Kentucky to uncouple entries

[ALostTexan]

I see where Kentucky has issued a rule change that would alter the current rules regarding the coupling of horses, supposedly in an effort to increase field size. If I recall, NYRA also asked the NYSRWB to do the same last spring. The reaction in the past has always been that uncoupling entries increases the potential for chicanery, and I recall the frequent outcry from bettors and racing writers when NY experimented with such a rule in the early 1990s whenever the longer half of an uncoupled entry won the race.

While perception of the fans is undoubtedly an important consideration, I've never viewed the above argument as a great reason to continue coupling entries. However, I am a big believer in the law of unintended consequences, and I do not favor the change. I'm not convinced that the rule would have the desired result. In fact, with the current trend towards huge outfits where trainers have over 100 horses, wouldn't one likely result of the proposed change be that races that do not currently fill (lack of betting entries) will draw sufficient entries in the future. I can envision 2YO and allowance races, especially here in NY, with six/seven horse fields in which trainers such as Pletcher, Asmussen, Dutrow, Zito and Frankel have multiple entries, and the races become little more than intra-barn scrimmages.

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

I see where Kentucky has issued a rule change that would alter the current rules regarding the coupling of horses, supposedly in an effort to increase field size. If I recall, NYRA also asked the NYSRWB to do the same last spring. The reaction in the past has always been that uncoupling entries increases the potential for chicanery, and I recall the frequent outcry from bettors and racing writers when NY experimented with such a rule in the early 1990s whenever the longer half of an uncoupled entry won the race.

While perception of the fans is undoubtedly an important consideration, I've never viewed the above argument as a great reason to continue coupling entries. However, I am a big believer in the law of unintended consequences, and I do not favor the change. I'm not convinced that the rule would have the desired result. In fact, with the current trend towards huge outfits where trainers have over 100 horses, wouldn't one likely result of the proposed change be that races that do not currently fill (lack of betting entries) will draw sufficient entries in the future. I can envision 2YO and allowance races, especially here in NY, with six/seven horse fields in which trainers such as Pletcher, Asmussen, Dutrow, Zito and Frankel have multiple entries, and the races become little more than intra-barn scrimmages.

Wonder how many bathroom fires there will be in Kentucky when the 15/1shot beats his 6/5 stable mate ? This is fueled by wanting to list more starters per race, will it in effect grow handle significantlly ? I doubt it. Will it fuel more doubt on the integrity of the game ? Probably. So, who wins ? No body. Leave the rule alone. There was a good reason it was enacted in the first place.