Derby List Last 200 Messages

[Mark Peel via Derby]

 I thought I understood the rules about coupled entries, but I was wrong.  I had always thought that when two horses with common ownership are entered in the same race, they ran as a single betting interest: 1 and 1A.  So I was surprised when My Sister Nat and Eliade, both owned by Peter Brant and both trained by Chad Brown, went to the post in last Saturday's $200,000 Grade II Glens Falls as numbers 4 and 5.  Why, I wondered, weren't two horses with the same trainer and owner not running as 1 and 1A?
I googled and found the answer in an issue of The Bloodhorse from 2015: "New York Coupled Entry Rules Modified" (https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/106451/new-york-coupled-entry-rules-modified).  There were two changes to the rules on coupled entries:

1. "Under current rules, horses with a common ownership are coupled as a single "betting interest" unless they are being run in stakes races with purses more than $1 million. The new rule would lower the threshold before the requirement kicks in to stakes races with purses of $50,000 or more."
2. "In races with two or more horses that would otherwise be coupled for betting purposes, tracks "must take such actions" to ensure the public is informed about the common ownership or trainers."
Since these rules have been in effect for five years, I should have noticed this before now.  The Glens Falls purse of $200,000 easily exceeds the $50,000 purse minimum--as does every ungraded stakes race carded at Saratoga.  (So do many MSWs and Allowance races at the Spa, too—but the rule does specify "stakes."
Anyway, this got me to wondering what the original purpose of the rule was to begin with.  Does anyone out there have an opinion?
To me, it seems aimed at preventing owners and trainers from some kind of race fixing or collusion, but I don't see how a wagering rule does that—only bettors are affected by the coupling rule.  To prevent wealthy owners from loading up their best talent in the richest races, tracks could limit the number of entries per owner to one per race: problem solved.
At least one commentator, John Scheinman in Horsracing Insider, thins that the decoupling actually disadvantages bettors.  I couldn't quite following his line of reasoning, though—again, it seems his gripe was with owners and trainers (especially Chad Brown, who, it must be admitted, does seem to monopolize filly and mare turf stakes in NY, entering three and sometimes four from his barn in a single race.  Scheinman's piece is at https://www.horseraceinsider.com/uncoupled-entries-favor-racetracks-not-bettors/ 

And although Scheinman's article is critical of New York, other racing jurisdictions seem to have even fewer coupled entries than New York does.
Can anyone explain 1) why coupling is done to begin with?  2) is it gradually disappearing?

Civres
_______________________________________________
Derby mailing list
Posting: Derby at lists.derbylist.com
Sub/Unsub: http://lists.derbylist.com/listinfo.cgi/derby-derbylist.com