Explanation of Steward's Decisions

[ALostTexan]

I am working on a paper for a Racing Regulation class at the University of Arizona Race Track Industry Program, and would like to hear some opinions on the topic. I am not asking the board to write a paper for me or anything, although I might try to include the opinions on here in the paper, but more than anything I am just curious if my opinions match other horseplayers.

By the way, I know that there were a few posts on message boards last summer from someone claiming to be in the program that wasn't that caused a big uproar, but I assure you that I am a student down here, and loving every minute of it.

Anyway, our assignment is to re-write a state statute or administrative rule regarding some area of racing regulation to change the rule. I want to cover a topic that I really believe in, and that is the explanation of a Steward's decision to change the outcome of the race. For this, I am probably going to look at the rules in California and Florida that relate to making public their decisions in contested case hearings (California) as well as the rule in Florida that mandates that the Stewards submit a document that explains any rule violations during the running of races for that day.

My problem with all of this is that the public still doesn't have a good explanation of the reasons why the stewards did or did not take down a horse. An example of this is the Lexington Stakes over the past weekend. I really though that Square Eddie should have been taken down, and many people that I have talked to agree. Yet the Stewards didn't, and I would like to hear why they didn't.

I am proposing that the Stewards should have to explain the reasons behind their decisions and walk through the video of the event if there is an objection or inquiry. Following this, they should have to prepare a report to be made public for a set amount of time (probably as long as the pari-mututel tickets are valid for that state), which is available on the State Racing Commission website as well as the ARCI website (as in the spirit of this Paulick Report post). This should not be a huge financial investment for the racetracks or the Racing Commissions, and if transparency is supposed to be the rule for racing, then I think that this should be implemented.

I would like to hear the opinions of DerbyTrail'ers on this topic. I think that most everyone would agree, but what reasons would you have against such a rule? Again, just curious about the opinions from other horseplayers on a topic like this.

Thanks for the input.

[ezgoerbaby]

I would not be against such a rule. I think they should have to explain themselves, but I think they made the right call on Square Eddie over the weekend. I recently read some past articles about the Codex/Genuine Risk Preakness and the ensuing appeals about it...very interesting stuff.

[GBBob]

You ask any athlete in any professional sport what they ask more most from officials and officiating and it's consistancy....over time, between different crews, etc. Almost every aspect of racing suffers from variances in rules, take outs, ADWs, etc. State to State and track to track and stewards are no different. I understand it is very difficult to have hard and fast rules for what determines a horse being taken down, but guidelines should be published, explained and be consistant across the country.

There will always be the human element in any form of officiating, but these guys get Instant Replay with EVERY call and there are far too many calls still.

oh..and to answer your question.....everything you discuss and propose makes perfect sense.

[the_fat_man]

This would be similar to SPECIAL OLYMPIANS explaining themselves. Who can get into the mind of an idiot?
Moreover, how many in the racing public pool actually have a clue when it comes to watching races? Ever check out some of the comments on these forums? So, it would be a case of SPECIAL OLYMPIANS providing explanations to SPECIAL OLYMPIANS. This can work.

We don't need EXPLANATIONS from the stewards, we need MORE SKILLED stewards. There's a dearth of good trip handicappers out there, I realize, but EVERY SINGLE ONE of them is better at watching races than ANY of the stewards out there. Of course, probably none of them has graduated from a stewards program. Oh yeah.

Yet another intractable problem in racing. Stewards' decisions are just another way to lose.

I wonder how many decisions are made on tickets the stewards have?

Oh I'm being silly. Stewards have never gambled on races they preside over. Nvmd.

[Holland Hacker]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

This would be similar to SPECIAL OLYMPIANS explaining themselves. Who can get into the mind of an idiot?
Moreover, how many in the racing public pool actually have a clue when it comes to watching races? Ever check out some of the comments on these forums? So, it would be a case of SPECIAL OLYMPIANS providing explanations to SPECIAL OLYMPIANS. This can work.

We don't need EXPLANATIONS from the stewards, we need MORE SKILLED stewards. There's a dearth of good trip handicappers out there, I realize, but EVERY SINGLE ONE of them is better at watching races than ANY of the stewards out there. Of course, probably none of them has graduated from a stewards program. Oh yeah.

Yet another intractable problem in racing. Stewards' decisions are just another way to lose.

Dear Fat Man,

I am totally offended by your post. Being the parent of a "special" child whom you prefer to call an "IDIOT" is very bothersome to me.
I only the wish that the rest of the world could be as PERFECT as you.

In the future please try and keep you biases against "Special Needs" people under wraps. Thank you in advance

HH

[GenuineRisk]

The only rationales I can see for not requiring stewards to explain rulings are A) too time consuming and B) to protect them and the racetrack from having to justify the bad decisions. Neither of which I think are valid. Yes, they should have to explain the decisions and if they did, you'd probably see more consistency in decision-making pretty quickly.

[Honu]

Originally Posted by ALostTexan

I am working on a paper for a Racing Regulation class at the University of Arizona Race Track Industry Program, and would like to hear some opinions on the topic. I am not asking the board to write a paper for me or anything, although I might try to include the opinions on here in the paper, but more than anything I am just curious if my opinions match other horseplayers.

By the way, I know that there were a few posts on message boards last summer from someone claiming to be in the program that wasn't that caused a big uproar, but I assure you that I am a student down here, and loving every minute of it.

Anyway, our assignment is to re-write a state statute or administrative rule regarding some area of racing regulation to change the rule. I want to cover a topic that I really believe in, and that is the explanation of a Steward's decision to change the outcome of the race. For this, I am probably going to look at the rules in California and Florida that relate to making public their decisions in contested case hearings (California) as well as the rule in Florida that mandates that the Stewards submit a document that explains any rule violations during the running of races for that day.

My problem with all of this is that the public still doesn't have a good explanation of the reasons why the stewards did or did not take down a horse. An example of this is the Lexington Stakes over the past weekend. I really though that Square Eddie should have been taken down, and many people that I have talked to agree. Yet the Stewards didn't, and I would like to hear why they didn't.

I am proposing that the Stewards should have to explain the reasons behind their decisions and walk through the video of the event if there is an objection or inquiry. Following this, they should have to prepare a report to be made public for a set amount of time (probably as long as the pari-mututel tickets are valid for that state), which is available on the State Racing Commission website as well as the ARCI website (as in the spirit of this Paulick Report post). This should not be a huge financial investment for the racetracks or the Racing Commissions, and if transparency is supposed to be the rule for racing, then I think that this should be implemented.

I would like to hear the opinions of DerbyTrail'ers on this topic. I think that most everyone would agree, but what reasons would you have against such a rule? Again, just curious about the opinions from other horseplayers on a topic like this.

Thanks for the input.

I can only give a perspective from someone who rode races and went to review films with the stewards and other jockeys.
At each race track I rode at, as a rider you usually knew what the stewards expected from you during the running of a race.
Stewards in Arizona were very strict and it has only been within the last 10 years that they implemented the term "it did not affect the outcome of the race" .
It used to be that if you did not maintain a straight course esp. in the lane you were taken down , if you were 3 wide going into the turn and the guy on the rail was getting pinched and you didnt relieve pressure you could be in trouble for that as well. If you didnt show proper and real effort to keep your horse straight you would be taken down.
The problem is that the betting public is just that , the only way they see a foul is if it affected their ticket in some way , they really dont look at it from a safety or rules standpoint , which is understandable they dont have to.
Often times a rider can be called in for something that didnt affect any of the first 4 finishers and get days for being careless , or they can intimidate another horse but if said horse was stopping their number will stay up even if it is a clear violation of the failure to maintain a straight course rule.
Every track has house rules , some places give you one jump to correct a horse out of the gate and some places give you none or 3 , just depends on how strict the stewards are.
I do see a point in having the stewards explain the reason for taking down or not taking down a horse and usually the track announcer is told what to tell the public. Also usually there is a place in the grandstand that is available to the public that lists rulings and a brief reason why action was taken.
To me , maybe the public should be given the rules of running a race so they know what is an infraction and what isnt that way they know what to expect.
Still it is up to the judges as to how they expect the riders to conduct themselves in the race some are strict and some are not , just depends where you are.

[Holland Hacker]

Personally I think it would be helpful to have the stewards post their reasoning for taking or not taking action as the case may be. The thing that bothers me the most is the lack of consistency put forth by the Stewards, even in the same racing jurisdiction.

I know it would be a "cure all" but it would be helpful to understand why they made a partuclar decision.