by Bob Carson

Editor’s Note: The USTA website is pleased to present freelance writer Bob Carson and his popular “Outside the Box” features. This monthly series is a menu of outlandish proposals presented with a wink — but the purpose behind them is serious. The views contained in this column are that of the author alone, and do not necessarily represent the opinions or views of the United States Trotting Association.

Bob Carson

Cheating is tiresome, disheartening and aggravating. When foul play takes place on racetracks or in barns, fans of harness racing feel justifiably upset. Most participants appreciate efforts to corner cheaters and force them to pay a price. Measuring the debilitating effects of a few rotten eggs is difficult. Round and round we go; black eyes, blind eyes, due process, beards, threshold limits, yada yada.

It seems so simple — when a suspicious practice is uncovered, punishment must follow. Of course, it is not simple. This is an old story. The quest to keep the playing field level in harness racing never ends, nor should it. When shady owners, trainers or beards skate away with the prize, the innocent and the hard working masses feel the sting.

During a recent debate for the United States Trotting Association presidency (which was great), the candidates (who were all terrific) touched on a subject that struck a chord for many of us.

When the policing system works, and we all wish it worked constantly and consistently, the tainted winning horse must forfeit the purse money. The other competitors in the race will receive the redistributed purse money. This redistribution is fair and wise.

However, excluded from this process of purse redistribution are our customers; they are shortchanged and shortchanging customers is never a good idea. Today, technology might be able to come to our rescue. Data systems have the ability to right some wrongs and curry some goodwill.

Twenty years ago, losing tickets were torn and tossed in the air like confetti. We live in a much different world today. Most of us have not purchased a paper ticket from a tote machine or a human teller in years. As time marches forward, manually wagering on horse races will continue to go the way of telephone booths and 45 rpm records.

Today, most players have gambling accounts with wagering companies. We make a deposit and run a tab using a device like a tablet, computer or phone. Besides the obvious convenience, another benefit of wagering in the digital age is that customers who wager in this manner leave a digital trail.

Consider this scenario:

Using one of your devices on Sept. 12, 2017, you wagered $20 to win on a claiming trotter named Checktherecord. One minute later you also included this trotter in a $10 trifecta box for a total investment of $30. Checktherecord did not win. A trotter named Suspicious Sam won the race. As usual, you turned the page.

One month later, you stumble across the information that Suspicious Sam lived up to his billing, his spit box spit out a bad test. The amazed and perplexed trainer protested vehemently, the $10,000 winning purse put on hold and the appeals process followed diligently. In the end, the ruling stood.

Now we come to the “What if?” section.

Suppose in a case like this, the punishment was not merely the loss of the $10,000 purse, but damages were assessed that would be equal to the forfeited purse. In this case, the guilty party loses the $10,000 in purse money and pays another $10,000 as his penalty.

Where does this additional $10,000 flow?

Obviously, this is a rough blueprint. Any real plan would require consideration and careful study, but let us toss something onto the table for examination.

Ten percent of the assessed fine is placed in an account earmarked for racehorse retirement and animal welfare projects. Ten percent of the fine is earmarked for the agency (most likely the state) that successfully prosecuted the offence. This fund could defray costs for this prosecution and future prosecutions. Finally, take the remaining 80 percent and return it to any gamblers with a digital footprint that demonstrates that they were victims of the disqualified horse. Please note, this does not mean colossally recalculating payouts already paid, that ship has sailed.

However, it would be very doable to look back and find the gamblers who wagered on the tainted horse on digital platforms. While we cannot “make them whole” as they say on television court dramas, the remaining penalty money could be used to refund at least a small fraction of the original wager.

For example, if you received a notice from your betting platform that reported, “Due to a post-race ruling on the fifth race held Sept. 12, 2017, $3.20 of the $30 that was wagered on the date of a disputed race has been re-deposited.” Customers would appreciate the small amount of money refunded and appreciate a small measure of justice done.

This process would not cost anyone (except the guilty party). The process would demonstrate that people who operate horse races are trying to be fair and that they care about the customer. There would be positive results (benefits to horse welfare, enforcement funding and positive public relations) from the negative action of a bad deed.