Entries, coupling, and the wagering product
The issue I put before you is not simply whether entries are technically permissible, but whether large entries — be they coupled or uncoupled — undermine the integrity and attractiveness of harness racing as a wagering product and competitive opportunities for smaller stables.
Entries themselves have often been a subject of debate, particularly because of the possibility of collusion. Bettors understandably dislike the uncertainty that coupled entries can create. When horses are entered as a coupled entry, what should the bettor expect? Will the participants each make an all-out effort to win, or will one horse be used to benefit its stablemate — for example, by cutting a mile or otherwise sacrificing its own chances riding shotgun?
There may be circumstances in which the intentions of the participants appear obvious. But, whether collusion actually occurs or not, the perception that it may have occurred can be damaging. The bettor often walks away with a bad taste in his or her mouth.
Most stakes races, early closers or late closers do not by their terms prohibit multiple entries by the same trainer or even owner. Where the conditions of these races provide for multiple qualifying legs, coupled entries — which are clearly identified as such in the program — will inevitably find their way into the final.
New York provides for entries to be uncoupled in certain circumstances, although coupled entries in overnight races are prohibited absent sufficient reason and express permission from the New York State Gaming Commission. The state’s regulations provide:
1.) Except for stakes races with a purse of $25,000 or more, horses trained by the same trainer but owned by different, separate owners may be uncoupled. The presiding judge has the discretion to couple such horses, however, to protect the interests of the wagering public. Trainers with an ownership interest in more than one horse must have their horses coupled.
2.) Except for stakes races with a purse of $100,000 or more, horses with common ownership may be uncoupled. The presiding judge has the discretion to couple such horses, however, to protect the interests of the wagering public.
b.) Except by express permission of the Commission, coupled entries are prohibited in overnight events.
Subdivision 2(b) makes clear that coupled entries in overnight races are viewed as undesirable except where circumstances justify an exception. The rule nevertheless leaves room for the Commission to permit them when there might be a shortage of horses. But isn’t the phrase, “The presiding judge has the discretion to couple such horses, however, to protect the interests of the wagering public,” of any importance? Cases of judges exercising that discretion are as rare as hen’s teeth. Why? First, the decision to allow an entry is permitted in many of these events, and, second, because uncoupling them has become a more accepted practice authorized by the regulator.
In neighboring states, however, the need to fill overnight races has resulted in commissions establishing rules that permit uncoupled horses from the same stable to compete against each other. Apparently, those jurisdictions have not regarded the practice as sufficiently problematic to prohibit it, and while it may be necessary to fill their races, does it not ignore the potential consequences inherent by allowing the practice to expand?
I have seen races in which three or more horses from the same stable are entered. To me, that goes too far. It is one thing to have a two-horse entry competing against the rest of the field. It is quite another to have three or more horses from the same operation dominating a horse race. The potential for collusion — or simply the perception that the horses may be racing with interests that are not entirely independent — is too great. I would prefer not offering bettors a wagering product that is likely to undermine their confidence and drive them away from the sport.
I know that I would not wager on such a race. Nor do I believe that races so heavily concentrated in favor of a single stable should be placed on any wagering menu.
Put yourself in the position of a bettor who wagers on a race with fewer than eight horses where one stable controls three or more of the horses. Watch the race and consider what you would think if you believed the horses were working together or that one participant had sacrificed its chances to benefit another. Then ask whether we are doing anything to encourage that bettor to come back — or whether we are giving that bettor another reason to walk away from harness racing. Also, the expansion of permissible entries sends a mixed message to officials who may see some evidence of collusion when they are tasked with taking action in view of regulators who have invited this to happen. In days gone by, a judge with any sense would be tearing up licenses if he observed collusion.
There is a possible remedy: write the conditions or establish rules that specifically limit the number of horses from any one stable, whether coupled or uncoupled, to a maximum of two in the final of a stakes race, early closer or late closer.
For owners and stakes participants, stakes races could also be structured with consolations. That would allow an owner or stable that enters more than three horses in the numerous qualifying legs to retain an opportunity to earn money after those horses have competed in the preliminary legs. Such a structure could minimize the adverse effect on both bettors and horsepeople who otherwise may find themselves competing in a final or consolation against an entry consisting of more than two horses from the same stable. It would be interesting to learn if these events, as currently raced without limitation, are supported to a lesser degree at the windows. I would think so.
My concern is not about punishing or disadvantaging the larger stables simply because they are successful. It is about maintaining a competitive balance and preserving meaningful opportunities for smaller stables that are trying to compete in our sport. They should not have to enter a race knowing that they are facing an environment in which one stable controls an excessive portion of the field.
Right now, even in New York, it seems that the rules governing coupled and uncoupled entries may have produced an unintended consequence: Instead of protecting the wagering public and encouraging participation, they can sometimes create a product that turns bettors away and discourages owners from investing in or competing in these events.
That is an important lesson in regulation. The negative consequences to our sport sometimes come not from the problem a regulation was intended to solve, but from the unintended consequences of solving one problem while creating another — and potentially more serious — one.
Joe Faraldo
The views contained in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the opinions or views of the USTA.
This column appears in the November 2026 issue of Hoof Beats, the official magazine of the USTA. To learn more, or to become a subscriber to harness racing’s premier monthly publication, click here.