If a leading horse, or any other horse in a race, swerves or is ridden to either side so as to interfere with or intimidate or impede any other horse or jockey, or to cause same, it is a foul.
- The rules clearly state, “If a leading horse, or any other horse in a race, swerves or is ridden to either side so as to interfere with or intimidate or impede any other horse or jockey, or to cause same, it is a foul,” and “any offending horses may be disqualified …”
What are some horse racing terms?
Marathon: A race longer than 1 ¼ miles long. Mare: A female horse aged five or older. Middle distance: A race longer than seven furlongs but shorter than 1 1/8 miles. Miler: A horse that prefers to race at or near a mile in distance.
What is a breeze in horse racing?
Breeze: Working a horse at a moderate speed; less effort than handily. Bullet work: The best workout time for the distance on a given day at a track.
What is a bumper in horse racing?
A bumper race is simply a race without jumps that is run at a National Hunt meet. The reason for a bumper race is to familiarise horses with running at racecourses without adding the further strain of them needing to jump hurdles or fences. Once a horse has run one bumper they might run more, or progress to jumps.
What is the best bet to make in horse racing?
The win bet should be the key bet, especially for newcomers. Takeout (the amount of money that goes to the track that is not returned to bettors) for win, place, and show bets is less than most exotic bets. Most importantly, don’t bet two or more horses to win in the same race.
What does off the bridle mean in racing?
A horse being pushed along by its jockey to keep up with the pace is said to be “off the bridle”.
What does B mean in horse racing?
– between numbers indicate year separation (i.e. left of this is from a previous year) / between numbers indicates a season separation (i.e. left of this is from the season before last) B – brought down.
How do you tell if a horse is a closer?
In my analysis, a closer is a horse that comes from between about five and seven lengths off the lead. A deep closer is anything more than that, like Breeders’ Cup Marathon and Brooklyn Handicap winner, Calidoscopio.
What is a roughy horse?
Roughie: A horse at long odds which is considered to have only a remote chance of winning a race.
What does let down mean in horse racing?
Letting down is a term that means the horse’s muscles, organs and mind can relax. Most importantly, it gives the horses digestive system some time to adjust to a new diet that is not as high in energy.
What does Listed mean in horse racing?
In horse racing, a Listed race is a race at a level just below Group level or, in other words, three steps down from the highest level, Group One, in terms of quality. No minimum official rating is required to run in a Listed race but, nonetheless Listed races are considered more prestigious than handicap races.
What is a black type race?
So what is a black type race? Well, put simply it is a race of high pedigree that, if a horse wins, means its name will be printed in bold black type on racing and breeding reports. This means buyers and stud owners can more easily identify ‘better’ horses when bidding for them at auction.
What does class 5 mean in horse racing?
Class 2 – Official Ratings range from 86-100, 91-105, 96-110. Class 3 – Official Ratings range from 76-90 and 81-95. Class 4 – Official Ratings range from 66-80 and 71-85. Class 5 – Official Ratings range from 56-70 and 61-75. Class 6 – Official Ratings range from 46-60 and 51-65.
What percentage of horse racing Favourites win?
On average favorites win about 35% of horse races. But, that win percentage can fluctuate based on the distance, surface, class, etc. For example, favorites are more likely to win dirt races than turf races.
What post position wins the most in horse racing?
Post Position 1 1 has produced the winner most times since 1900 with 12. Only one horse, Ferdinand in 1986, has won the race from the first post position since 1964.
How often do 100 1 horses win?
On average the strike rate is around 0.3% so it is expected that there will be many runners, but few winners to get back to that level. Out of all those runners only R Hannon has had two 100/1 winners. One jockey has had three 100/1 winners.
Is a foul a foul?
Despite being 4,500 miles apart and 2,071 miles apart, two of the most important races in the world—the $5 million 2014 Breeders’ Cup Classic at Santa Anita and the $3 million Kentucky Derby at Churchill Downs—were faced with a similar quandary: whether or not interference in the races occurred, and if so, whether or not the disqualification of the winning horse was justified. If both sets of stewards had followed the same set of regulations, it would have been much easier to make those extremely tough judgments that affected all of the horses’ connections as well as the millions of bettors and spectators across the world, wouldn’t you agree?
The inconsistency of regulations in various states is a constant source of frustration.
If a horse gains an advantage as a result of an interference, the horse is disqualified under Category 1 regulations in all racing countries outside of North America, save for those in the United States and Canada.
North America is classified as Category 2, which necessitates disqualification only if the interference “in the view of the stewards” has an impact on the order of finish or the prospects of the fouled horse to finish in a better position than the horse that was fouled.
Japan, which moved from Category 2 to Category 1 in 2013, had a significant drop in the number of inquiries, which fell from 143 in 2012 to 25 in 2013.
Following a highly publicized disqualification in one of Japan’s most prized events, the 2010 Japan Cup, the country made the choice to withdraw from the World Championship.
The following is a quote from Kim Kelly, chief steward of the Hong Kong Jockey Club and chairman of the International Federation of Horseracing Authorities (IFHA) Harmonization Rules Committee, who discussed the impact of that disqualification at the International Conference of Horseracing Authorities in Paris on October 8, 2018: “The demotion of Buena Vista caused considerable consternation both within Japan and internationally as the horse which was overwhelmingly the best on the day was placed behind the horses who were overwhelmingly the best on the day.” According to reports, even the trainer of the horse that was upgraded to the winner of the race expressed “mixed sentiments” about the outcome of his charge.
- “The silver lining to what was plainly a less-than-ideal conclusion was that the Japan Racing Association responded favorably to worldwide criticism of the results by requesting support from the Harmonization Committee in transitioning to the Category 1 concept,” Kelly concluded.
- The decision by the Japanese Racing Association to move from Category 2 to Category 1 was a courageous one for which they should be commended greatly.
- In September 2018, they were followed by Panama, which was the final nation in Latin America to use Category 2, and which converted to Category 1 in October 2018.
- “Category 1 judgments are straightforward, but it appears that everything is possible,” Liebman added.
- They’re not going to be able to defeat me.
- Our method is quite convoluted, which has an impact on the outcome.
- Silver Squire and his jockey, Richard Migliore, moved in significantly in the middle of the stretch on their way to a 5 34 length triumph at Saratoga Race Course on August 19.
“They put up the inquiry sign, but they didn’t take down the phone number because they felt it wouldn’t effect the conclusion,” Migliore explained.
“Silver Squire dragged in a little bit when blowing by the leaders,” according to the official chart of the event.
Migliore yanked a phone out of the wall in the jockey’s room, changed into his riding clothes, and dismounted from the rest of his rides, actions that resulted in a punishment of $2,000 dollars.
Ted Hill, one of the three stewards, along with John Joyce and David Hicks, who voted to disqualify Silver Squire in a unanimous vote.
Hill served as a steward for the New York Racing Association from 1996 until 2015.
In 2004, both Hill and Liebman stated that the race served as a catalyst for the revision of the New York State rule on interference, which now states that a horse may be disqualified “if the foul altered the outcome of the race” or “if he interferes with another horse, impedes him, or intimidates him.” “The regulation was revised in a very poor manner,” Liebman stated.
The idea was that you now have to assess whether or not it has an impact on a certain stance.
Sixteen years after Silver Squire was disqualified at Saratoga, Daily Racing Form handicapper Mike Watchmaker stated the following about the 2018 Saratoga meet: “It is not hyperbole to argue that the inconsistency from the stewards during the Saratoga meet was among the worst ever seen.” It’s not even a reach to make such a declaration.
Allow us to disregard the irrefutable proof that what seemed to be a foul one day was not a foul the next.
“It seemed like the goalposts were always shifting.” This was not an issue for the NFL last year, but it received a great deal of criticism this year when a disputed non-call of pass interference at the conclusion of the New Orleans Saints and Los Angeles Rams game resulted in the Rams’ victory in the NFC Championship Game on January 20.
- “We have to decide which philosophy we want to follow and if we want to have regulations that are consistently in Category 1 or Category 2,” O’Meara added.
- As a result of the two rulings in the 2014 Breeders’ Cup Classic and the 2019 Kentucky Derby, what was the stewards’ response?
- Shared Belief, the unbeaten favorite, was just behind him in post six, on his immediate inside.
Day, when Bayern instantly turned inward and slammed Shared Belief hard enough to cause a chain reaction that affected both horses. Bayern “may have hindered” other horses, according to the track announcer, who called the event live on the track’s broadcast system.
BUY THIS ISSUE IN PRINT OR DOWNLOAD –
WHY NOT SUBSCRIBE FOR $3.99?
DON’T MISS OUT AND SUBSCRIBE TO RECEIVE THE NEXT FOUR ISSUES!
The Thoroughbred Idea Foundation (TIF), which was recently established, has released its second study, titled “Changing the Rules.” It suggests that North American horse racing follow the Category 1 interference methodology of the International Horse Racing Federation when adjudicating races in the future. The Category 2 rulebook is currently in use in only two countries: Canada and the United States. The Category 2 rulebook states that “if the interferer is found to have caused interference and that such interference has had an impact on the outcome of the race, the interferer is placed behind the sufferer, regardless of whether the sufferer would have finished in front of the interferer had the incident(s) not occurred.” States that fall within category 1 When a horse or rider, in the opinion of the Staging Authority’s relevant judicial body, causes interference and finishes in front of the horse interfered with, but irrespective of the incident(s), the sufferer would not have finished ahead of the horse causing the interference, the judges’ placings will not be changed.
- Personal Ensign (G1), which was place this year and featured battles betweenABEL TASMAN andELATE, was used as part of the TIF’s case for changing the Category.
- Many people believed that Abel Tasman should have been removed from the throne, while many others believed that the outcome should stay.
- There was never a “Inquiry” sign put up after any race, regardless of whether it was in Category 2 or 1.
- Ortiz’s protest would have made no difference whatsoever, regardless of which category was being utilized.
- There was an irregular stretch run that resulted in MONOMOY GIRL being disqualified and MIDNIGHT BISOU being awarded first place in the race.
- The stewards never displayed the “Inquiry” sign, and the outcome would have been the same had Mike Smith, rider of Midnight Bisou, not claimed foul against Florent Geroux, rider of Monomoy Girl, during the race.
- It is true that going to Category 1 would result in fewer disqualifications, and I agree with the TIF’s principle; nonetheless, I do not believe this should be an insurmountable objective.
What we don’t need, in my opinion, is for stewards to be aware of how many questions they have received during a single day of racing.
I have yet to witness a confession, and until all linguistic advantages and disadvantages are balanced out, it does nothing to increase the trust of bettors in the process.
This will provide the bettors a greater degree of trust.
Personally, I subscribe to the school of thought that says “A foul is a foul” whenever it occurs.
I’m not suggesting that we follow the recent example of the Victoria Racing Club suspending Hugh Bowman for 41 days for his ride in this year’s Melbourne Cup (G1), but a more stringent system of fines and punishments might be effective in instilling a sense of seriousness in the minds of riders who know there are serious ramifications for their actions.
Fouling and Bumping as Horse Racing Strategies
With the release of its second study, “Changing the Rules,” the newly formed Thoroughbred Idea Foundation (TIF) has furthered its mission. North American racing should embrace the Category 1 interference methodology of the International Horse Racing Federation when adjudicating races, the report suggests. The Category 2 rulebook is currently in use in only two countries: Canada and the United States. The Category 2 rulebook states that “if the interferer is found to have caused interference and that such interference has had an impact on the outcome of the race, the interferer is placed behind the sufferer, regardless of whether the sufferer would have finished in front of the interferer if the incident(s) had not taken place.” States in Category 1 “If, in the opinion of the relevant judicial body of the Staging Authority, a horse or its rider causes interference and finishes in front of the horse interfered with, but irrespective of the incident(s), the sufferer would not have finished ahead of the horse causing the interference, the judge’s placings will remain unaltered.” Personal Ensign (G1), which was place this year and featured battles betweenABEL TASMAN andELATE, was used as part of the TIF’s case for changing the Category.
After contact was definitely made in the deep stretch, Abel Tasman was declared the winner, and the race was dubbed another “Rohrschach Test” for the horse racing community.
Allow me to present a vital piece of evidence that was left out of the TIF’s report and the voices of indignation that it cited before I even begin to consider whether the Personal Ensign would have been assessed any differently if it had been handled under the Category 1 philosophy: There was never a “Inquiry” sign put up after any race, whether it was a Category 2 or a 1.
- It would have made no difference what category was being utilized if Ortiz had not lodged his objection.
- There was an irregular stretch run that resulted in MONOMOY GIRL being disqualified and MIDNIGHT BISOU being awarded first place in the competition.
- The stewards never displayed the “Inquiry” sign, and the outcome would have been the same had Mike Smith, rider of Midnight Bisou, not claimed foul against Florent Geroux, rider of Monomoy Girl, before the race started.
- The TIF’s assumption that going to Category 1 would result in fewer disqualifications is sound, and I agree with it, but I don’t understand why it should be an unachievable objective.
- The final thing I believe we require is for stewards to be aware of how many queries they have received during a given day of racing.
- How come it takes so long to make a choice when video technology is improving?
- Until all language advantages and disadvantages are balanced out, it does little to instill trust in the bettors about the outcome of the procedure.
- This will offer bettors a greater degree of confidence.
- Personally, I subscribe to the school of thinking that says “A foul is a foul.” We would have fewer fouls to call if the rule were implemented unilaterally because it makes the game safer for the horses and their riders.
ESPN.com – Horse Racing – Claiming foul on disqualifications
| Claiming foul on disqualifications
Special to ESPN.com
|Anyone who had made a win bet on Trounce in the seventh race on December29th at Aqueduct made an astute and correct wager. Under apprentice LorenzoLezcano, the horse crossed the wire 4 1/4 lengths in front of Arromanches ina race that was simply no contest, validating the opinion of thousands ofbettors who played the favorite. But Trounce’s backers never got paid.Instead, Trounce was disqualified for interference after committing a foulthat had no bearing on the outcome of the race. Thousands of horseplayerswere left with worthless tickets.Handicappers have come to accept that life at the racetrack is unfair andthat tough beats are part of the game. But anyone who bet to win on Trouncethat day was unnecessarily shafted, and it happens all the time.The horse clearly fouled Arromanches, cutting him off at the eighth-polewhen bearing in under Lezcano, but it was an irrelevant infraction. At thetime, Trounce had a full head of steam and was in the process of passing atired Arromanches as if he were tied to the furlong marker. Arromanches wasnot going to win, period. (In a footnote to the story, the remarkableArromanches was credited with his ninth straight win thanks to thedisqualification).The NYRA stewards apparently didn’t take that fact into account, whichwasn’t that surprising. There are few hard and fast rules about how toadjudicate a foul claim. New York State Racing and Wagering Board regulationsdo stipulate that: “a horse crossing another so as to actually impede him isdisqualified, unless the impeded horse was partially in fault.” Usually,though, when a horse commits an obvious foul it comes down. Stewards rarelyseem to take into account whether or not the foul affected the outcome of therace.”The horses almost clipped heels, “NYRA steward Dave Hicks said.”We hadto use our judgment on that. Could (Arromanches) have been any closer? No onereally knows that. We try not to take the number down if the horse was muchthe best, but he stopped that other horse so badly it was difficult tooverlook.”Lezcano was handed a 10-day suspension for careless riding, which he hasappealed.It happens all the time, in everything from claiming races like the onethat featured Arromanches and Trounce to the biggest races on the calendar.The great Dr. Fager won the 1967 Jersey Derby in a common gallop, crossingthe wire 6 � lengths in front. The 3-10 favorite, he was disqualified andplaced last for crowding other horses on the first turn.”Usually, in our judgment, if there was an infraction we take the numberdown,” said Gulfstream steward Walter Blum. “If you try to figure out whetheror not the horse who got bothered was going to finish in the money or notyou’re playing God and we don’t like to do that.”Understood. But stewards need to allow some simple common sense into theequation, which would better serve the gamblers. Why should the bettors haveto pay a price when the only culprit is a jockey guilty of making a mistake?There is another way. When a horse is clearly dominant but bothersanother horse, go ahead and punish someone, but not the bettors. Suspend thejockey. You might even want to take away the purse from the horse. Forbetting purposes, leave the race as is. Make up an entirely newclassification of disqualification. Call it a Second Tier-DQ, or somethinglike that, and make it standard procedure at every track in North America.Actually, it’s happened in the past. In 1994, Calder stewards gave jockeyHerb Castillo Jr. a suspension for careless riding, but did not disqualifyhis horse, who was the easiest sort of winner. That ruling made particularsense because the horse he bothered finished back in the pack and would nothave finished in the money with a perfect trip.”You have to use your judgment and common sense,” said Hicks, who wasthen a steward at Calder. “In that case in Florida we left the number up butgave the jockey days. There was no question about the foul, but we thoughtthe foul didn’t affect the outcome of the race.”Amazingly, Hicks and crew took a lot of heat for doing the right thing.The story was splashed all over the front page of the Daily Racing Form.George Gianos, who trained the bothered horse, Pidgeon’s Ability, who was notmoved up after finishing sixth, told the Form: “Who is to say if my horsehadn’t been whacked sideways he couldn’t have finished in a money position. Ithink this thing sets a bad precedent.”Actually, it should have set a very good precedent, but it didn’t. Allthese years later, Castillo’s case remains an anomaly. It’s time to rethinkthe issue.|
Horse Racing Terminology
A wager on a single horse to win, place, and show is placed across the board. a non-claiming race in which the racing secretary sets weight allowances based on prior purse earnings and/or the sorts of victories obtained by the horses. Also Eligible horses, sometimes known as “AE” horses, are horses who have been entered into the field but will not race until other horses are scratched. Apprentice jockey: A student jockey who will be given a weight allowance of varied degrees based on his or her level of experience in the horse racing industry.
- Race for two-year-old horses, especially early in the season, known as a “baby race.” A horse’s eyesight is limited with blinkers, which are typically used to assist the horse concentrate on running and to eliminate distractions when out in the field.
- Breeze: A word that is commonly used to describe a session in which a horse is readily running under a hold without the need for encouragement from the rider or trainer.
- A broodmare is a female thoroughbred who is bred for the purpose of producing offspring.
- A broodmare sire is a male horse that produces female offspring that are utilized for breeding purposes.
- Bull Ring: A short circuit with an oval that is often less than one mile in length and, as a result, features very tight corners.
- Consider the following scenario: A player purchases a Daily Double ticket for the 1 stand 2ndrace that is 8 with ALL.
- Carryover: Usually refers to money remaining in the parimutuel pool for a Pick Six wager when a sequence fails to produce a single player who selects all of the wins.
Pick Six pools can become quite big as a result of several carryovers.
Clocker: A person who keeps track of the time and/or rating of exercises.
To condition a horse for training purposes a description of the conditions under which a race will be held, such as the surface, distance, purse, and eligibility requirements.
For example, a player who wins five out of six races in the Pick 6 would often get a small consolation prize for their efforts.
With a single ticket, the player attempts to predict the winner of two consecutive races, which is known as a Daily Double.
Dark: A day on which a racetrack does not host any live racing action.
A route race or a race run around two turns is a race that covers a significant amount of ground.
A horse that has been hauled up or halted before to finishing the race is known as an eased horse.
Fast Track: A dirt track that is dry and firm is given a high rating.
Fire Sale: A horse’s claiming price is drastically reduced in the event of a fire.
Form: The present physical condition of a horse; it may also apply to the newspaper The Daily Racing Form.
Front Runner: A horse that prefers to run on or near the leading edge of the field.
A gelding is a male horse that has been castrated.
Dirt courses are often graded as Fast, Good, Muddy, or Sloppy according on their speed.
a stakes event that has been awarded a grade (I, II, or III) by the American Graded Stakes Committee based on its relative strength when compared to all other races in the same division This is the most prestigious type of racing.
Horses that are half sisters or brothers but have different dams are not considered half sisters or brothers under the breed standard.
A moderately intense exercise in which the jockey drives the horse on but does not use the whip is conveniently described as follows: Handle: The total amount of money wagered on a single race or over the course of an entire day.
The jockey did not lash a horse that was merely being ridden by the hand.
Horse:In technical terms, a “horse” is a male horse that is five years old or older.
In my possession: a horse that is being restrained.
When it comes to winning money, finishing in the top four often qualifies the owner to a portion of the prize money.
Irons:Stirrups A jockey agent is a person who arranges rides for a rider’s benefit.
The appearance of Eagles: A horse with a self-assured expression.
When a horse bears (drifts) in during a stretch run, it is typically an indication that the horse is fatigued and has to be restrained.
A marathon is a race that is more than 1 14 miles in length.
A race that is longer than seven furlongs but shorter than 1 1/8 mile is referred to as a middle distance race.
Minus The pool becomes insufficient when the track take to pay the holders of the winning tickets the required minimum odds when a large amount of money is bet on a single horse and the pool becomes insufficient.
The odds established by the track prior to the beginning of the pools are referred to as the morning line odds.
The Oaks is a stakes event for three-year-old fillies that takes place on the first Saturday in November.
Odds: The likelihood of a horse winning a certain race depending on the amount of money wagered on it by the general public through pari-mutuel gambling. The following are the rewards for a $2 bet with the associated odds for each bet:
|Odds||$2 Payout||Odds||$2 Payout||Odds||$2 Payout|
The tote board, which is normally located in the infield, is known as the odds board. A horse that does not finish in the money gets taken off the board. A horse that is lagging behind the leaders in the early stages of a race is known as an off the pace horse. In contrast to fast (dirt) and firm (turf/grass), an off-track racing surface is any surface other than fast (dirt). a race in which the horses in the field may or may not be entered for a claiming price is known as an optional claiming race.
- A horse would be termed a “overlay” if, for example, a player determines that horse A has 4/1 chances of winning while the current odds at the track have the horse at 10/1 odds of winning.
- Pace refers to the speed at which the leaders are moving at each stage of the race.
- Choose 3 (or 4, 5, 6, etc.): An unusual wager in which the gambler is required to pick the winner of three consecutive horse races.
- A quarter crack is an injury to a horse’s foot that occurs in the quarters.
- Rank:A horse who refuses to be rated early in the race is given this designation.
- School: To train a horse in a controlled environment, such as a starting gate or a paddock.
- To prevent a horse from leaping shadows, it is necessary to wrap a roll of fabric around his snout in order to limit his vision of the ground.
A horse that has traveled from one track to another in order to compete in a race is known as a shipper.
Sprint: A short race lasting little more than seven furlongs.
A wager in which the player attempts to predict the order in which the first four finishers in a race will cross the finish line.
Claim a price with this tag.
Each pool has money taken out for track revenue and taxes, which is removed from the total amount.
Trip: The path traveled by a horse and rider during the running of a race, as well as the “trouble” that they meet along the way There were no unexpected difficulties for a horse that had a “nice voyage.” Racing wide or getting boxed in by other horses are examples of what is referred to as a “poor trip.” Turf course: A course with grass as its surface.
Under wraps: A horse in which the rider is purposely slowing it down and preventing it from reaching peak speed. A frightened horse that is sweating is described as “washed out.”
When it comes to the 145th Kentucky Derby, there is one lesson to be learned: you can’t take the gambling out of betting. But try saying it to horse fanatics, or those folks who are addicted to the lotto. The stewards at Churchill Downs forced an artificial order on 19 horses that were stampeding through a bog, brown water collecting in mud-trench harrows, and 150,000 people who were wearing flower pots on their heads yelled at them while they searched for secure footing. Any of that made any sense, to be honest.
- Let’s be clear: this entire sport is a violation of the rules.
- As if you have any influence over the things that are born in a barn, separate the planned from the unintended, the champions from the ponies, donkeys, and goats, and so forth.
- Everything is up to chance.
- Yet, here came the human intervention at the Derby’s finish line, attempting to impose a numbered, first-to-last list on the perilous pandemonium and seek some form of, what, justice, in the process of doing so.
- Is it a foul?
- With good reason, Saez described his horse as “a baby.” Please tell me where the discernable path was in the midst of all that dirt and wetness, yelling and whipping, young animal rushing, and so on.
- Following the disqualification of Maximum Security, the first horse to cross the finish line, Country House was declared the victor of the 145th Kentucky Derby on May 4, 2018.
Horse people were counting on the excitement of the Derby to disguise the reality that 23 horses died at Santa Anita this winter, and Churchill Downs, like Santa Anita, is one of the most dangerous racetrack in the United States.
The great irony was that the stewards made the correct decision in terms of safety, despite the fact that they were under pressure.
“There’s a couple of riders that were almost clipping heels and going down in there,” Country House’s trainer, Bill Mott, said of the throng as they approached the final stretch.
A scary close-up reveals how dangerously close Maximum Security’s rear legs came to interlocking with the front legs of War of Will, resulting in a disastrous collapse for both characters.
“It takes a million things to go perfectly for you to win a race,” an old trainer once stated.
For a horse to die, only one thing has to go wrong for it to do so.
Thoroughbreds would run even if no one was looking, and, like with any outstanding athletes, their drive may occasionally outpace their physical abilities, resulting in their injuring themselves or others.
Churchill Downs is one of those courses that causes horses more pain than others, and everyone involved in this once-beautiful but now-rotten game is well aware of this.
The stewards’ issue should not detract from the need for some serious soul-searching about the future of Santa Anita, nor should it lead anybody to believe that the sport’s duties to the horses’ health have been effectively handled.
However, it wasn’t until two weeks ago that Churchill Downs took the first step toward instituting any common-sense adjustments, while the company’s track record was being scrutinized in the aftermath of the Santa Anita catastrophe.
That’s a good place to start.
Maintain strict control over the usage of masking drugs.
Pre-race examination protocols should be standardized.
And put an end to the nefarious practice of track administrators forcing trainers to fill the fields.
There are only fragmentary solutions in place at lines that are in a state of disaster, with stacks of dead corpses.
And when, precisely, are they going to begin airing it on television? The only positive outcome from the Kentucky Derby that anyone should be pleased with is that the horses got it back to the stables safely – this time.
Dig Deeper: Animals + Sports
Would you like to learn more about animals in sports? Take a look at the stories we’ve selected for you below. At least 27 horses have died so far this year, raising concerns about the ethics of participating in a sport that kills animals. A 30-year-old dogsled athlete trains with her team of dogs in a secluded lodge, miles away from humans and ready to sew herself back together for a nearly 1,000-mile race in which she will compete. In order to qualify as sports programming, The National Dog Show needed to be shown within the most appropriate time frame.
COUNTERPOINT – Horse Race Insider
Mr. Kim Kelly is the Chief Stipendiary Steward of the Hong Kong Jockey Club, an institution that recognizes the importance of standard regulations and enforcement in establishing and retaining the confidence of the wagering public. Mr. Kelly has been with the club for over a decade. Mr. Kelly talked at the annual Jockey Club Round Table in Saratoga on the need of having a set of principles that are followed around the globe when it comes to adjudicating fouls, especially about what should be considered a riding infraction and what should not be.
- The following is Mr.
- HRI expresses gratitude to him for his willingness to contribute to the advancement of this vital racing discourse.
- I’m referring to the post headed “The United States Has Foul Rules Correct,” which featured on the website “HorseRaceInsider.com.” The fundamental right of any individual, organization, or publication to express their opinion on any subject is something I strongly believe in.
- And I am grateful for the opportunity to express my thoughts on the subject in this manner.
The Category 1 interference Rule does not only apply when interference prevents “the fouled horse from winning the race” or when interference results in the “clearly best winner.” To be clear, the Category 1 interference Rule does not only apply when interference results in the “clearly best winner.” All placings in which betting and/or prizemoney are offered are covered by this rule, and the most meritorious horse in each placing is rewarded with this award in each case.
- According to the rules of Category 1, in order for a protest/objection to be successful, the Racing Stewards (“the Stewards”) must be convinced that if Horse A interfered with Horse B, Horse B would have finished ahead of Horse A if the interference had not taken place.
- From the beginning, I would like to point out that neither Category 1 nor 2 are capable of adjudicating on interference in a faultless manner when it comes to determining the results of the race’s finishing positions.
- However, it has been conclusively proved that Category 1 results in more consistent and equitable outcomes.
- I completely acknowledge that no one will ever know what would or would not have occurred if the interference had not occurred; yet, the truth is that this circumstance applies to both forms of interference that are judged.
- 2- Where were the horses traveling at the time of the incident(s)?
- Three- How easy did the horse who created the interference defeat the horse(s) who were the source of the interference?
- Once all of these elements have been thoroughly evaluated, the Stewards should be in a position to make an informed decision about whether they can be convinced to the necessary degree that the relevant result of the race would have been different if the interference had not occurred.
- That horses finished 8th, 14th, and 17th, with respective beaten margins of 414.4 lengths, 143.4 lengths, and 173.4 lengths, according to what is known.
One clear worry that has been voiced by many is safety, and I have heard that jockeys who are promoted from Category 2 to Category 1 will ride with the mindset of “win at any costs.” In this context, it is necessary to emphasize that the safety and wellbeing of participants, both human and horse, is unquestionably the first duty of the Steward.
- In my clear opinion, as well as that held by a large number of other racing jurisdictions, increasing the use of the Category 1 interference regulation does not contribute to an increase in interference in races.
- If you are operating under Category 2 rules, there have been 213 protest/objection judgments since the beginning of the season on July 1, 2010, and there have been 33 changes to the placings of races during that time frame.
- During the period from the first day of July 2018 to the last day of June 2019, the JRA operated under Category 1, and only eight protest/objection hearings were held, resulting in just three modifications of placement.
- Once again, it is unclear if these violations were connected to protest or opposition-related issues.
- If one believes that racing in prominent racing jurisdictions such as Australia, Dubai, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hong Kong, India, Ireland, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, Singapore, South Africa, and all of the South American O.S.A.F.
- Many of the world’s most famous races are held in these nations, and many of them are among the world’s most profitable in terms of betting turnover.
- Do you think bettors would continue to support horse racing in such nations if their bets were continuously influenced by outside influences?
Would the vast majority of the world’s top-rated jockeys continue to ride in jurisdictions where the benefits for winning races were prioritized over the welfare and safety of their riders?
“Exotic” wagering pools, which are popular with gamblers throughout Asia, have recently been elevated to Category 1, indicating that betting turnover has increased significantly.
A noteworthy point is that each of those nations has seen a significant decrease in the number of consumer complaints about Stewards’ decision-making processes.
On 617 instances, the placings of races were modified as a consequence of interference in thoroughbred races held in North America throughout the course of 2018.
This amounted to interference happening once every 64 races, with each race resulting in a change in finishing position.
This corresponded to a protest/objection being entered once every 78 races and interference in races resulting in a change of placings once every 380 races, for a total of 78 protests/objections entered and 380 changes of placings.
The Australian numbers, in my humble view, corroborate the JRA’s observation that Category 1 does not result in an increase in intervention in races.
Finallty, if there are concerns about an increase in dangerous riding as a result of a move to Category 1, there is a provision in the Model Interference Rule contained within the International Agreement on Breeding, Racing, and Wagering that provides for the disqualification of a horse from a race in circumstances where the Staging Authority’s relevant judicial body determines that the rider has ri n the race.”
- This includes the fact that “the Category 1 interference Rule does not just apply to interference that stops “the fouled horse from winning the race” or “the plainly best winner” from winning the race,” as stated by Mr. Kelly. It applies to all placings in which betting and/or prize money are offered, and it recognizes the best meritorious horse in each particular placing.” This is a crucial point that should be noted. As other media outlets clarified to the racing audience in the United States, the concept that “prevents the fouled horse from winning the race” was, at the very least, “false news,” or, in the parlance of the day, “misinterpretation.” Your explanation contributes to a more complete understanding of your stance. HRI would like to express its appreciation for your time and work once more. John Pricci, executive editor of Human Resources International
- John: This concept of a “category 1” infringement does not sit well with me, and I apologize for that. Regardless of how many horses compete in a given race, the “best” horse in my opinion is the one who finishes first while not engaging in any behavior which adversely impacts the finishing position of any other horses competing in the race. I do not feel that Maximum Security’s blatant infraction on the Kentucky Derby did not have a significant impact on the result of the race. Furthermore, the mention of lengths beaten, which Mr. Kelly, as well as many others, employ in an attempt to diminish Maximum Security’s wrongdoing, is a cynical use of such figures on the part of Mr. Kelly and others. Attempting to evaluate the consequences of the interference on the horses who were fouled is a virtually hopeless undertaking. As evidenced by the abuse of quick replay, no adjudicative mechanism is without its weaknesses, as we can see in this case. It is, on the other hand, a fool’s errand to arbitrarily declare which horse is the “better” in any case involving a foul.
The unprecedented disqualification of a Kentucky Derby winner, explained
Despite the fact that the horse who crossed the finish line first did not win the Kentucky Derby, he was placed second overall. Maximum Security seemed to have won the 145th edition of the sport’s most prestigious race in two exciting minutes, according to the official results. However, despite all of the excitement surrounding his most thrilling victory to date, spectators were quickly made aware of an objection brought against the first-place horse by second-place finisher Country House. After an excruciating half-hour, the announcement came: Maximum Security had been disqualified, making him the first apparent winner in Kentucky Derby history to be disqualified, and Country House, a 65-to-1 longshot, had “won” the Kentucky Derby.
- It has never happened before in the history of mankind.
- Nonetheless, the drama is far from done, as Maximum Security’s owner has filed an appeal with the Kentucky Racing Commission in an attempt to have his victory overturned.
- Although it was determined that he had breached the race’s interference regulations by taking a misstep to his right, a video playback revealed that he had altered the trajectories of War of Will, Long Range Toddy, and Country House.
- The offense is as follows: On its own, this narrative has a lot to offer: a historic disqualification, as well as a horse with historically long odds becoming the first-ever recorded champion of the Kentucky Derby.
- The choice to withdraw from the Kentucky Derby was not a wise one.
- An overturn of this magnitude could only occur in these days of political correctness.
- 5th of May, 2019 — Donald J.
- The president’s obsession with cultural wars is grating and predictable, but he’s correct about one thing: no one wants the Kentucky Derby to conclude on instant replay, and he’s right about that.
How Maximum Security won the race and lost the Kentucky Derby
If you want to see the entire race, it will only take you two minutes to do so (Maximum Security finished at a nice two-minute, four-second clip.) Previously, Maximum Security was being offered 9-2 odds, which placed him in the top tier of competitors, according to the bookmakers. He is three years old and, as of Saturday, had never lost a race before. It cannot be overstated that Maximum Security was in the lead practically the whole way, from the firing of the first shot to the crossing of the finish line.
According to NBC Sports: If “a leading horse or any other horse in a race swerves or is ridden to either side in order to interfere with, intimidate, or obstruct any other horse or jockey,” the horse or jockey will be disqualified, according to the regulation.
During the derby, the riders aboard Long Range Toddy and Country House both expressed their displeasure with the stewards in charge of officiating the race.
When you take a careful look at the footage, it is evident that there was some interference.
Thanks to Deadspin, we have an excellent, up-close view at the crucial moment: HTML5 video is not supported by your browser at this time. As a result, Maximum Security was ruled out. The Kentucky Derby had been won by Country House.
The disqualified horse’s owner is trying to appeal the decision
The disqualified winner’s owner, Gary West, is naturally furious and intends to file an appeal with the state racing commission, despite the fact that race outcomes are not susceptible to review, according to the state racing commission. In his speech, he used some foreboding phrases, nearly but not quite hinting that something was amiss with the strange manner the race had been decided. On NBC’s Todayshow, West stated, “If the state racing commission refuses to hear about it, I believe this to be something that is significant enough that the entire racing world is looking into it.” “And I believe they should be given the opportunity to learn the truth about what happened.” For example, according to John Swenson, a seasoned horse racing writer, who wrote for Vice in 2013: “Cheating is profoundly knit into the very fabric of horse racing.” The dark side of the sport’s elegant surface is represented by fixed races.
- Regardless of whether West’s implied claims are supported by evidence or not, they do fit into a lengthy and problematic historical context.
- When the betting ended, the horse had 65-to-1 odds to win.
- However, he is towards the top of the priority list.
- We’ll have to wait and see if West’s appeal is successful in its endeavors.
- According to West, Maximum Security will not compete in the Preakness, the next major race in the sport, which will take place later this month.
The debate about the Kentucky Derby is a debate about instant replay
According to Trump, “back in my day, they would never have overturned the Kentucky Derby on instant replay” was a valid point of view when it came to the Derby. There’s too much political correctness here. Remember that the true political discussion we should be having is about dead horses at the Santa Anita Park racetrack in California, which isn’t going to happen. Since Christmas, over two dozen horses have perished in the area. Horse racing is a dangerous sport in which people lose their lives on a regular basis, yet it only draws the public’s attention for one day in May, when the Kentucky Derby is held at Churchill Downs in Louisville, Kentucky.
But, anyway, let’s confront Trump on his own ground.
Gabe Fernandez of Deadspin was dismayed by how instant replay had become so prevalent in more widely watched sports such as football and baseball: “Saturday’s review was the latest example of a growing annoying trend where video replays are requested in the hopes that the tiniest of margins will fall in the challenger’s favor,” he wrote.
This is not uncommon.
There has been a long-running discussion among sports fans about how much room should be left for human error.
However, it came at a cost to one’s ability to move gracefully in sports.
“At the very least, an umpire or referee makes his or her decision throughout the game fast.
“Oh, whew, that’s an obvious call, there’s no argument whatsoever, pleased the replay captured that,” you say after seeing a video.
We begin with a state of uncertainty.
Uncertainty increases in our lives.
Both of these disappointments were on display on Saturday, when the real-world champion was defeated on a technicality after an excruciatingly long delay.
Instant replay may have provided the “right” call, but did it detract from the whole experience?
As a result of the Supreme Court’s decision, sports gambling is swiftly becoming legalized across the country, with the Kentucky Derby being the most prominent example.
The existence of a vehicle for the purpose of repairing faults that were not detected in real time should be commended rather than criticized.
Given that it is predicated on the notion that incorrect decisions are acceptable, it is an odd hill to die on.
When millions of Americans place their hard-earned money on the outcome of sporting events, the outcome must be as clean and trustworthy as possible in order to be considered legitimate.
What kinds of sports do we wish to see in the future?