Jerry,

No doubt that today's Twitter discussions by horse racing folks was dominated by this piece. Terrific job of stirring up this topic which needs to continue to be scrutinized along with attempts to persuade meaningful change.

I have heard and read in the past that the rebates the CRW's receive are similar to rebates high volume customers in various businesses would receive.

My problem with this distinction is that as you called us, we are "horseplayers" or "gamblers." I do not believe I am a "customer" of the racetrack when I put my dollar through the window to gamble. I am a competitor for dollars in a zero sum game of that particular pool. When I pay to get in the track, when I buy a concession, when I purchase a seat in the grandstand, when I buy a souvenir,.... those are examples of customers at the racetrack. But when I gamble, how am I "customer?"

As gamblers, specifically parimutuel ones, I don't see anyone placing money in the pool as a customer b/c I am competing for the other dollars in the pool after the lawful takeout is removed once the event begins. I am not "purchasing" anything as customers do. I see no reason that any dollar should receive a "rebate" over another dollar on this "customer" premise. In fact, I wonder if a creative attorney could craft an argument as such in court that a true retail, non-rebate receiving gambler is damaged by not treating parimutuel participants equally. Before anyone laughs this out the building, the numerous states that have racing likely have different definitions of parimutuel wagering and I think it could be pulled off somewhere. Look at how creative the attorneys for trainers are when it comes to positive tests. Often, businesses like to take approaches that are profitable first and find out later that their methods aren't "ethical" or possibly are "illegal." I wonder if that could be the tale here if someone would take the tracks to task in various states on this rebate issue which isn't only a CRW issue.

An argument that could be specific to the CRW's is that the tracks "own" some of these "teams" or rather "employ" them. Now back to the people that say we are "customers." How many customers have to compete against the business they are supposedly patronizing when the product is "dollars"? Anyway. . . while I wait for an even slight comparison. . . I once again would like to see a creative attorney craft an argument about the parimutuel pools being manipulated by the tracks to the detriment of a retail customer, sharing information with CRW's that they don't with retail players, competing against the retail gambler, etc etc. Defining one's damages through historical records of retail players might be easier to prove than one might think at first.

As for the lifeblood of the industry, your comment is true about betting handle. Unfortunately, the tracks have basically admitted (as I referenced a few months ago in a post on the board) that without the CRW handle, they would be dealing with pools so small, the small tracks would shutter their businesses. Transitioning from the deal they made with themselves (the devil) back to the deal that should be in place with retail gamblers is near impossible now. But that doesn't mean the gamblers can't ring them up or at least try.

Last, a small quibble on your piece. You mention they don't want to kill their price. It sure seems to me that they don't care whatsoever sometimes and willing to take 1-5 far more often than ever seen before full well knowing that their late bets will kill their price. I agree they may not want to kill their price but they are willing to take it all the way down to the quick if that's what their model says will at least break them even especially at the small tracks (before rebate).