The 2025 Breeders’ Cup, held October 31–November 1 at Del Mar, showcased elite international racing with standout performances like Forever Young’s win in the $7 million Classic and European dominance in most of the turf races. However, the event was overshadowed by significant criticism of Computer-Assisted Wagering (CAW) mistakenly referred to as syndicates when actually for the most part individuals using algorithms and high-speed tech models to place massive late bets. Yes, some do employ staff and a support team but one person gets a TRA code and is the account holder and responsibility party. Unlike Del Mar’s last regular meet, which only after some loud complaining at late dropping prices after the horses left the gate began to enforce a two-minute cutoff to post for CAW win-pool bets to curb odds volatility, the Breeders’ Cup opted not to implement this restriction, citing the championships’ “large enough” pools to absorb late action. The optics seemed to say otherwise but is that factual, let’s have a deeper look and see.
This decision seemed on the surface to amplify CAW influence, leading to Suppressed Payouts and Odds Crashes:
In the Juvenile Fillies Turf, 20-1 winner Balantina saw her odds drop from 30-1 to 20-1 in the final minute, resulting in a $170 exacta payout (20-1 over 14-1 in a 12-horse field)—described by bettors as “laughably low” and one of the worst in Breeders’ Cup history. Similar late-money surges crushed exotic payouts across the card, with one player noting an exacta falling from $222 to $170 in seconds. High-profile figures like Barstool Sports founder Dave Portnoy highlighted the issue, tweeting that CAWs “ruin everything” and vowing to limit betting to “huge days” only. While I get his point here we are discussing big day ramifications. Many retail bettors echoed this, with some placing just one wager all weekend or boycotting non-BC races. Social media buzzed with calls to “fire the entire Breeders’ Cup executive staff” for prioritizing handle over fairness.
Broader Industry Fallout:
While total handle reached upward of $200 million (up slightly from 2024), critics argued CAWs eroded trust, pricing out casual players and accelerating retail handle’s 60% decline over two decades. Looking deeper than. the surface, if CAW handle is 30-40% of overall handle and that carried down to 20 or 25% for the Breeders’ Cup it doesn’t paint a pretty long term picture for racing on what could be its biggest stage. If it was the same or even higher if possible the picture is far worse.
Overall, CAWs didn’t derail the on-track action but turned the event into a flashpoint for wagering inequities, fueling perceptions of a “rigged” game where algorithms exploit inefficiencies, leaving everyday bettors as “victims.”
How the Breeders’ Cup Events Tie into the Recently Filed CAW Lawsuit:
The class-action lawsuit, filed October 24, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York by former bettor Ryan Dickey (represented by Hagens Berman), directly names entities enabling CAWs: The Stronach Group (owners of Elite Turf Club), Churchill Downs Inc. (owners of Velocity), NYRA, AmTote International, United Tote, and Racing & Gaming Services. It alleges a RICO violation (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act), conspiracy, unjust enrichment, and conversion, claiming these parties collude to “corrupt the betting system” by granting CAWs exclusive rebates (7-10%), direct tote access, non-public data, and algorithmic edges—creating “no-risk, no-loss” opportunities that siphon ~$4 billion annually from retail pools. I would be willing to wager the rebates are higher than 7-10% in at least some cases at some tracks and on some bets. Furthermore and to be clear, I do not believe CAWs have access to unplayed combinations in multi-race wagers. I do not think that is possible even with sophisticated models tied into the tote system. I do believe they can see pool totals in an instant and know what their wager in any pool based on the last second totals will do to the payouts.
The Breeders’ Cup’s decision to waive Del Mar’s CAW cutoff despite CHRB discussions and public outcry mirrors the suit’s claims of track owners (e.g., Stronach/Churchill) prioritizing CAW revenue over fairness if not optics. Late surges in Breeders’ Cup races, like the Juvenile Fillies Turf, exemplify how CAWs distort and reduce value for the non CAW players by compressing odds and payouts, directly supporting Dickey’s economic loss estimates.
Filed just days before the BC, the suit gained traction during the event via social media (e.g., Portnoy’s posts, #CAWs trends) and coverage, turning Breeders’ Cup frustrations into lawsuit fuel. Bettors cited it as “evidence” for discovery demands, like emails between tracks and CAWs. If successful, it could mandate reforms like mandatory cutoffs, rebate caps, or divestitures potentially retroactively impacting Breeders’ Cup style events.
The suit seeks compensatory/treble damages and restitution but isn’t Breeders’ Cup specific; however, it could cite Breeders’ Cup data in motions, strengthening class certification by showing “similarly situated” victims (e.g., all non-CAW bettors in impacted pools).
In essence, the Breeders’ Cup served as a high-stakes exhibit of the suit’s core grievance: an “alleged scheme” where tracks and CAWs collude to favor insiders, with Breeders’ Cup’s lax rules providing fresh ammunition for plaintiffs. I found it interesting that Breeders’ Cup was liberal with their CAW decisions while so stringent with Veterinary Rules. The two day event saw its fair share of Vet-scratches, many disputed by trainers. Breeders’ Cup likes to think of itself as a benchmark but was inconsistent when it came to safety and the everyday customer of horse racing, the gambling horseplayer.
The Flip Side Nobody Talks About:
Every coin has a flip side. In this case we have to ask, how, and if racing can survive if CAWs are 20,30, or 3ven 40% of many pools. Is the sport sustainable if that is the ecosystem we have allowed things to devolve to.
What CAW Public Statements Hint at Regarding the Lawsuit:
I don’t think the public statements reflect all the defenses CAWs and the other defendants will raise. To me it was more off the cuff like we have to put out something. Nonetheless, it hints at the initial thought process.
CAW-affiliated entities (Elite Turf Club, AmTote) and parent companies (Stronach Group) issued coordinated statements on October 30–31, 2025, dismissing the suit as “meritless” and an “attack on the entire industry.” Key hints from these:
Defensive Framing as Industry Threat:
They portray CAWs as a “long-standing, regulated” lifeline sustaining the sport’s ecosystem (e.g., funding purses for horses/trainers/backstretch workers). Stronach warned the suit has “potential to devastate an entire industry,” implying a victory for plaintiffs could collapse CAW handle (30-40% of pools), risking track viability and jobs positioning defendants as stewards vs. plaintiffs as disruptors. Like I questioned in the aforementioned flipside, this is a valid point but I do not know it is a legal defense, that would be above my 9th grade education. This did however remind me of an article I wrote after interviewing the first CAW player on record: Horse Racings True Lifeline.
Normalization of Practices:
Rebates are likened to “airline miles or credit card programs,” with no “advantage in wagering outcomes.” This hints at downplaying edges (e.g., late betting, data access, tote access) as standard business incentives for “high-volume customers,” not collusion potentially prepping a motion to dismiss on RICO grounds by arguing no “pattern of racketeering.” This is interesting. We all get the best customers in almost any business get the best treatment. I have never come across a restaurant anywhere in the world I couldn’t get a table at. Casinos float whales. Higher credit scores get lower rates. Nobody doesn’t get businesses taking care of their best customers. At whose cost is the question and does that work in a pari-mutuel system where we are encouraged to believe we are playing against each other ona level field. Additionally, it is usually the business that pays the perks. They may pass those costs in pricing to all their customers but here at least on the surface it looks like robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Vow to Fight and Limit Disclosure: Standard litigation language. That said, phrases like “will vigorously defend” and “will not comment further” signal aggressive litigation, likely seeking early dismissal or summary judgment to avoid discovery (e.g., internal comms on Breeders’ Cup cutoffs or rebate deals). X discussions speculate this buys time for “false promises” of reforms to sideline the suit. By emphasizing CAWs’ role in “global pari-mutuel systems,” they hint at broader defenses like federal preemption (e.g., Interstate Horseracing Act) or lack of provable harm, while shifting blame to “social-media banter” for inflating issues. In my opinion we won’t know much until we see how the motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgement do, as well as if class action is achieved. That is when the gloves will come off or go on depending on how you view it.
These statements suggest a strategy of total denial, industry-wide mobilization, and stalling tactics hinting at fears over discovery exposing deeper ties, while rallying stakeholders against what they frame as an existential threat. One thing I would want to know is exactly how do Elite and Velocity compete for the players. What are the incentives offered by one or the other and do they partner in any way. No other CAW platforms (e.g., Velocity) have publicly responded yet, but unity among defendants is implied. The case’s early stage means outcomes hinge on class certification, but Breeders’ Cup backlash has already boosted plaintiff visibility.
One of the many problems horse racing has is it has no central governing body, no spokesperson, or too many spokespeople, but none with any authority, and almost every entity operates independently. No uniformity whatsoever and now they find themselves in a position where they should really get in front of this horrendous business model they created. Maybe they had no choice, maybe the game would have collapsed without CAW money. If it can be fixed it should be and I think the tide is turning away from the long held mentality of they’ll bet no matter what. Don’t be optimistic we slept through the poker boom and still can’t stagger the post times of stakes races on a Saturday.
What we know:
We know the CAWs were in the pools and we know they impacted payoffs. We know they’re a nice chunk of the pools. We know what goes up must come down, hence some payouts have to be driven up, even CAWs aren’t right every single time. The CAW models in part are built to identify value and underlays and wagering opportunities based on odds and win probability.
What we don’t know:
Everything else.
