Thoroughbred Racing Fan Association, Inc.
Thoroughbred Racing Fan Association, Inc.
What's The Difference between Stewards' Category #1 and #2 Rules?
9/13/2024
Although some fans are frustrated with the Steward adjudication process in racing as told to ThoroFans based a few Saratoga races, help is on the way. Racing is looking at ways to improve the process. Debate seems to be over the status quo or a change as presented in this DRF article by Matt Hegarty. Currently at most United States tracks Stewards are using Rule Category 2 and have for years. Racing and its fan base have changed so why hasn’t the Stewards process? Change can lead to improvements if we understand the issues and keep an open mind. Or maybe no change is needed. Let me try to explain the issue being debated.
Rule Category 2 in its simplest form, of which there likely is no such thing, states that if an Inquiry is raised and after a race the Stewards look at the foul and respond, “a foul is a foul is a foul,” which means demoting horses for interference based simply on the infraction. Here is an example:
In the 5th race on July 28, 2024 where Regulatory Risk (# 4) broke from the gate seconds before the starter opened the gate, she was disqualified and the filly she hit was declared a non-start because of the severity of the interference. Sweet Mystery (#2) was severely bumped and although continued to try was no factor. Crushed Ice (#1) recovered, went for the lead but tired in the stretch and finished 4th. The remaining three horses ( Sedona, Central Avenue and America’s Vow) were not involved in the interference and finished 3rd, 2nd and 1st, respectively. The actions by the stewards excluding the premature gate opening which could have by Section 4025 of New York Racing regulation voided the race or determined it was run for purse only determined that the action by Regulatory Risk the cause for the infraction deserved a demotion consistent with Category #2.
Rule Category 1
Let see by first reviving Rule Category #1. Category #1 emphasizes the evaluative process in adjudicating an inquiry more than Category #2. In an incident generating the Inquiry Category #1 would force the question, “ did the incident in question cause the interfering horse to obtain his/her finishing place by interfering. If the conclusive answer is “yes” the horse will be demoted. If “No”, the results of the race stand.
An example of this was seen in the 8th race at Saratoga (select race #8) on August 18, 2024. The #1 horse veered out and bumped Senegal cause what appeared to cause a domino effect. There was an inquiry against the #1 who finished 3rd. Here is Stewards decision as posted on the NYRA website:
In the 8th race at Saratoga on 08/18/2024 there was a Steward’s inquiry. The incident occurred during the stretch run and involved the third-place finisher, #1 Albedo, who veered out intimidating the #4 Senegal who finished 6th and caused a chain reaction with #7 Tiz the Prince who finished 2nd ahead of the aggressor, the #6 Berning Beauty who finished 5th and the #2 Neptune Beach who finished 9th. After reviewing the replay and questioning the riders involved, the opinion likely came from the Stewards that [inserted opinion], because #7 Tiz the Prince finished ahead of the offender, #1 Albedo, the Stewards were satisfied that the other horses involved were not cost the opportunity at a better placing. As a result, there was no change to the order of finish.
Had the Stewards been applying Rule Category #2 the outcome of the Stewards actions could have been different.
In either Category #1 or #2 a penalty against the jockey can be assigned even though no action was taken on the inquiry. In the example of the 8th race at Saratoga on 8/18/24 the decision would have been the same whichever Category was applied, including assigning a penalty to the jockey. The drifting out bumping by Lescano on Albedo (#1) in fact may have started a chain reaction, but since one of the involved horses, Tiz the Prince, (#7) , finished second ahead of the interfering horse the Stewards under Category #2 it didn’t benefit the interferer. Hence no change in the outcome.