Disqualification Rules Hot Topic at Upcoming Meetings

Months after Maximum Security became the first horse in Kentucky Derby history to be disqualified from victory for interference during the race, an influential international committee on rules soon will meet in the United States to discuss a standard that many believe, if it had been in place, would have let his victory stand.

The International Harmonization of Racing Rules Committee plans to meet Aug. 9 in Saratoga Springs, N.Y. The meeting will allow its members and chairman Kim Kelly to explain and campaign for the "Category 1" standard on interference—more specifically, when disqualifications should occur because of interference—in place throughout most of the racing world.

The U.S. and Canada continue to use the "Category 2" standard, where, after stewards determine a foul has occurred, they then determine whether that foul cost the horse who suffered the infraction a better placing. If so, the horse that interfered is disqualified and placed behind the horse, or horses, that were fouled. Under the Category 1 standard, when it's been determined interference has occurred, stewards will declare a disqualification if they conclude the horse that suffered the foul would have finished ahead of the horse that caused the interference.

To put it in terms of this year's Kentucky Derby Presented by Woodford Reserve (G1), once the stewards determined Maximum Security had directly and indirectly fouled War of Will, Long Range Toddy, and Bodexpress, they then determined—acting under the Category 2 standard—that those horses likely would have had better placings if not for the foul and placed Maximum Security 17th, behind the last of the fouled horses, Long Range Toddy.

The Category 1 standard doesn't change how interference is defined. Rather, it redefines how the interference affected the outcome and when disqualification should occur. Returning to this year's Derby as an example, once the stewards determined Maximum Security had interfered with War of Will, Long Range Toddy, and Bodexpress, if they'd been under the Category 1 standard, they would then determine whether those affected horses would have finished ahead of Maximum Security if not for the foul. Under that standard, if they determine Maximum Security would have finished ahead of each of those horses even if the interference hadn't occurred, he would not have been disqualified. 

In short, under Category 2, horses are disqualified if the interference cost a fouled horse a better placing in the race—for instance, the fouled horse would have finished third instead of fourth if not for the foul. Under Category 1, a horse that commits an interference foul gets disqualified if it is determined it finished ahead of the fouled horse only because of the interference. 

In practice, the Category 1 standard results in far fewer disqualifications. Most countries that adopt it also put sanctions in place for riders when it's determined a horse committed interference but it's not a foul that meets the standard for disqualification.

The upcoming IHRRC meeting is part of a joint session with both the model rules committee of the Association of Racing Commissioners International meeting Aug. 8-9 in Saratoga Springs and a Racing Officials Accreditation Program continuing education course there the same two days. The IHRRC meeting already has 70 regulators and stewards committed to attending, and committee members from the international group will attend the model rules committee meeting and ROAP meeting. The IHRRC also will be present at The Jockey Club Round Table Conference on Matters Pertaining to Racing Aug. 11.

IHRRC chairman Kelly is looking forward to the opportunity to inform many of the U.S. rule makers, stewards, and power brokers about the Category 1 standard.

"I hope that the meetings and the Round Table presentation will be the springboard for North America to eventually adopt the Category 1 Interference Rule as this will result in every major racing jurisdiction operating under the same rule," Kelly said. "Whilst I fully accept that the process may not necessarily be an easy one, I am convinced that it is achievable and will do whatever possible to see the racing world harmonized on this critical rule."

North America became a Category 2 island after the International Federation of Horseracing Authorities (the full organization of which the IHRRC is one committee) adopted the Category 1 standard as its model in 2017. After that, France and Germany changed from Category 2 to Category 1, leaving the U.S., Canada, and Turkey as the remaining Category 2 countries. Kelly expects Turkey to soon change to Category 1.

The full 11-member IHRRC is expected to make the trip to Saratoga Springs. They'll attend all the meetings and provide insight as requested. 

"This is an incredible number given that we are still some weeks away from the meeting and indicates to me that there is considerable interest in the work of the committee," Kelly said. "In particular, I think it supports that there is more than a passing interest in the Category 1 protest/objection philosophy, how it operates, and how it is applied."

While planning for the joint meetings has been in place well before this year's Derby, a note on the ARCI model rules committee's agenda notes the timeliness of the issue: "The events of the 2019 running of the Kentucky Derby raise the question as to the current policies." 

Because regulation of horse racing in the U.S. occurs at the state level, the ARCI is a regulatory group that passes model rules with an aim toward consistency from state to state in oversight of the sport. When a model rule is passed, the group advocates adoption of the rule by its member jurisdictions.

ROAP's position on the two standards has been one of understanding the two approaches to better assist stewards if a change does happen. ROAP, which accredits stewards, has not taken a formal position on either philosophy.

Regulators and racing leaders have some familiarity with the different approaches. For instance, after the IFHA adopted the model rule calling for the Category 1 standard in 2017, it was outlined at that year's ARCI conference in Charleston, S.C.

In the U.S., the Thoroughbred Idea Foundation has advocated for the Category 1 standard, believing it's easier to understand and would reduce frustration among bettors and owners. 

"Adopting Category 1 across North America would yield a sport with a greater understanding of how a race is adjudicated," wrote the TIF in support of Category 1. TIF executive director Pat Cummings is encouraged to see more discussion of the Category 1 approach.

"The topic is being discussed by more people than it ever has before; I think that's unquestionable," Cummings said. "(The IHRRC) is a worldwide committee with representation from all over the sport. The fact that they're having a committee meeting in Saratoga, where the role of Category 1 and potential for a more uniform adjudication process for our customers will be discussed—that's a great thing."

The Category 1 Standard will be further examined in the Aug. 3 issue of BloodHorse Magazine.