You might call Ed Peters a sore winner. Peters, third in this year’s Breeders’ Cup Betting Challenge, took home more than $275,000 at the tournament, but he is among the many competitors who were unhappy with the results of the inquiry and subsequent statement from Breeders’ Cup Ltd. about “irregularities” at the event. In the end, the Breeders’ Cup disqualified Eric Moomey for combining his two entries with those of his friend and associate Roger Ball to create one super entry. “DQ-ing Moomey was the right move, but it was also a nothing move,” said Peters. “It was so obvious what he had done, even to himself.” Peters was referring to the fact that Moomey, in an interview with Eric Wing for the Horsetourneys blog, said after Day 1: “Actually, my goal, based on previous years here, was to have $48,000 after Day 1. So, that worked out pretty well. I can’t tell you my strategy for tomorrow because I don’t know what it is yet. But I’ll probably be shooting for something in the $90,000 to $110,000 range.” According to Peters’s own painstaking research, where he reconstructed the tournament through leaderboards sent out by the Breeders’ Cup after each race, despite that quote above, Moomey essentially stopped playing the tournament on Day 2, only betting his minimums. This despite potentially having six figures to gain via a top-five finish because of his status on the National Horseplayers Championship Tour. “It was as if someone told him to stop playing,” said Peters. :: Save on PPs, digital subscriptions, and more! Peters’s deep dive into the data didn’t stop there, but first some background information is required. There was an unusual rule change at the 2016 Breeders’ Cup Betting Challenge that eliminated harsh penalties for not making one’s minimum wagers. Instead of having 5,000 points deducted from one’s final score for missing a bet on Friday, and receiving a disqualification for a missed bet on Saturday, players would have 1,000 points deducted from their final scores for a missed bet on Day 1 and 2,000 deducted on Day 2. Unfortunately, the way the rule was written, it didn’t specify that though points were deducted, the full amount on a player’s bankroll was still available to bet. More than 90 percent of the contest field understandably didn’t comprehend the rule as written, leaving a select group who did. Peters identified this group through his research. “Both the first and second finishers in the tournament were on the list of players who took advantage of the rule, and I don’t think they followed the rules in the way they were intended, and I find that disheartening.” He was also interested in some of the unfamiliar names on the list of players who took penalties on Day 1. “There were a couple of guys at least who’d never even played on the NHC Tour,” Peters said. “I asked the Breeders’ Cup to look into the plays of every player on that list, and they never responded. After reading their letter – which I wish I hadn’t read – I’m not convinced at all that they looked into possible collusion by the winner or anyone else besides Moomey.” When asked for comment, Breeders’ Cup chief executive Craig Fravel wrote, “As we noted in that statement, we do not intend to comment further on the results of that investigation as we are confident that the investigation was thorough, thoughtful, and, importantly, independent.” Still, that investigation, conducted by Robert Watt, attorney for the Breeders’ Cup for more than 20 years, left Peters wanting more. “Not getting a response on being able to see the plays of the competitors that I thought may have committed some improprieties is disconcerting,” he said. “If the lawyers representing the BCBC in the investigation would just be transparent on this issue, then everyone could see for themselves. I think they would be anxious to make the plays public if they were, in fact, confident that nothing was suspicious. That they are not only solidifies my belief that they may holding back information when it comes to what they found during their examination. Publish the plays, then all players can be satisfied.” Another Peters complaint was about specific verbiage in the BC statement, which reads, “[The winner] Mr. Gabbay and [his playing partner] Mr. McFarland stated unequivocally that they do not collaborate on wagering strategy even though they share tournament winnings.” “The statement implied that there was insufficient evidence to prove that they were playing together, but it’s so obvious that they were,” Peters said. They have an LLC set up to share and deposit winnings, but they go about their strategy all on their own? That’s hard to believe.” Put another way, if McFarland’s entry was still alive for the $1 million, would Gabbay have still played his entry the same way? “There’s a zero percent chance,” Peters surmised. Gabbay denies this, saying, “My key opinion was Talismanic, and I would have bet it with the majority of my bankroll had the race been on Friday or early Saturday, as opposed to the second-to-last race of the tournament. It is incorrect to say that I waited for Kevin to exhaust his bankroll to make my plays.” It is true that in the immediate aftermath of the tournament, Gabbay spoke of McFarland’s entry with ownership. When asked, “Do you wish Kevin’s entry had won instead of yours?” he said, “Absolutely, no-brainer. No-brainer. It’s like I said, we ... our style is to bet pretty aggressive early, and we had a huge bet on Sharp Azteca in the Mile, and the horse finished second.” Told of this exchange, Peters said, “That doesn’t sound like two guys who don’t collaborate on strategy to me.” In Matt Hegarty’s original DRF article on the BCBC withholding its purse, McFarland said of his critics, “This is a joke. This is people who are sore losers.” Asked if he was, in fact, a sore loser, Peters quipped, “If those guys think I’m being a sore loser, you can remind them that the money that I won by myself is more than they did after dividing it up.”