Coupled entries for married jockeys: Are they necessary?

Consternation erupted after reports that jockeys Trevor McCarthy and Katie Davis would have their entries coupled when they race against each other, because they recently got married.

The New York State Gaming Commission rule, which has been in effect for years, is clear: “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.”

One objection often raised: Why apply this rule to spouses but not to, say, siblings? Say, Irad Ortiz Jr. and his brother Jose?

The difference is that married spouses, by law, share assets. If one wins, the other one wins. That is not the case with siblings or parents/children.

But to many, there is another, simpler reason this rule is not needed: Stewards can decide whether there has been a misdeed in a race and can act accordingly.

“Does it need to be changed? Absolutely,” said Terry Meyocks, president and CEO of the Jockeys’ Guild. “What we’re saying is it should be at the discretion of the stewards. If something’s not kosher, like anybody else, they should be fined or penalized.”

Hall of Fame jockey John Velazquez, co-chairman of the Jockeys’ Guild board of directors, agrees.

“With today’s technology and the way we do things, it’s a dumb rule, really,” he said. “And it hurts business more than anything else. It hurts racing more than anything else.”

Velazquez said the rule simply is not necessary.

“We’re being watched from the time we get on the horses to the time we get off the horses. And that’s why we’ve got cameras, and we have to follow rules and regulations. It shouldn’t really matter whether you’re married or not.”

Meyocks and Velazquez said there have been variations on this rule in the past, going back as far as Angel Cordero Jr. and his wife, Marjorie.

“Marjorie wasn’t riding all that many horses,” Meyocks said. “But Katie and Trevor ride a lot of horses or want to ride a lot of horses, and they should.”

He said the Jockeys’ Guild and its lobbyists have been in contact with the NYSGC since at least mid-December to try to prompt action on the rule.

“It’s out there in social media, and it’s not positive or in the best interest of the game,” Meyocks said.

A request for comment from the NYSGC was not returned.

Some reports have said that even if the NYSGC agrees to change the rule, the process would take at least six months. One option would be for the NYSGC to issue an emergency rule.

“It’s difficult to do an emergency, but I just think an exception could be made,” Meyocks said. “They’ve made exceptions before and put it to the stewards’ discretion, and hopefully that’s what they can do.”

Attorney William Gotimer Jr., of Saratoga Springs, N.Y., has written to the gaming commission on behalf of “two people in the horse-racing business who prefer to remain anonymous.”

He said they’re not involved in the McCarthy-Davis situation, but they want to see the rule go away.

“As a Thoroughbred bettor, owner, breeder myself, I find the rule a shibboleth that imposes very real negative consequences on Mr. McCarthy and Ms. Davis and exacerbates the continuing shortage of betting entries afflicting New York thoroughbred racing,” Gotimer wrote in his letter, dated Tuesday.

He wrote that the rule also might violate the U.S. Constitution, because “it deprives or seriously impairs … Mr. McCarthy and Ms. Davis’s ability (to) pursue their careers, because they entered into a state-sanctioned and religiously important status. The rule unfairly prevents the married couple from enjoying the advantageous tax, insurance, security and societal benefits of marriage without sacrificing, in some part, their earning power and career advancement.”

One of the disadvantages Gotimer cited as being caused by the rule is that owners might not be willing to accept the impact on odds related to a coupled entry.

“I tried to get across that I think there’s real economic harm that may not be easily apparent to people who look at it the first time,” Gotimer said in an interview. “And a lot of it is the nature on how jockey mounts are obtained. It may be subtle, but it’s real."

His letter also suggests an alternative to coupled entries: “Disclosure that spouses are riding different horses in the same race would serve the governmental interest of protecting the betting public while only narrowly infringing on the rights of the riders.”

“If there’s anybody who’s riding in pari-mutuel races who regulators think are capable or willing to collude, they should be taken on not because of their status but because of what their suspicions are,” Gotimer told HRN. “I think it’s unfortunate. I think it’s kind of a vestige of a time when coupled entries were far more common.”