The issue of computer assisted wagering (CAW) is not new and it is clearly time that it be revisited given the extent to which it has grown. Bettor concerns are valid and the question has always been whether anyone, large or small, is given an unfair advantage that is not available to anyone else.Phrases and words like “racketeering,” “pool-rigging enterprise,” and “insider bettors” conjure up images of insider trading and criminal activity which, if proven, could then warrant criminal prosecution and make those convicted ineligible for a racing license. The effect of using such language will not be positive for a sport struggling to survive in a highly competitive environment.After reading the lawsuit filed on behalf of a Colorado bettor who alleges federal felony racketeering charges, my initial reaction is he has a high bar to clear in order to prove what is claimed is illegal.The growing reliance on computer programs, algorithms, and artificial intelligence in almost every aspect of our lives is ubiquitous as our technological evolution is fast and furious. The issue for public policy makers in racing is the same as it is for the financial markets: can everyone have access to the same information upon which to make a decision on an investment or a wager? Are the large CAW customers doing anything different from the large institutional investors who scour the markets for opportunities and sometimes wait until the closing minutes of the market to make a move?Is it improper for a racetrack to commit a portion of their takeout revenue to reward large customers for doing business with them? How is this different from discounts for large customers in any other business?The challenge for regulators and lawmakers is the adequacy of existing policies regarding stop betting and pool closure as well as total odds transparency. Do all betters have access to the same information and can they choose to purchase programs to scour the landscape seeking opportunities to make single or multiple bets? Can they pool their wagers in the same way investors pool investments in a mutual fund? Can they hire someone to manage their wagers in the same way investors pay a management fee to a brokerage house to manage their trading?Perhaps a greater question lies in the extent to which computers are taking the traditional fun out of wagering on horse races where handicapping was a talent developed individually through an understanding of statistics: probability, bloodlines, past performance, analysis of competition, and personal experience usually expressed as one's “gut.”When computers do what humans historically have done, what does this do to the sport? In a world where robotics seem to be the next frontier, one must ask what's next, robot jockeys and horses? We already have HHR.To criminalize the racetrack companies for finding new ways to generate revenue, in my opinion, is not the answer. Handle keeps the sport going and the challenge for all is, `where do we go from here?' Policymakers, both public and private, need to listen to the concerns of the players and take a new look to achieve a balance where fans do not feel cheated or taken advantage of.–Ed Martin is the President of the Association Racing Commissioners International.The post Letter To The Editor: CAW – Time For A New Balance? appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.