As we begin a New Year, I am going to pledge to myself, and you, too, that I will try to keep these shorter (good luck, Gene) and to offer them more often (good luck, reader).

I hope they will spur some “thoughts” from and by you, too, and help promote some ideas to help improve the greatest sport ever created. OUR game.

So here’s your seeds for today:
Can “CAWs” Be Good for Thoroughbred Industry? Absolutely YES:
Admittedly, I have always been a little different. Some may describe me and that tendency as just plain “crazy.” But I don’t think it’s a bad thing to think and be, let’s say, independent.
Maybe, at least time to time, I can offer a different perspective or idea that is worth discussion. Maybe. Maybe, for my sake, it is just my way of explaining why I don’t necessarily fit into the “mainstream” of thought processing. My excuse. Maybe.
Maybe that’s why I detest and never accept stereotypes.
All conservatives are not correct all the time. All liberals are not wrong all the time. And, vice versa. All blondes are not dumb, and all lawyers are not crooked and bad. All speed horses don’t back up when they are stretched out to two turns for the first time. All “closers” at sprint distances will not be automatically better at longer distances.
After all, the reason that the phrase “…variety is the spice of life,” is a cliche is that it is true, sometimes, and that’s the reason that phrase has been around long enough to now become a cliche. Right?
Well, I may be in the minority here and I may be ridiculed for being “different,” it is my firm opinion that not all “Computer Automated Wagers” — or the technology that enables them — are evil, corrupt, awful, illegal or destroying the integrity of the sport, or make betting on horses unfair.
More importantly, it is also my firm opinion that if regulated properly; overseen with independent, third-party Commission reviews; and improved upon with quicker, more modern tote technology and quicker relays to all track audio-video equipment, then CAWs Can and Will enhance handle and improve our sport’s ability to compete with sports betting and other entertainment options.
In other words, in my view, if the horse racing betting public spent half as much time trying to ensure the “credibility” of these new and innovative wagers rather than crying that the sky is falling — yet, again — and trying to eliminate them in their entirety?
We would all be better off. Period.
The benefits of CAWs to our sport are apparent and obvious.
Computer Automated Wagers encourage more bets into our game by utilizing modern technology.
CAWs allow investors to participate in a manner that is very similar to investing in the Stock Market in this day and time of high tech, rather than “buyers” standing on the floor and manually plugging in their “buys.”
CAWs encourage syndicates to participate.
And, they work similarly to the technology that allows sports betting to accept large and last-second wagers into pools right up till tip-off, kick-off and game time.
This past year, enhanced by CAWs, Churchill Downs handled over $1 Billion in handle. That is right. With a “B.” 
And, that is truly amazing. And, that helps us all. Period.
Time to embrace and not repeat the mistakes of the past when racetracks and horsemen mysterious thought that television was just a fad and simulcasting was just an evil twist and the combination would ruin the sport, rather than promote it.
I remember vividly that some old-timers thought that allowing full-card simulcasts would simply replace live racing and substitute a video image or a horse. At the time this was being investigated for the first time, I served as the Executive Vice President of the Kentucky Thoroughbred Association and the Kentucky Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders’ Association. That esteemed group of individuals were split on the issue. In fact, we held a massive board of directors meet at the law offices of Stoll Keenon just to take a vote on whether the group would support legislation to allow full card simulcasts into Kentucky. If not for the help of forward thinkers like John T.L. Jones III, and other leaders, the stodgy would have won that day and that vote and kept Kentucky light years behind the times.
I remember hearing insider experts tout how no racetracker — worth their weight in gold bars — would ever sit still in a dark room and just watch and wager on televised horse races.
I had to work just as hard to lobby those in the horse industry as the members of the legislature to approve inter track wagering and other forms of simulcasting. I had to work just as hard, if not harder, to convince owners, breeders and trainers that simulcasting is a good thing. And, not the ruination of horse racing. Imagine that.
Those doomsayers were wrong then, and the anti-CAW crowd is wrong now.
Simply put?
More handle is better. It increases purses. Purses increase entries, and encourages more investment in both the breed and the owner populations. And, more horses increases betting interests. Which, in turns, helps increases handle. And, the wheel goes on.
But, in order for the wheel to continue to turn efficiently and smoothly, too, all forms of wagers into our betting pools must be monitored, reviewed, analyzed and regulated by third-party government organizations.
This includes on-track wagers. This includes simulcast wagers. And, this includes CAW wagers, too.
Oversight and regulation must be as technically savvy as the computers that are performing and accepting the wagers. And, this oversight must ensure that all wagers are being placed on the right horse prior to the start of any and all races.
I think Racing Commissions in all racing jurisdictions should allow for horse bettors to elect an “observer” who can witness, watch and thus critique these oversight efforts. If they are allowed this insight then maybe it will eliminate the “ghosts in the dark” arguments by those who are always witnessing the sky fall on all of us each and every day.
I think Racing Commissions in all jurisdictions should have a credible and accredited testing firm which can and does test all Historic Horseracing Machines; sports betting vendors and horse track tote systems with a tightened degree of scrutiny and that all final reports are made open to the public.
I think Racing Commissions should instigate and mandate a timely upgrade to all track tote system to ensure they are technologically sound and capable of handling all forms of bets.
I think Racing Commissions should instigate a mandated timeline where all licensed racetracks improve the current in-house and simulcast media so that all wagers and odds are presented in an expedited format and that final odds do not change dramatically after the starting gate opens — creating questions about the timing of last-second wagers.
And, I think Racing Commissions should investigate and mandate that no CAW is either owned or operated by a licensed racetrack, just as fixed-odds wagering should not be approved, either.
Currently, racetracks do not have an interest in which horse wins a race. That’s the beauty of the pari-mutuel system. Racetracks take their cut off the top with the take-out. They have no financial interest in which horse wins or loses. And, that’s the way it should always be. That’s the way it has to be.
By changing that basic component, then we are jeopardizing the entire system and permitting a whole new set of questions regarding integrity.
Truth is?
Credibility and transparency are critical components that can never be taken for granted, and must always be on the cusp of improvement to match any and all technology improvements.
But truth is?
Technology is not a bad thing, simply because it changes how wagers are accepted into our pools and helps increase our handle, either.
We can and must embrace both.