Terminal markets: Gender and online horse racing economies
First Monday

Terminal markets: Gender and online horse racing economies by Holly Kruse

This paper describes two parallel markets that are part of the contemporary online economy of horse racing–pari-mutuel wagering and racehorse rescue — both of which are driven by the emotional labor of participants and both of which are gendered. The expectation of participants in masculinely defined pari-mutuel markets is that they will invest resources to make a profit, while those involved in the femininely defined racehorse rescue market expect that they will invest resources and lose money, yet gain emotional rewards. Both markets reinforce the racing industry status quo in the United States, although the growing visibility of racehorses in need of rescue on social media presents the possibility for change in the industry’s treatment of its former athletes.


Gambling and domestic space
Pari-mutuel markets
Market technologies
Gender, emotion, and horse race betting
Rescue and terminal markets
Gender, rescue, emotion, labor
Concluding thoughts




This article describes two parallel markets that are part of the online economy of horse racing: pari-mutuel wagering and racehorse rescue. It argues that both are driven by the emotional labor of participants. Both may viewed as immaterial, although one is built on the very real bodies of racehorses and the other seeks to save those bodies. Each market helps to enable the other, although those who work in racehorse rescue markets would, of course, prefer that the need for rescue not exist.

It also argues, however, that each of these markets is gendered, leading to particular economic consequences. Not surprisingly, the expectation of participants in masculinely defined pari-mutuel markets is that they will invest resources (money, knowledge, time, emotions) to ultimately make a profit, while those involved in the femininely defined racehorse rescue market expect that they will invest resources (money, knowledge, time, emotions, social capital) in order to lose money, but gain a kind of emotional reward. Social and cultural discourses support these rewards as the proper ones. Even as the racing press celebrates race handicapping and betting with little regard to the fates of horses on whom bets are placed, the growing visibility of racehorses in need of rescue in the popular press and in the racing industry, and of the people doing the rescue, underscores the subversive possibility of networked, gendered, emotional labor. This paper explores these differences in how gender, affect and the economic intersect in these related online markets.



Gambling and domestic space

The complexity of gender and economics in horseracing can be seen by tracking the shifting spatial and technological dynamics of gambling. The gendered nature of the markets I discuss is not absolute. Gambling and its markets are not exclusively male preserves and to think of betting as an activity that, until the advent of online wagering, only took place in the ‘masculine’ public sphere would be a mistake. Certainly, with the growth of the middle class through industrialization in Western countries, the ideal became the separation of home and work. The home came to be seen as a feminized realm and a place to retreat from the masculine world of work and public life (Spigel, 1992; Cowan, 1983). For the middle class, urban areas were segregated into masculine spaces of production and suburbanized feminine spaces of reproduction: feminine spaces assumed therefore not to be involved in processes of capitalist production and to be, in fact, “unproductive” [1].

The notion that in the industrialized Western world there was an ideal past in which the middle class home was free of crass market relations is mistaken though. Gambling was part of home life in colonial America and women actively participated [2]. Women in Victorian Britain took and made bets on the streets and in their homes; women identified in the press as ‘housewives’ left their homes in 1970s New York City to place bets at off-track betting facilities (OTBs). More recently, the feminized domestic sphere has also become, as David Morley points out, a place heavily “connected” to elsewhere through communication networks like the telephone and Internet, and may “no longer function for [many people] as a haven of peace and tranquility” [3], if, in fact, it ever did.

The movement of communication technologies into the home raises questions about the uses and gendering of domestic space and how its meanings have been contested in recent decades, including through betting from home. The arrival in the United States of practical home Internet connectivity in the late 1980s eventually made a number of activities once undertaken primarily in public and gendered as masculine, like gambling and stock market investing, part of domestic life. And today, Internet gambling is a huge business; it is as important and demanding of study as other popular uses of the Internet, like online gaming and status updating. Online gambling revenues were estimated to reach US$40 billion in 2014 (Statista, 2014). Betting on horse racing has played a significant role in the movement of gambling into the home through personal computers, laptops, and mobile devices, thereby contributing to an early twenty-first century panic over the flow of morally risky content and activities into and out of domestic space (see Kruse, 2011). Yet, the modern Western home is still understood as a feminine space of nurturing of children and spouses, and not a site of instrumental relations or production. Therefore, it is a site of tension in horse racing markets.



Pari-mutuel markets

The movement of gambling into the home has not been a sudden development. Gambling’s earlier movements to remote sites via communication and information networks presaged its current in-home popularity: usually public and semi-public sites primarily frequented by men. Most markets, including financial markets, have been moving away from in-person contact for some time. The shift to disembodied markets took hold in the nineteenth century with the advent and rapid spread of the telegraph (Carey, 1989). In fact, the telegraph played a central role in changing the operation of horse race betting. In the United States, the telegraph allowed the transmission of betting information to and from illegal nineteenth century ‘pool rooms’ or ‘horse rooms’ where gamblers gathered to get odds information, wager on races, and learn race results. The telephone eventually replaced the telegraph in relaying illegal bets and betting information. In the early twentieth century, on-track computers called totalizators allowed for quick calculation of odds and payoffs. In the late twentieth century, legal off-track betting facilities appeared. Betting sites were connected in networks to hubs, where betting information was pooled. By the end of the twentieth century, Internet connections linked bettors to wagering information and allowed them to bet, both legally and illegally, via online interfaces.

In the United States, most legal horse race betting is pari-mutuel (described further below), and in most cases its markets are terminal. A terminal market has a set end point. An online auction on eBay is terminal, with the time that the auction will close listed on its page. A horse race market closes when all of the horses are loaded into the starting gate for the race. A stock exchange is not a terminal market: buying and selling closes at the end of the day (although there are now markets that allow after-hours trading), and then starts where it left off when it opens the next day. This process continues indefinitely. Stock markets have rhythms over days, weeks, months, and years; but in horse race markets, the close of the market is almost always imminent because there are usually only 30 minutes between races at any track.

Pari-mutuel horse race betting markets are, however, quite similar to stock markets and other financial markets, because the prices are set by fellow participants. This makes pari-mutuel wagering different from most other forms of gambling where ‘the house’ — a casino, a state lottery commission, or a bookmaker, for example— sets the odds. Racing historians credit perfume shop owner Pierre Oller with inventing the pari-mutuel wagering system in France in 1865 [4]. When American centers of horse racing like Louisville, Kentucky outlawed bookmaking, a system in which bookies set fixed odds and took bets at those odds, it was replaced by pari-mutuel wagering. Industry leaders like Churchill Downs’ president Matt Winn believed the pari-mutuel to be a more “fair” system for placing and collecting bets [5]. Many observers in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century credited pari-mutuel wagering in the United States with helping to save horse racing.

Pari-mutuel odds are mutually determined among all people betting on a race, based on the horses on which people are betting and how much money is being bet. The odds reflect public expectation: in other words, the likelihood of a particular horse to win the race. Or, as Weitzman (1994) explains, the group of bettors collectively arrives “via a market type of mechanism at the return which each horse will pay” as each bettor “follows his or her personal motives or preferences” [6]. The opinion of the public is therefore reflected in the race payoffs. Those who bet on a horse that seems unlikely to win but does, in fact, win are rewarded for their risk.

Consequently, the horse race wagering public tends to demonstrate ‘the wisdom of crowds.’ Economists find that horses selected by bettors as those most likely to win — in other words, the favorites, the horses with the lowest odds — do win most often. Favorites win about one-third of the time. This statistic indicates that pari-mutuel bettors are exceptionally knowledgeable [7]. Moreover, their decisions are interdependent. There are always disparities in information held by players in pari-mutuel markets, perhaps especially in geographically dispersed, heterogeneous online markets. As players in a sequential game, pari-mutuel bettors make decisions about optimal actions based on what they know about the actions taken by preceding players, reflected in current odds. They assume that these players sometimes have more and sometimes less information than they do, and they make predictions about what they think the players that follow them will do. For instance, if they think that the late money will be placed on a horse that is already a short price, they may well avoid betting on that horse, or de-emphasize it in exotic bets like exactas and trifectas, because they expect a low pay-off if the horse wins.

In the terminal markets of horse race wagering, this chain of events leads bettors to wait to act until they have, they believe, the best possible information. One study found that most pari-mutuel betting occurs within the last four minutes before betting is stopped [8]. It makes sense for players to wait until almost the last second, because this allows them the most time to glean information from other bettors’ actions [9]. Bettors may, for example, want to see if there are ‘overlays’ — horses that their information tells them have higher probabilities of winning than the current odds suggest — and then try to get the best price.



Market technologies

Today the computers that mediate the complicated process through which odds are set — a process during which participants invest money, knowledge, time, and emotional labor — are still referred to as tote systems. Unlike early mechanical and electrical totalizators, however, contemporary computerized tote systems must manage betting information for hundreds of races from hundreds of locations in the course of a day, many of which are out-of-state or even out of the country. In the United States and elsewhere during the 1970s and 1980s, OTBs, which allowed bettors to wager at locations other than a racetrack, and intertrack wagering sites (ITWs), which allowed customers at one track to bet on races at another track, began to appear. By the early twenty-first century, more than 85 percent of money bet on races came from off-track locations [10].

By this time, pari-mutuel networks in the United States had greatly expanded as more states decided to allow account wagering, which enabled gamblers to place wagers from home and elsewhere using the telephone, interactive television, and the Internet. Bettors no longer needed to visit a facility and place a bet with a human teller, just as participants in financial markets no longer needed to be on site to trade. In some states, as of this writing, customers can bet through online services like TwinSpires.com and XPressBet, through interactive television and Internet services like the Television Games Network (TVG), and through telephone wagering services. Wagerers in some states can legally bet on races in Australia, Europe, South Africa, and Asia. Outside of the U.S., online services like HorsePlayerInteractive.com in Canada and Sky’s Sky Bet in Europe provide multi-channel account wagering.

The expansion of horse racing through inter-track and off-track wagering, both intra- and inter-state, initially proved successful for the racing industry, even as it cut into revenue from live racing. But the legal status of account wagering in the United States remains unclear. Providing horse race wagering online could prove problematic for companies — specifically, media companies, cable and satellite systems, Internet ventures, racetracks, and casinos — but online betting attracts younger gamblers, much desired by the racing industry [11].

The jumble of U.S. state laws governing horse race wagering, and the questionable legality of betting via the Internet, interactive TV, and the telephone is difficult to navigate. There are several states in which all off-track betting is illegal, and even more in which advance deposit account wagering is illegal. In an advance deposit wagering system, one opens an account and puts money into it, often by bank transfer. Money from the account is then used to place bets. Advance deposit wagering is a necessary component of legitimate online and interactive television wagering. The legality of pari-mutuel account wagering in any form in the United States, however, has not been definitively determined, at least as of 2016, because it has not been tested in the courts.

Opponents to expanded online wagering in particular, and account wagering in general, note that the Interstate Wire Act of 1961 made sending bets over telephone lines illegal. It was aimed at bookmakers associated with organized crime who used the telephone to send bets across state lines and national borders. In 1978, the U.S. Congress passed the Interstate Horse Racing Act, which allows the transmission of horse race simulcast signals across state lines if the states are in agreement. It also allows bets from OTBs and ITWs. The Act codified the practices of simulcasting that already existed. The language of the Horse Racing Act gave horse racing an exemption from the Wire Act. Some states interpret the Horse Racing Act to mean that telephone and Internet pari-mutuel account wagering is legal, as long as it is conducted in and among states where pari-mutuel wagering is legal [12].

Internet horse-race account wagering in the United States benefited in late 2006 when the Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act became law. The law, which prohibited the use of credit cards, bank fund transfers, and other financial transactions for online betting purposes, included an exemption for horse racing. Specifically, the law states that the definition of illegal online gambling “shall not include any activity that is allowed under the Interstate Horse Racing Act,” including pari-mutuel bets made across state lines using the telephone or another electronic device (Thoroughbred Times, 2006).



Gender, emotion, and horse race betting

Despite women’s long involvement in gambling and the expansion of digital systems into domestic and personal spaces that open up opportunities for betting, serious horse race wagering, as with most forms of gambling, is nevertheless framed as a masculine activity, involving complicated decision-making processes about finances. And in fact, according to a recent Kantar Media survey of gambling in the United Kingdom, men constitute 88 percent of regular monthly bettors who visit bookies, 77 percent of regular bettors who wager via computers, and 84 percent of such bettors who wager using mobile devices (Sinclair, 2014). Handicappers for racetracks, racing publications, and handicapping services in the United States and all other countries with which I am familiar (and many handicappers from around the world follow me on Twitter), are overwhelmingly male.

The high stakes and high-pressure environments and processes of pari-mutuel wagering mirror the environments and processes of finance, another traditionally masculine arena. Knights and Tullberg (2012) argue that traders and managers in financial markets, in emphasizing and embracing a masculinity defined by interwoven discourses of self-interested risk-taking, rationality, and autonomy, exist in an environment of “unadulterated masculine assertiveness” [13] that masks decision-making problems. A poster in the window of a TAB off-track betting facility that I visited in Brisbane, Australia underscored central discourses of masculine rationality in a financially risky environment by referring to TAB betting as “The Thinking Man’s Game.” (As usual when I visit off-track wagering sites, I was one of the very few women present.)

Yet despite discourses of rationality, in financial markets emotions heavily influence decision-making [14]. In fact, markets themselves are often said to have ‘moods.’ Notoriously, in 1996 then-United States Federal Reserve Board chair Alan Greenspan referred to the possibility of ‘irrational exuberance’ in the U.S. stock market. Shortly thereafter, stock market traders around the world reacted by selling stocks, pushing market prices downward (Weeks and Berry, 1997). In a way this example demonstrates what Ahmed (2004) argues in her discussion of affective economies — that emotions themselves act as capital; that they circulate and accrue value [15] — even when attached to (and helping to create) financial objects and actions. Betting on horse racing constitutes a form of emotional and immaterial labor for the horse racing industry, allowing it to profit on the racing product that is materially generated by, perhaps most visibly, the racehorses themselves. Moreover, betting in pari-mutuel contexts where odds emerge from technologically-mediated social interactions also counts as the kind of immaterial labor described by Jarrett (2016), in her discussion of Hardt and Negri’s book Empire (2000), as activity that uses “intellectual, cognitive or communication skills” to create “non-material products — code, data, ideas, interpersonal relations, knowledge — [and] has become an increasing source of value and central to market economics” [16]. Thus, despite its masculine coding, enhanced by its complex technological infrastructure, online betting involves a good deal of feminized labor.



Rescue and terminal markets

In contrast to the masculinity associated with gambling, the livestock auction lot serves as a ‘feminine’ site of emotional labor in horse racing markets in the United States, where activists use social media to provide caring resources to save retired racehorses from being sold to ‘kill buyers.’ These are buyers who purchase unwanted horses and then transport and sell them to slaughterhouses in Mexico or Canada. The unhappy fates of unwanted racehorses first became salient to many fans of the sport when they learned that top American racehorse Exceller, who had defeated Triple Crown winners Seattle Slew and Affirmed in the 1978 Jockey Club Gold Cup and had eventually gone to Europe to stand at stud, was killed in a Swedish slaughterhouse in 1997. Just a few years later, 1986 Kentucky Derby winner Ferdinand, who was sent to Japan to stand at stud in 1994, is assumed to have met the same fate (Nack, 2003). These two high-profile deaths helped inspire the formation of several Thoroughbred rescue groups, including the Exceller Fund and the Old Friends Equine Thoroughbred retirement facility, and raised general awareness of the problem of retired racehorses.

Scat Thief is another former racehorse — although he was not famous or overly accomplished, unlike Exceller and Ferdinand — who was headed for slaughter. Scat Thief didn’t race at the highest level of competition, although his sire, Cat Thief, won major races, including the 1999 Breeders’ Cup Classic. Still, Scat Thief won almost US$200,000 on the track. On the afternoon of 4 February 2012, Caroline Betts, an economics professor at the University of Southern California and founder of Southern California Thoroughbred Rescue (SCTR), posted to social network sites Facebook and Twitter that Scat Thief, identified while in a livestock sale pen by his lip tattoo, had shown up for auction at the Euclid Livestock Sale in Chino, California. This is a sale attended by kill buyers and is thus one at which volunteers often try to identify Thoroughbreds and then rescue the horses by outbidding kill buyers when possible. Photographs of Scat Thief on the auction grounds accompanied the initial tweets, and soon, Facebook posts. Scat Thief’s chestnut coat appeared shaggy, but he did not appear undernourished or abused.


Scat Thief on the auction lot
Figure 1: Scat Thief on the auction lot, from retiredracehorseblog.wordpress.com.


With Betts’ initial posts, the race against time to save Scat Thief from potential kill buyers was on. In a few hours, he would be out of the pen at the sales facility and in the auction ring. SCTR needed to raise not only money to buy him at the sale but also funds to pay for his care for a year. Without these funds, it could not feasibly rescue him because keeping even a single horse is quite expensive. In a sense, like horse race wagering, raising money to keep unwanted former racehorses from being sold at auction to kill buyers takes place in a terminal market. The market closes when the gavel comes down and the horse is sold. For horses sold to kill buyers, the market is terminal in more ways than one, and at two points in time: the horse’s fate is sealed when it leaves the auction ring, and its life is terminated after it arrives at the slaughterhouse.

In Scat Thief’s case, Thoroughbred supporters — primarily women — on Twitter retweeted the news about the horse. Betts and others used the Internet to get more information about him, which added to the developing story. Users documented when and where Scat Thief had last raced and last had a workout, who his last trainer was, who his previous owners and trainers had been, and how much some of his siblings had sold for at prestigious Thoroughbred auctions. In the end, SCTR tweeted that through the organization’s PayPal site, 30 people in 90 minutes had donated money to save Scat Thief, a “tribute to how much people care about our racehorses.” The donations proved to be unnecessary. Another rescue bought Scat Thief at the auction. Betts, who had individually thanked re-tweeters and donors throughout, offered to return the donations for Scat Thief. All those who responded publicly declined her offer.



Gender, rescue, emotion, labor

Scat Thief’s case illustrates how creating conversation and social connection, even online, is the sort of nurturing work that has often fallen to women [17]. Caring labor, overwhelmingly performed by women, is at the heart of online racehorse rescues. As Hardt and Negri argue, it is immaterial, affective labor that creates and maintains the connections required in social networks [18]. In animal rescue, connections are required not only to raise money and awareness and find adoptive homes, but to find foster homes and transportation — when dealing with horses who weigh a half-ton or more, fostering and even just transporting a horse can bring sizable expenses — and also for providing updates to people who followed and/or participated in the rescue. Expectations of substantive updates may be especially high if a former racehorse with an established following is involved, or if the horse was the victim in an abuse or neglect case covered by the news media.

The gendered nature of racehorse rescue is consistent with what we know about modern companion animal care and rescue overall. Not only were women prominent in the founding of humane movements in the West in the nineteenth century, their participation in animal-caring professions has grown enormously in recent decades [19]. In their study of dog rescue volunteers, Markovits and Queen found that women are the primary actors in rescue organizations and people involved in rescue are well aware of this fact. The researchers write that in dog rescue, “Women dominate all its facets, from its leaders to its foot soldiers. They do so — on the whole — with verve, enthusiasm, commitment, and with the perception that the benefits of this activity far outweigh its costs” [20].

A consideration of companion animal rescue work today must take into account the role that digital media play. Broadly, studying the intersection of new media, gender, and labor is essential to research on activity that relies on social networks and the investment of emotions. Jarrett (2016) posits the figure of the “Digital Housewife” — “whose cognitive and affective efforts in building and sustaining interpersonal relationships online, in communicating and coordinating activity with others” [21] — to represent the feminine/feminized individual who is expected to take on uncompensated online emotional labor. This figure is meant to bring to attention forms of labor traditionally left out of economic history [22]. The (primarily) women of racehorse rescue are the most notable “Digital Housewives” of the racehorse world.

The cognitive and affective efforts involved saving Scat Thief included circulating his photographic image in real time on Twitter and Facebook. Terranova (2004) argues for an understanding of images circulated in network culture as provoking autonomic responses, filtered through, but not entirely subsumed by, our social and cultural frames [23]. The photos of a lone, rather scraggly-looking horse in a faded halter, taken and sent using a mobile phone, combined with text indicating that this horse had earned quite a bit of money on the racetrack and was on an auction lot at a sale frequented by kill buyers, proved powerful. Scat Thief was now identifiable in a palpable way, coexisting in time and digital space with the ‘friends’ and ‘followers’ of SCTR. His physical presence, his body, marked by a Jockey Club identifying lip tattoo, gave him a narrative, one with a trajectory of rise and fall, and a mystery: where was he between his last workout in March 2010 and the day he appeared on the auction lot in February 2012? Because of his images and his story, Scat Thief became an inadvertent Internet micro-celebrity.

In rescue, the display of the animal body to stir emotion, whether positive in order to make the animal seem like a desirable pet for adoption or negative in order to inspire outrage and donations laying the groundwork for future adoption, is a common device. In the latter sort of display, sometimes the animal appears merely unkempt and alone, as in Scat Thief’s case, but sometimes the animals show marked signs of abuse or neglect. A month earlier, in Sabine Parish, Louisiana, authorities seized more than 60 emaciated horses at a Thoroughbred farm where they found the bodies of at least 25 dead horses, as well as the remains of other dead animals, including dogs found dead in their kennels. Several of the horses were too ill to survive and died within days or weeks of being rescued (Derry, 2012). Groups involved in the rescue — notably, Louisiana Horse Rescue Association (LHRA) and Remember Me Rescue (RMR) in Texas — posted photos of living and dead horses on the farm to their Web sites and Facebook pages. Most of the Thoroughbreds were identified by their lip tattoos, and many of the photos had captions with the horses’ official Jockey Club registered names.

One horse in particular caught the attention of Donna Keen of Remember Me Rescue: a horrifically skeletal, gray, 15-year-old mare named Be Bop Baby, whose initial condition was well documented in both photos and videos that Keen posted.


Be Bop Baby shortly after her rescue
Figure 2: Be Bop Baby shortly after her rescue, from www.teamkeen.com.


Initially, when Keen first went to Louisiana to pick up some of the horses from the seizure, Be Bop Baby was too weak to travel to Texas. After several days, however, Keen was able to pick up the horse in Louisiana and take her to Texas for rehabilitation. Hundreds of people followed Be Bop Baby’s progress. More than a year after the rescue, Remember Me Rescue’s Facebook page had almost 6,000 ‘likes.’


Be Bop Baby several months after rescue
Figure 3: Be Bop Baby several months after rescue, from www.teamkeen.com.


In fact, people followed the fates of many of the horses through the Facebook pages and Web sites of LHRA, RMR, and other groups, but Be Bop Baby’s image became emblematic of the horror of the abuses on the Louisiana farm, and the possibility of survival in the worst of situations. An ‘innocent’ animal, she had been subjected to great evil at the hands of humans, but her return to health, as chronicled online by Keen in photos and captions over the course of spring 2012, demonstrated the good that humans can do.

As we have seen, images help drive emotional labor on the Internet (Terranova, 2004). The images of Be Bop Baby, circulated online, motivated a significant response: expressions of horror at her initial images and expressions of happiness as her weight gain and healing was photographically documented. The power of the image, Dean states, is in “the kind of affect that it packs, the movements that it receives, inhibits, and/or transmits” [24]. The networks of affect created online, Dean argues, produce feelings of community, but not actual communities [25]. They do allow us, as Dean writes, to think of communication networks as more than just linked machines, but as “constitutively affective” [26].

At the same time, Dean claims that the circulation of content and emotion through affective networks displaces the possibility of creating real political networks. The affective labor expended in the process is, she argues, “already captured” by the institutional, ideological forces that generally control the means of expression and in whose interest it is to keep online users from connecting in a way that questions the hegemony [27]. In fact, one could argue that rescuing retired racehorses enables those who use these horses for profit and then send them to likely death in slaughterhouses to maintain the status quo. The rescuers help solve a pesky image problem for the racing industry, creating feel-good stories and saving the industry itself from having to get too financially involved in racehorse rescue.



Concluding thoughts

This exploration of digitally mediated horseracing markets shows that differently valued and gendered forms of emotional labor, that have been largely invisible to all but those involved, constitute both the important and parallel markets of online betting and racehorse rescue. However, unlike the work done in pari-mutuel markets by bettors, the work of information dissemination, of emotional expression and maintenance, and of physical rescue of horses is femininely gendered, offers little or no financial payoff but has real material effects. As many observers celebrate the power of affectively constituted networks to bring people together and solve problems, we must also consider the power of networks to reinforce traditional roles and notions of value within systems of control. At the same time, as Jarrett (2014) argues, “the social cooperation of users and the regimes of affect involved in digital media are always in excess of commodification and the capitalist labor process. This excess is potentially disruptive” [28]. Racehorse rescuers’ use of social media to circulate the images and stories of unwanted horses has made the problem more visible to racing fans, and has created at least the possibility for change in the racing industry. End of article


About the author

Holly Kruse is an associate professor in the Department of Communications at Rogers State University. Her research has been published in journals including New Media & Society, Popular Music, and the Journal of Sport and Social Issues. She is the author of Off-track and online: The networked spaces of horse racing (MIT Press, 2016), and Site and sound: Understanding independent music scenes (Peter Lang, 2003).
E-mail: hkruse [at] rsu [dot] edu



1. Jarrett, 2016, p. 59; Spain, 1992, p. 7.

2. Schwartz, 2006, p. 142.

3. Morley, 2000, p. 57.

4. Riess, 2011, p. 35.

5. Riess, 2011, p. 90.

6. Weitzman, 1994, p. 49.

7. Thaler and Ziemba, 1994, p. 256.

8. Plott, et al., 2003, p. 341.

9. Plott, et al., 2003, p. 346.

10. LaMarra, 2006, p. 62.

11. McManus, et al., 2013, p. 40.

12. Christiansen, 2000, pp. 18–20.

13. Knights and Tullberg, 2012, p. 390.

14. Peterson, 2007, p. 70.

15. Ahmed, 2004, p. 120.

16. Jarrett, 2016, p. 30.

17. Hardt and Negri, 2000, p. 274.

18. Hardt and Negri, 2000, p. 293.

19. Markovits and Queen, 2009, p. 326.

20. Markovits and Queen, 2009, p. 340.

21. Jarrett, 2016, p. 9.

22. Jarrett, 2016, p. 4.

23. Terranova, 2004, p. 152.

24. Dean, 2012, p. 38.

25. Dean, 2012, p. 22.

26. Dean, 2012, p. 37.

27. Dean, 2012, pp. 41–42.

28. Jarrett, 2014, p. 26.



Sara Ahmed, 2004. “Affective economies,” Social Text, volume 22, number 2, pp. 117–139.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/01642472-22-2_79-117, accessed 6 September 2016.

James W. Carey, 1989. Communication as culture: Essays on media and society. Boston: Unwin Hyman.

Eugene M. Christiansen, 2000. “Internet gambling and the law,” paper presented at the annual meeting of the Harness Tracks of America (Fort Myers, Fla., 4 March).

Ruth S. Cowan, 1983. More work for mother: The ironies of household technology from the open hearth to the microwave. New York: Basic Books.

Jodi Dean, 2012. “Affective networks,” Media Tropes, volume 2, number 2, pp. 19–44, and at http://www.mediatropes.com/index.php/Mediatropes/article/view/11932, accessed 6 September 2016.

Jim Derry, 2012. “Mistreated horses brought to St. Tammany Parish to recover,” New Orleans Times-Picayune (12 January), at http://www.nola.com/pets/index.ssf/2012/01/mistreated_horses_brought_to_s.html, accessed 18 July 2014.

Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, 2000. Empire. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Kylie Jarrett, 2016. Feminism, labour and digital media: The digital housewife. New York: Routledge.

Kylie Jarrett, 2014. “The relevance of ‘women’s work’: Social reproduction and immaterial labor in digital media,” Television & New Media, volume 15, number 1, pp. 14–29.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1527476413487607, accessed 6 September 2016.

David Knights and Maria Tullberg, 2012. “Managing masculinity/mismanaging the corporation,” Organization, volume 19, number 4, pp. 385–404.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1350508411408170, accessed 6 September 2016.

Holly Kruse, 2011. “The place of Internet gambling: Presence, vice, and domestic space,” In: Miyase Christensen, André Jansson, and Christian Christensen (editors). Online territories: Globalization, mediated practice, and social space. New York: Peter Lang, pp. 75–88.

Tom LaMarra, 2006. “The arrival of intertrack wagering,” In: Staff of Blood-Horse Publications (editors). Horse racing’s top 100 moments. Lexington, Ky.: Blood-Horse Publications, pp. 62–65.

Andrei S. Markovits and Robin Queen, 2009. “Women and the world of dog rescue: A case study of the state of Michigan,” Society and Animals, volume 17, number 4, pp. 325–342.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/106311109X12474622855147, accessed 6 September 2016.

Phil McManus, Glenn Albrecht, and Raewyn Graham (editors), 2013. The global horse racing industry: Social, economic, environmental, and ethical perspectives. New York: Routledge.

David Morley, 2000. Home territories: Media, mobility and identity. New York: Routledge.

William Nack, 2003. “‘No, not again!’” ESPN (5 August), at http://espn.go.com/horse/columns/misc/1589423.html, accessed 19 July 2014.

Richard L. Peterson, 2007. “Affect and financial decision-making: How neuroscience can inform market participants,” Journal of Behavioral Finance, volume 8, number 2, pp. 70–78.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15427560701377448, accessed 6 September 2016.

Charles Plott, Jorgen Wit, and Winston C. Yang, 2003. “Pari-mutuel betting markets as information aggregation devices: Experimental results,” Economic Theory, volume 22, number 2, pp. 311–351.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00199-002-0306-7, accessed 6 September 2016.

Steven A. Riess, 2011. The sport of kings and the kings of crime: Horse racing, politics, and organized crime in New York, 1865–1913. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press.

David G. Schwartz, 2006. Roll the bones: The history of gambling. New York: Gotham Books.

Emma Sinclair, 2014. “Grand national: The real reason why men love betting and women loathe it,” Telegraph (5 April), at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/10744193/Grand-National-2014- The-real-reason-why-men-love-betting-and-women-loathe-it.html, accessed 31 March 2016.

Daphne Spain, 1992. Gendered spaces. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Lynn Spigel, 1992. Make room for TV: Television and the family ideal in postwar America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Statista, 2014. “Size of the online gaming market from 2003 to 2015,” at http://www.statista.com/statistics/270728/market-volume-of-online-gaming-worldwide, accessed 18 July 2014.

Tiziana Terranova, 2004. Network culture: Politics for the information age. London: Pluto Press.

Richard H. Thaler and William T. Ziemba, 1994. “Pari-mutuel betting markets: Racetracks and lotteries,” In: Donald B. Hausch, Victor S.Y. Lo, and William T. Ziemba (editors). Efficiency of racetrack betting markets. San Diego, Calif.: Academic Press, pp. 255–268.

Thoroughbred Times, 2006. “Bush signs Internet gambling bill that exempts horse racing” (13 October), at http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/national-news/2006/october/13/bush-signs-internet-gambling-bill-that-exempts-horse-racing.aspx, accessed 29 December 2015.

Linton Weeks and John M. Berry, 1997. ”The shy wizard of money,” Washington Post (24 March), p. A1, and at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/longterm/fed/greenspan/profile.htm, accessed 6 September 2016.

Martin Weitzman, 1994. “Utility analysis and group behavior: An empirical study,” In: Donald B. Hausch, Victor S.Y. Lo, and William T. Ziemba (editors). Efficiency of racetrack betting markets. San Diego, Calif.:: Academic Press, pp. 47–55.


Editorial history

Received 5 September 2016; accepted 6 September 2016.

Creative Commons License
“Terminal markets: Gender and online horse racing economies” by Holly Kruse is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Terminal markets: Gender and online horse racing economies
by Holly Kruse
First Monday, Volume 21, Number 10 - 3 October 2016
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v21i10.6952

A Great Cities Initiative of the University of Illinois at Chicago University Library.

© First Monday, 1995-2019. ISSN 1396-0466.