Capper's Corner

Jump to Comments

Posted by Bob White

www.ponycapper.com

For comments and feedback on this, please contact me at [email protected]

On many occasions over the past two decades, the National Football League has found itself embroiled in controversies when obscure, absurd and non-sensical rules were applied during high stakes playoff games. The most notable controversy, of course,  occurred when the NFL’s infamous “Tuck Rule” was applied in a playoff game in January 2002, overturning a clear fumble – the ruling on the field – to an “incomplete pass”. The result: history was altered.  The Patriots went on to win in overtime that snowy night, and they marched to victory in the Super Bowl that year, helping to launch a dynasty. It also cost Oakland an opportunity to advance further in the playoffs, and sadly, Raider Nation still holds a grudge to this day, almost two decades removed from the NFL’s most explosive and controversial ruling.

In the wake of Maximum Security’s unfortunate and controversial disqualification in the 145^th Kentucky Derby, it’s fair to surmise that Horse Racing finds itself in a similar predicament (as the NFL), for two reasons:

1 – There is an antiquated and mis-guided rule on the books – “the better placing rule”, whereby once an infraction is deemed to have occurred, the main focus shifts toward the “also rans” (the impacted or impeded horses), and specifically, evaluating where these horses finished in the race (in comparison to where the horses could have finished if the infraction did not take place).

• Egregiously, this rule doesn’t take into account (to the extent needed) the winner of the race – for example, it doesn’t give consideration or factor-in the winners margin of victory, or the convincing nature the winning horse displayed towards the first place finish. In other words, there is no reasonableness assessment applied to project the impact on the winner, had the infraction not occurred

2 – The Churchill Downs Stewards, in this case, had the courage to apply the rule (correctly) on their biggest stage, and to treat the infraction in the Derby as they would a Maiden Claiming race, or any number of the types of races which are run on a daily card

My suggestion to the horse racing world – fans, trainers, horseplayers and the industry –

BLAME THE RULE and the GOVERNING BODIES, not the Churchill Downs Stewards, for the mis-carriage of justice, and the robbing of Maximum Security’s place in history.

For context, let’s look back at recent history related to the NFL Tuck Rule as precedent….

When the NFL Tuck Rule was correctly applied by Referee Walt Coleman in the Oakland-New England Playoff game, we as a “football nation” (AKA irate fan base), correctly identified the culpable party as the “NFL and the Broken Rule”, and not the referee, who merely carried out the application of the rule on the books at that critical moment of the game. We got it “correct” back then – we held the right people accountable.  

Fast forward to today and the controversial Derby disqualification — my questions are: What will we do? Who will we Blame? Who will we hold accountable? What actions will we take? How will we respond?

My initial take is – one week after the incident – we are not off to a good start, largely because the National Media hasn’t focused on the abominable rule on the books. Instead, they have been more focused on “fanning the flames” of controversy by:

• Publishing mis-information, and falsehoods – for example making bold headlines by stating “Bettors lose 42 million dollars” (its pari-mutuel wagering — the money was re-distributed to the ticket owners of Country House)
• Incorrectly, being tangentially focused on the “process of lodging post-race objections”
• Insanely, citing irrelevant presidential tweets as a basis for making a credible argument that the disqualification was the incorrect call
• Presenting slanted narratives or conflating the facts that Country House was not the horse that should be declared the winner. Their theories — Country House wasn’t impacted, so how he could be named the winner? Newsflash, he came in 2^nd and when the winner is DQ’d the protocol is clear — the 2^nd place finisher is declared the official winner, regardless if he was involved in, or impacted by the infraction.

Rather than wasting time here trying to recount the Media’s atrocities, and specifics of the many cases of journalistic malfeasance, I want to stay on point. If interested, you can check out my previous post on the matter, where I call “INQUIRY” on the National Media, and their shoddy coverage to date, found here:

Ponycapper Posts “Inquiry” into National Media’s Shoddy Coverage of Historic Derby Disqualification

The bottom line is, sadly, there has been too little focus on the root cause of the issue by the Media or the Horse Industry as a whole, with virtually no productive dialogue being written about the antiquated state of “Horse Racing Disqualification Rules”. Hence, this is the main reason I’ve taken up the mantle in writing this article, with a hope to shine some needed light on the outdated and mis-guided “Better Placing” Rule.

So, with that as a backdrop, let’s explore this Disqualification further and unpack all of the details surrounding the facts of the Derby incident, the rule in place, the Stewards application of the rule in the Derby (their decision) and what would have resulted had a better rule been on the books.

The Facts

The facts of the Derby disqualification are as follows:

• Maximum Security, the horse who crossed the finish line first, shifted out 2 paths at around the 3/16ths pole, impacted the progress of War of Will and impeded the progress of 2 other rivals via chain reaction:
  • War of Will, who’s jockey had to check the horse sharply to avoid clipping heels, and potentially averting disaster (a spill)
  • Long Range Toddy, who was to the outside of War of Will, lost some momentum and was pushed out several paths. Bodexpress briefly steadied.
  • Contrary to statements by the jockey, Country House was not impeded (note, the stewards didn’t mention anything about Country House being impeded – – only War of Will, Long Range Toddy, and Bodexpress)
• War of Will who clearly lost some momentum due to the incident, recovered nicely and at the top of the lane was on near even terms with Maximum Security, and two other horses: Country House and Code of Honor
• War of Will fought hard and about 50 yards from the finish line, was in 4^th place. But in the waning strides he tired and finished 8^th when several other horses nipped him at the wire
• Long Range Toddy, a huge longshot, faded and finished 17^th
• Maximum Security crossed the wire first by a margin of one and three quarters lengths, and was subsequently disqualified and placed in 17^th, behind Long Range Toddy
• Country House was the main beneficiary of the decision as he was upgraded from 2^nd, and ruled the official winner

These are the facts, and I would contend, they are undisputed.

The Better Placing Rule

As a background, know this:

For years, horseplayers, both recreational and professional, have taken issue with the “Better Placing” rule, because it typically penalizes the winning horse (and the bettors with wagers on the horse) because they deemed that the impeded (affected) horse was cost a “better placing”. That is, the impeded horse finished worse in the final order of finish than the horse would have had the infraction not occurred.

Here is the official Rule the Stewards applied in the Disqualification, as explained by Barbara Borden, Chief Steward:

Section 12 of rule 810 KAR1:016:

“If a leading horse or any other horse in a race swerves or is ridden to either side so as to interfere with, intimidate, or impede any other horse or jockey, or to cause the same result, this action shall be deemed a foul. … If, in the opinion of the stewards, a foul alters the finish of a race, an offending horse may be disqualified by the stewards.”

The Key words to hone in on are….

“Alters the finish of the race”

What they really mean, without directly saying it is – “alters the official final order of the race, including the horses who finished up the track.” AKA — THE ALSO RANS !!!!

I set-off to research the matter further, and found that The U.S. and Canada use the “Category 2 Rule”, per the Thoroughbred Idea Foundation’s (TIF) website.

They state:

• “The philosophy applied in North America is identified by the International Federation of Horseracing Authorities (IFHA) as Category 2. Whereby if the interferer is guilty of causing interference and such interference has affected the result of the race then the interferer is placed behind the sufferer irrespective of whether the sufferer would have finished in front of the interferer had the incident(s) not occurred.”

To illustrate application of the rule……and to try and describe the application of stated rule in laymen’s terms, here is an example of a typical situation that Stewards might come across in any given week at a local track:

1. During the running of the race, a horse rallies from the back of the pack and sweeps by all of the horses to win the race by a convincing margin – say by 5 to 10 lengths
2. However, during the race, perhaps somewhere in the stretch, the winning horse “shifts in and bumps” another horse who is in contention, or appears to be in contention
3. The impacted horse is knocked off stride momentarily but recovers and continues running
4. After the race, an objection is lodged and / or a Stewards inquiry occurs

What is the likely outcome of the Steward’s decision?

The answer will shock you —- IT DEPENDS !!!!!

Scenario 1 – Impacted horse finishes 2^nd

Typically, if the horse that was impeded or bumped finishes 2^nd, the stewards will leave the result unchanged and the horse who crossed the line first will be declared the winner (and not DQ’d). Makes sense, right? The 2^nd place runner was “not cost a placing” because in all likelihood, the horse would have never won the race, and yet he still secured 2^nd place purse money.

Scenario 2 – Impacted horse tires in the late stages and finishes third, just missing out on 2^nd as a late closer beat him for 2^nd place at the wire.

In this case, typically, the Stewards will rule DISQUALIFICATION of the winner, because they deemed the infraction to have cost the 3^rd place finisher a better placing – that is, had the incident not occurred, the 3^rd place finisher would likely have finished 2^nd. Note, the 2^nd place finisher – who rallied late and was “in no-way impacted by the bumping incident”, was promoted to the win spot, and declared the official winner.

Really? Are you serious? Horse Players, Owners, and fans have been dealing with these type of shenanigans for decades?

YES, YES, and YES  !!!!!!!!!!!

This happens all of the time at the track, hence, the aforementioned frustration by the betting public because of the dreaded “Better Placing” rule on the books — and local jurisdiction’s willingness to carry out the rules to the letter — whereby the Stewards analyze the final order of finish (results) of the also-rans, and try to interpret or assess how these runners may have been impacted, because of the infraction or the incident the winning horse caused.

Application of the Rule in this Year’s Derby

Here is a newsflash….

Scenario 2, as outlined above, is similar to what happened in the Derby, and was the likely baseline or premise for the Stewards ruling.

The statement made by the Stewards:

“We had a lengthy review of the race. We interviewed affected riders. We determined that the 7 horse drifted out and impacted the progress of number 1, in turn interfering with the 18 and 21 (Bodexpress). Those horses were all affected, we thought, by the interference. Therefore we unanimously determined to disqualify number 7 and place him behind the 18, 18 being the lowest-placed horse that he bothered, which is our typical procedure.”

Coming back to the rule — “If, in the opinion of the stewards, a foul alters the finish of a race, an offending horse may be disqualified by the stewards.”

In summary, what the Stewards ruled in this case was that the “final order of finish was altered” – they ruled both War of Will and Long Range Toddy were impacted during the race and were cost a “better placing” in the race, which was the direct result of the infraction. So, based on the rule, the offending party – Maximum Security — had to be Disqualified.

The breakdown

There is near-unanimous consensus that Maximum Security, who won by 1 and three-quarters lengths over Country House, was the best horse in the race and the deserving winner.

What is not so clear is where War of Will and Long Range Toddy would have finished if the infraction had not incurred?

I think reasonable minds would agree on War of Will  — he was making a move on the turn and was ready to move on even terms with Maximum Security when the incident occurred. While War of Will had an opportunity to win the race, as the incident occurred before they reached the stretch, it is logical to surmise that War of Will would likely have finished somewhere between 2^nd through 5^th.  Regarding Long Range Toddy, it’s probably a bit murkier. He was a huge longshot and typically these longshots will fade anyway during the stretch, so to say he was cost a “better placing” might be a somewhat of a stretch.

And, I am not the only one who believes this regarding War of Will….

As the article from Horse Racing Nation website layouts a similar argument:

“Country House gave the impression of a chronic hanger on paper, and he showed it again when it counted. In fact, the incident did not affect Country House too much. It more so hurt War of Will and Long Range Toddy. Long Range Toddy folded quickly and looked done, but War of Will lost an unknown number of lengths while continuing to fight in the stretch.

That is the problem. Maximum Security cut off War of Will’s path, and War of Will still had some run left. Because the incident cost War of Will a better placing, the stewards had no choice but to disqualify Maximum Security.

In most instances, it is better to reward the bettors. If the discussed foul did not cost any horse a placing, then let the finish stand as it is.

But in this case, War of Will moved like a candidate to hit the board. His momentum was halted by Maximum Security’s actions, and that was unfair for him. If it only involved Long Range Toddy, who had nothing left, then maybe a bigger argument existed for Maximum Security. 

War of Will had a chance though to hit the board with a clear run.”

Full article found here:

https://www.horseracingnation.com/blogs/letswastemoney/Kentucky_Derby_Maximum_Security_disqualification_the_right_call_123#

The truth of the matter is — we will never know, because the incident did occur and you can’t project, with 100% certainty, what the final order of finish would have been had the incident not occurred.

The end result is:

In summary, the Disqualification penalized a deserving winner, and a new winner was declared who was undeserving of the victory. And lastly, the impacted horses like War of Will are still regarded as “also-rans”, and “off-the-board” finishers who only moved up ONE SLOT as a result.

Details:

1. Maximum Security is the main casualty
   1. His connections lose out on the victory and the hefty 1.86 million dollar prize
   2. Bettors who wagered on him were screwed on all wagers, including win, place, show, exacta, trifecta, and superfecta
   3. History is not properly recognized — racing legend and lure, are denied a chance, as he lost an opportunity to run for racing’s elusive Triple Crown
2. Country House, the new declared winner, was not a deserving winner and will always have an asterisk next to his name in the record books. He was the beneficiary of the decision, even though he likely was never going to win, nor was he impacted by the infraction.
3. War of Will didn’t benefit from the resulting disqualification of Maximum Security — there is no material impact in the ledger or history books, because all War of Will and Long Range Toddy did was move up ONE SLOT or placing (just like everyone else moved up, except the two last-place finishers)

My main takeaway is…..as a result of the disqualification of the winner…..who the hell cares if the impacted horses will get moved up – one whopping spot – in the order of finish?

And this, I surmise, is exactly the reason why the Jockey and Trainer of  War of Will, did not lodge an objection – basically for what — to move up from 8^th to 7^th???

The Alternative Universe — What Would have been the Result (if a better rule were on the books)?

First, let’s take a look at what the framework for what a “better rule” would look like.

When in doubt, I always defer to the experts. Dick Jerardi, a 2006 Eclipse Winner and horse racing writer, was discussing this matter on 94 WIP radio. Dick rightfully pointed out that two considerations should be used as a guidepost:

1 – basic common sense

2 – how other racing jurisdictions around the world handle the matter

Dick argued for:

“Basic common sense — penalize the jockey, not the horse (and bettors). If the first place result is not in question, why take down the winner?”

I have argued this (to myself at least) for years, especially taking a bad beat like Scenario 2 where a horse clunks up for 2^nd and thus gives the Stewards no option but to invoke the dreaded “better placing” rule.

Dick summarized that:

“Other countries around the world only look at the race for DQ purposes if the impacted horse finishes in 2^nd place.”

This makes sense as the horse’s ownership doesn’t really care if they go from 8^th to 7^th like in the Derby example. But, if the horse finished 2^nd, and it’s reasonable to infer the incident impacted the result, and the horse could have finished 1^st , then by all means strongly consider the DQ option.

More specifically, and without getting too wonky on the rules component, let’s also examine comments from the Chief Steward in Hong Kong, Kim Kelly, who said the following as quoted on the Paulick report site:

“After the controversial disqualification of Maximum Security in the Kentucky Derby, U.S. horse racing jurisdictions should get in line with the rest of the world and use the “Category One” standard for resolving objections and inquiries, according to Kim Kelly, chief steward of the Hong Kong Jockey Club.

Hong Kong and most other racing countries rely on Category One, which asks stewards to determine whether an impeded horse would’ve finished ahead of the horse who interfered. Kelly said if that was the guiding principle, Maximum Security would not have been DQ’d.

“He was the dominant horse in the race. No case could be successfully argued that those horses, if not for that interference, would have finished in front of [Maximum Security],” Kelly told the South China Morning Post.

Kelly concedes that because U.S. racing jurisdictions use the Category Two standard, the stewards had every right to disqualify the winner. Under Category Two, stewards may DQ a horse that fouls other horses if they believe the impeded horses were cost an opportunity for a better placing. The offending horse can be placed behind those horses.”

Full article found here:

https://www.paulickreport.com/news/the-biz/hong-kong-chief-steward-u-s-should-change-rules-on-disqualifications/

Circling back to the Thoroughbred Idea Foundation, where they break it down in a clear and concise manner. They strongly advocate the U.S. and Canada switching to Category 1, which is followed internationally.

Per the TIF website, Category 1 application is defined as:

“If, in the opinion of the Staging Authority’s relevant judicial body, 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.”

They further add:

“Adopting Category 1 across North America would yield a sport with a greater understanding of how a race is adjudicated, far fewer instances in which the stewards are called upon to review a race, fewer demotions, comes with an enhanced penalty structure for jockeys guilty of careless riding and increased confidence for all stakeholders in the adjudication of the race.”

Anyone interested in the details of the rules can further research by downloading the TIFs summary level PDF, found here:

https://racingthinktank.com/application/files/8315/4169/2531/TIF_Reports_-_Executive_Summary_-_Changing_the_Rules.pdf

So, looking at an alternative reality, what would happened if these rules were in place?

While I can’t be 100% certain, I would tend to agree with Kim Kelly — that there is a strong likelihood that NO DISQUALIFICATION would have been made in the Derby had Category One rule been in place for the United States.

To be more direct, if the strengths of Maximum Security’s winning performance, and margin of victory, had been taken into account (and not solely focusing on the also-rans), it’s likely the Stewards would have ruled NO CHANGE !!!

WHY?

Because Maximum Security was the best horse in the race and the likeliest winner, regardless of the infraction occurring or not (and regardless of the impact / evaluation on the also-rans).

Hence,

• Maximum Security would have been rightfully declared the official winner
• The jockey would have been fined. Life goes on as normal
• All is right in the world.
• 90% less controversy and churn on the topic, as most reasonable people (90% of us) would accept the decision, while maybe 10% of people would argue (horse and jockey safety, and the need to police the wild west antics in the Derby).

Final Take & Call to Action

My final take is — Let’s learn from history.

There are many similarities and parallels to draw between the NFL Tuck Rule and the Better Placing Rule (Category 2 Rule). Specifically:

• They both were/are complex, and misguided rules
• Largely, they were both unknown to the casual fan before the controversial calls were made
• They both were the “crux of the matter” which fueled the respective controversies
• They were both “intensely magnified” because they occurred on their respective sport’s biggest stages
• They both were applied correctly by the people entrusted to making sure proper application of the rules occurs — That is, both the referees and Stewards followed the letter of the law on the books pertaining to their rulings
• Both governing bodies handled the immediate aftermath poorly – the NFL was widely chastised for their post-game comments and handling of the matter, and the Churchill Stewards were admonished because they issued a curt statement at the press briefing, and didn’t feel the need to answer any questions
• And most importantly, history was altered. The Patriots won the super bowl and launched a dynasty. Maximum Security lost his chance at racing’s most coveted achievement, and is now only a mere parenthetical footnote.

Let’s hope that’s where the similarities end. Let’s learn from past mistakes. Specifically, it took the NFL 11 years to abolish their infamous Tuck Rule (the worst rule known to mankind was not changed until March 2013).

Horse Racing – its fans, bettors, owners, trainers — cannot wait 11 years for change !!!!!

Plain and simple, Maximum Security was the deserving winner of the race – he was by far the best horse – but earned a DQ not by the Stewards, but rather by the governing bodies of horse racing, who dallied in inaction and complacency for decades, and decided to leave an archaic rule on the books. The “Better Placing” Rule – Category 2, is antiquated and deserves no place in any racing jurisdiction. A rules overhaul is badly needed, whereby Category One is adopted as the rule in the United States.

Hence, my call to action is as follows:

Read the recommendations made by TIF – “Changing the Rules” whitepaper, become better informed, and lastly, make your voice known by contacting any of the governing bodies that help shape industry rules.

You can find the whitepaper here:

https://racingthinktank.com/application/files/3315/4170/2981/TIF_Reports_-_FULL_VERSION_-_Changing_the_Rules.pdf

A few of the governing body sites are found here:

http://www.horseracingintegrity.com/

http://khrc.ky.gov/Pages/regulations.aspx

The bottom line is — and I hope most would agree – it’s time for the Horse Racing Industry to look in the mirror, re-evaluate this insane rule, lean on common sense as a crutch, learn from mistakes made in other sports, and finally replace “their version” of the NFL Tuck Rule.

Until this occurs, the Industry will continue to fight an uphill battle towards restoring trust and credibility to the Sport of Kings.

Sincerely

Ponycapper

AKA Whitey

For comments and feedback, please contact me at [email protected]