Industry Voices: N. American Race Judging Can Improve

Over the past several weeks, social media posts and articles in the North American trade press have raised substantial concerns about the stewards' decisions made upon the second division of the New York Stallions Series Stakes Dec. 16 at Aqueduct Racetrack. As a former chief stipendiary steward for The Hong Kong Jockey Club, I am loathe to question the judgment of my colleagues, so I am writing to the North American audience with an appeal for a better system of judging races.

In 2007 the International Federation of Horseracing Authorities created the International Harmonisation of Racing Rules Committee (a committee that I chair) after recognizing that the ever-increasing coverage of horse racing around the world had accelerated international betting, which highlighted the inherent problems associated with differing rules of racing and the interpretation and application of those rules being difficult for bettors and racing participants to comprehend and accept.  

The IFHA identified that racing could not run the risk of customers and supporters becoming disenfranchised by differing and conflicting decisions being made by racing regulators depending on the jurisdiction where the race was conducted. Hence, the committee has committed to every major racing jurisdiction adopting what is commonly referred to as the "Category 1" protest/objection (interference) rule. Over the past 10 years, several substantial racing countries, including France, Germany, Japan, and across South America, have adopted Category 1.

Category 1 provides that if a horse that causes interference finishes in front of the horse it interfered with, but irrespective of the incident(s), the stewards form the view the sufferer would not have finished ahead of the horse causing the interference, and the placings of the race remain unaffected. 

The United States of America (with one state a lone exception) and Canada are the only racing jurisdictions operating under a different interference interpretation, which is commonly known as "Category 2." This interpretation provides that if the interferer causes interference and such interference has affected the result of the race then the interferer is placed behind the sufferer irrespective of whether the stewards believed the sufferer would have finished in front of the interferer had the incident(s) not occurred.

Recently, the matter of Category 1 versus Category 2 was discussed by a panel at the Global Symposium on Racing in Tucson, Ariz. I shared my experience assisting in global harmonization efforts, which includes training stewards from Oklahoma—the only U.S. state to adopt the Category 1 rules—during their implementation period in 2022. Some 90 minutes prior to the panel discussion, the Jockeys' Guild issued a statement confirming their support for racing to continue to operate under the Category 2 rule. Setting aside the curious timing of the release there are a number of points raised in the release that require comment in order for the public and racing participants to be aware of the facts.

Firstly, the Guild applies its comments to both Thoroughbred and Quarter Horse racing. The IABRW applies to Thoroughbreds, the only breed defined in the document. Further, the IFHA's mission statement refers solely to Thoroughbred racing. Whilst I respect Quarter Horse racing and the breed in general, given the paucity of international competition in Quarter Horse racing and the relatively low percentage of national betting handle (2.8% in 2022), I will confirm my comments in this article to Thoroughbred racing only.

The Guild's statement implies that rider safety and horse welfare will be compromised by the adoption of Category 1 with it creating a racing environment that could potentially lead to more hazardous riding styles. This contention is not supported by the experiences of the Japan Racing Association and France Galop, the two largest racing jurisdictions to have adopted Category 1 in recent years, and who host some of the most important and scrutinized races in the world. 

Rather than witnessing an increase in racing incidents that have attracted a penalty being issued against the offending jockey, both those countries have experienced a significant reduction in the applicable riding offenses. Both jurisdictions have also witnessed significant reductions in the number of racing incidents that necessitated an inquiry being conducted with a corresponding reduction in the number of placing amendments. 

In 2010, which predates the implementation of Category 1 during 2013, the Japan Racing Association issued 46 suspensions for careless riding offenses. The number of breaches fell significantly to 18 during 2022, a reduction of 61%. It is noteworthy that for the same period, the number of inquiries and changes of placings fell off the cliff, from 258 to just two and from 32 to only one, respectively. Further, the number of horses outright disqualified—that is, stricken from the race entirely as a result of dangerous riding—reduced from seven to none.

The experience in France is somewhat similar following the introduction of Category 1, with the number of careless riding suspensions falling from 256 in 2016 to 233 in 2021. Similar to the Japan outcomes, the number of inquiries fell from 319 to 211 and changes of placings reduced from 49 to 14 in 2021 as compared to 2016. Whilst the number of disqualifications as a result of interference rose marginally from 19 to 23 during the same period, this represents a total of just 0.48% across the 4,746 races conducted during 2021.

An objective assessment of these figures cannot support a contention that races conducted under Category 2 are safer than those conducted under Category 1. 

With great importance, it must also be remembered that the aforementioned model rule contains a provision for authorities to disqualify a horse in circumstances in which a rider has ridden in a "win at all costs" manner, which seriously compromises the safety and welfare of other horses and riders. Authorities can amend penalty structures for careless riding to allay any unfounded concerns regarding a potential increase in interference in races.

Finally, please note that neither Category 1 or 2 remedies all issues associated with how the placings of a race are finalized when interference has occurred. Neither is perfect, but one adjudication method is more perfect than the other. And it is the rule to which every major racing jurisdiction—outside North America—subscribes.