Evidence for
The Altered Pick 6 Behind the 2002 Breeders’ Cup Jackpot

Companion notes

2002 Breeders’ Cup Pick 6 Betting Fraud Investigation

The official record shows that the 2002 Breeders’ Cup races at Arlington Park produced a jackpot-winning Pick 6 ticket later tied to a federal fraud inquiry centered on Chris Harn, Derrick Davis, and Glen DaSilva. Contemporary reporting and the later case history establish charges, guilty pleas, and sentencing, while leaving no credible basis for the competing claim that the ticket was simply the product of ordinary luck.

The Paper Trail & Official Records

The documentary record begins with the Breeders’ Cup at Arlington Park in Arlington Heights, Illinois, on October 26, 2002, and moves quickly into the paper trail generated by the winning Pick 6 ticket and the ensuing federal inquiry. Contemporary sports reporting and later reference accounts consistently identify the same three men—Chris Harn, Derrick Davis, and Glen DaSilva—as the focus of the investigation, and describe the criminal case as proceeding in federal court in White Plains, New York. The reporting also places the alleged scheme within the wagering infrastructure of Catskill OTB and Autotote, rather than in the racecourse itself. [S1], [S2]

The official and quasi-official records reflected in the public reporting are unusually concrete: investigators said Davis phoned in the Breeders’ Cup Pick 6 wager through Catskill OTB in Pomona, New York, while Harn, an Autotote programmer, allegedly used his access to alter that wager after the first four races had already been run. Those same reports note that Volponi won the Breeders’ Cup Classic as a longshot, triggering the jackpot outcome. Autotote’s internal questioning of Harn and his subsequent firing became part of the record trail that corroborated the seriousness of the inquiry. [S1], [S2]

Forensic Chronology & Turning Points

The timeline matters because it shows the scheme, as investigators understood it, was not a vague after-the-fact dispute but a sequence of identifiable acts. On October 26, 2002, the races were run and the suspicious ticket later linked to Davis became the only jackpot-winning Ultra Pick 6 entry after Volponi’s upset in the final race. In the days that followed, inquiries expanded across New York and Delaware, with track officials, law enforcement, and Autotote personnel all examining the wagering record and Harn’s login activity. That chronology culminated in federal charges filed in White Plains against Harn, Davis, and DaSilva. [S1], [S2]

The subsequent milestones are equally important for what they prove procedurally. Between November 20 and December 11, 2002, the three men pleaded guilty in White Plains, removing the case from the realm of mere accusation and into adjudicated admissions. By March 20, 2003, sentencing completed the federal case’s core arc. This sequence is corroborated by contemporary reporting and later summaries, which together show a closed criminal matter rather than an unresolved allegation. [S1], [S2]

Evidentiary Boundaries & Negative Findings

The evidentiary boundary is clear: the public record establishes a suspicious altered-wager scheme, federal charges, guilty pleas, and sentencing, but it does not support any innocent-luck narrative as a substantiated explanation for the jackpot. The sources describe investigators’ account that Harn changed the ticket after the first four races and that Davis held the only winning ticket, a combination that is incompatible with a mere coincidence theory. In that sense, the claim that the result was simply legitimate luck is not borne out by the contemporaneous record or the later case history. [S1], [S2]

At the same time, this record layer should not overstate what the sources themselves prove. The reporting identifies the defendants, the altered wagering process, and the ultimate guilty pleas, but it does not require the reader to infer facts beyond the documented case posture. It is appropriate to say the scheme was investigated and admitted in court; it is not appropriate to recast every detail as independently proved beyond the charges and pleas already on the public record. The negative finding is therefore narrow but important: no credible contemporaneous source here substantiates the defense that the winning ticket was merely accidental. [S1], [S2]

Source key

The associated evidence packet contains visible source URLs, source roles and the complete claim ledger.