I don't disagree with anything TGJB wrote, but I have a couple of thoughts:

I wonder how much certain industry players view handle as their lifeblood.

CDI, for example, is a casino company using horse racing to gain lucrative casino licenses. Ask anyone from Illinois and look at how fast the Kentucky legislature acted when a court ruled that historical horse racing is not parimutuel wagering.

I also doubt breeders are that focused on handle. They are more focused on breeders awards and expanding ownership. They love the fractional ownership thing. And look how fast the Kentucky legislature reacted when the Jockey Club tried to limit the number of mares a stallion could cover in a year (at 140!!).

The group I don't understand is horsemen. (Full disclosure: I only know what I have read about signal fees and rebates and have no way to verify it.) I have heard and read that rebates are structured such that the net takeout for a rebate recipient is pretty much the same regardless of what pool they are playing in. That makes no sense to me. I don't bet enough to earn rebates, and when I occasionally wander out of the win pool and into an exacts or daily double, my takeout increases. And that makes sense. I am getting to express two opinions for one price. Why should rebate players get to express multiple opinions for the same price as one? And why do the horsemen sign off on signal fee agreements that do not increase the signal fee for exotics. For example, why would a track not have an increased signal fee for a jackpot bet on a mandatory payout day, and why would the horsemen not insist upon that.