy and Davis, who were married in mid-December, were both upset to find out about this little known rule. While Davis says that the trainers she rides for will not let the rule stop them from using her, the couple is worried that the rule could have a negative impact on McCarthy's business.

“Trevor is worried it might affect his business, and if it does it could come down to me choosing to make a living or not, and that's not fair,” Davis told Bloodhorse.com's Bob Ehalt. “It's not the 1800s anymore. The rule needs to be changed. We are very competitive. We don't give each other a shot. We're both trying 150% when we ride against each other.”

Davis has reached out to the Jockeys' Guild for help combatting the rule, but she has been told by sources that it could take six months for the rule to be dropped. New York Racing Association (NYRA) senior vice president of racing operations Martin Panza says that NYRA has no power to change the rule even if they do not agree with it.

Read more at bloodhorse.com.

The post ‘It’s Not The 1800s Anymore’: Davis Calls For Rule Coupling Married Riders To Be Dropped appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

Rice Hearings Conclude, But No Ruling Expected Soon

The marathon that has been the hearing regarding trainer Linda Rice and the New York State Gaming Commission came to a close Dec. 9, but it will still be weeks before there is a conclusion in the case. Attorneys from both sides have requested transcripts from the previous six days of testimony and will be given 30 days after receipt of those transcripts to send written closing arguments to hearing officer Clark Petschek. There are numerous and voluminous exhibits in the case submitted by both sides which Petschek also must review before issuing a decision. Petschek did not outline a timeframe for when he may issue a ruling.

The proceedings had sought to determine what, if any, sanctions would be imposed on Rice, who the commission says could have her license suspended or revoked and face fines of up to $25,000 for “actions inconsistent with and detrimental to the best interest of racing generally and corrupt and improper acts and practices in relation to racing.”

Much of Wednesday's testimony was a retread of information previously given by Rice during examination by her attorneys and other witnesses, seeking detail and clarification on the information Rice received from entry clerks between the 2011-12 Aqueduct meet and March 2015. Rice has admitted to receiving faxed and emailed printouts showing names and past performance information for horses before draw time, which the commission believes gave her an unfair advantage over other trainers. Rice contends that it was not unusual for trainers to be shown name or past performance information ahead of draw time in the racing office, or to have the basics of a potential rival's resume described to them on the phone.

Her testimony Wednesday examined a number of daily training logs for horses in her care during the time in question and identified races she had noted as targets for those individuals after the release of the condition book. Rice's attorney took the trainer through the dates and results of a few of those races alongside dates and times of emails she received with entry information from racing clerk Jose Morales. In the cases highlighted by her attorney, Rice had identified several target races for her horses before Morales gave her information and did not change her targets after receiving entry information from Morales.

Although Rice has said previously that she wasn't aware she was breaking any rules, it appears there did come a time when she became concerned that taking the information could get her into trouble. Rick Goodell, counsel for the commission, read into the record a transcript of a 2018 interview he conducted with Rice in which she recalled the moment she began to have concerns about her receipt of information from Morales. Rice recalls that in 2014 Morales told her he was “being watched” and she told Goodell in 2018 her thought was, “Damn, well, they're watching him. Maybe we shouldn't be doing it.”

Goodell also asked Rice whether she revealed to anyone else, other trainers or racing office employees, that she was getting the information from Morales. She answered she had not.

The passing of information from Morales to Rice came out after the racing office and law enforcement near Belmont discovered that Morales had given out his InCompass login information to a number of jockey agents in return for money.

Wednesday's testimony also revealed that Rice had hired rider Israel Rodriguez to ride several races for her when he was an apprentice. Rodriguez would eventually be represented by Morales as agent, although Morales is no longer licensed as a jockey agent in New York. Rice said she had forgotten she had hired Rodriguez, who rode a little more than two dozen races for her before she said he lost his apprentice weight allowance and she determined he was not of a caliber she wanted to work with as a journeyman.

Goodell tried to establish whether Rice believed the information she got through email and fax constituted an unfair advantage over other trainers who weren't privy to the same information. While Rice admitted that it could sometimes be helpful to know which horses were entered in a race in advance of draw time, she was not convinced that other trainers were not receiving similar or comparable information.

“When the article came out in the press about the proceedings, I spoke to other trainers and many of them said they receive information all the time as well,” Rice said.

The post Rice Hearings Conclude, But No Ruling Expected Soon appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

Verified by MonsterInsights