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.