Last August, the New York State Gaming Commission (NYSGC) voted to eliminate many coupled pari-mutuel entries. The commission accomplished this by changing the wording in rule 4025.10 so the operative term got switched to “may” be coupled instead of “must,” then left it to the state steward to exercise discretion in most instances.When the commission considered those amendments in 2025, a brief written by NYSGC general counsel Edmund Burns explained that the New York Racing Association (NYRA), Finger Lakes Racetrack, the New York Thoroughbred Horsemen's Association (NYTHA) and The New York Thoroughbred Breeders, Inc. (NYTB) all supported reducing mutuel couplings because “loosening coupling rules would increase betting interest and handle.”Now, one year later, those same stakeholders were back before the commission asking for even more latitude in eliminating mutuel couplings, and Burns used verbatim language in a new NYSGC brief to explain why those entities wanted to do away with 1 and 1A (and sometimes 1X, 2 and 2B) betting restrictions.“[Supporters] state that less restrictive coupling rules have been implemented successfully in other racing jurisdictions [and] that race-integrity concerns can be addressed as they arise…” the brief repeated.So what's the renewed push to revisit an issue that just got addressed 12 months ago?NYSGC executive director Robert Williams explained during Tuesday's monthly board meeting that it involves a part of the coupling rule that deals with trainers.“NYRA expressed concern with what they believed were unintended consequences of the inclusion of a trainer in the definition of 'related horses,' as opposed to just an owner,” Williams said. “[NYRA indicated] that some trainers might determine not to enter a second horse when a race is overfilled.“In summary, the racing division staff researched the issue more deeply and drafted a proposal to permit uncoupling in all races, while still empowering the state steward to exercise discretion to couple when in the public interest, and requiring that the wager acceptor provide adequate notice to the betting public concerning related horses entered in a race,” Williams said.The NYSGC's chairman, Brian O'Dwyer, advocated adopting the changes Williams outlined.“I am convinced that there were probably good and valid reasons for the coupling rules years ago. They seem to be not valid anymore,” O'Dwyer said.“Our job is to protect the racing public. I don't think that that has been affected in any way. I think that this is a rule that will allow us, in particular, to keep New York horses running in New York,” O'Dwyer continued.When prompted by O'Dwyer to offer his thoughts on the proposal, commissioner John Crotty echoed the chairman.“The trainers were making a very compelling case about New York's competitiveness and their ability to keep their horses in New York and to run here,” Crotty said.Under the proposed new language, the term “related horses” will still be defined as “Horses that have the same individual present in the managing ownership of the horses, that share a 25 percent commonality in ownership, or that share a common trainer…”But a different section of that rule that currently states that related horses “may” be coupled will get switched to “shall not” be coupled, unless the following paragraph applies:“The State steward may require any related horses entered in a race to be coupled as a single betting interest in a race prior to the commencement of wagering on-track and off-track, if such steward, in such steward's discretion, finds it necessary in the public interest.”No one at the meeting gave an example of an instance in which the state steward might still feel compelled to mandate a coupling.And no commissioners spoke against the proposed rule changes, which got unanimously advanced but still must pass a required public-comment period before the NYSGC votes to officially adopt them, perhaps by the end of this year. Partnership licensing…Separately, the NYSGC advanced another proposal to the public-comment period dealing with the licensure of owners in partnerships. Burns explained it like this in the meeting packet:“Currently, each nonmanaging owner must be licensed when there are 35 or fewer owners and when an owner has a three percent or more interest, when there are more than 35 owners.“This proposal would change those thresholds to, instead, require licensure of each owner only when there are 20 or fewer owners or an owner or owner has a five percent or more interest, when there are more than 20 owners.“The five-percent threshold is modeled after the Association of Racing Commissioners International Model Rule and is a standard that many other racing jurisdictions, such as Kentucky, Maryland and Ohio, use,” Burns wrote.Eliminating surface tension…Another rules clarification adopted unanimously (this one had already gone through its public-comment period) will change language that dictates what happens with multi-race and other exotic wagers when there is a switch in surfaces.Although the underlying rules regarding “all” payouts and carryover distributions won't change from how they are treated now when turf races get moved to the main track, the revised language takes into account that when the new Belmont Park opens Sept. 18, there will be instances when a turf race–or even a rained-off main track race–gets moved to the Tapeta track.The new rules will use the description of a race getting switched to “a course with a different surface” to make sure the code reflects the reality of NYRA utilizing three different types of footing at Belmont.The post New York Commission Again Takes Aim at Reducing Mutuel Couplings appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.