The meeting comes about three months after Kentucky stewards failed to even issue a demand signal following a Kentucky Derby (G1) race that saw runner-up Sierra Leone edge Forever young With just a slight bump to the nose after multiple crashes during the race, members of a meeting in Saratoga Springs, New York, advocated a much more open process in stewards’ decisions about interference during the race.
During a panel discussion titled “Better Bettor Protection and Confidence” at the Saratoga Horse Racing and Gambling Conference, panelist Pat Cummings reminded everyone of what’s at stake in such calls. Cummings, executive director of the National Thoroughbred Alliance and a longtime advocate for horse bettors, believes the integrity of the sport was compromised when this year’s Derby went off without any explanation for the stewards’ decision not to change the finish line because of a $500,000 difference between the second and third place finishers and millions of dollars in bets on the line.
The most basic way for a manager to notify the public that they are looking into an incident is to hold up a sign asking for it. That has not happened.
“If you can’t do it on the biggest stage, how do we know you can do it on the smallest stage?” Cummings said.
In addition to meeting current standards, Cummings would like to see stewards provide detailed explanations of their decisions to demote or keep a horse after reviewing incidents. Cummings would like to see stewards announce their decisions to bettors at the track and broadcast the players simultaneously via audio or video.
Council member Kim Kelly, chair of the International Federation of Racing Authorities’ Horseracing Rules Regulatory Committee and former senior steward of the Hong Kong Jockey Club, said Hong Kong had benefited from making public video footage of stewards making such decisions.
He recalled an incident in Hong Kong where the gates were not opened evenly to all runners and the stewards there held a public press conference to explain their decision to cancel the event and refund all bets. He showed video of a stewards’ decision in Australia after an outcry over interference in which they questioned the participants, made their decision, and explained their decision—all available in real time to anyone at the track or watching the simultaneous broadcast of the race.
“I think the only people who don’t like transparency are people who have something to fear from it,” Kelly said. “If transparency is your friend, then information and providing information is key. It’s absolutely critical to the confidence of the industry and the public. … Bettors need confidence. They’re not going to reinvest if they don’t have that confidence.”
“Even if they disagree with a decision, they can still see that everything was done according to the rules – fairly, impartially and objectively.”
Kelly also notes that when managers explain their decisions in real time, they have the opportunity to control the narrative and avoid miscommunication.
New York manager Victor Escobar, who previously worked in New Mexico and Oklahoma, said he could see stewards’ decisions being videotaped as they are made in the near future. He said such an approach could help people better understand racing and maintain confidence in the integrity of the sport.
“We all hear it, especially in the regulatory space. There’s a cry and a desire for consistency,” Escobar said. “In terms of consistency, no two incidents are exactly alike—there’s never going to be consistency in that. But what we have to demonstrate is that there’s consistent application of the rules. The only way to demonstrate that to them is to provide an understanding of the adjudication process.”
Escobar noted that while officials in some sports can make big decisions, race stewards make decisions that determine winners or losers, or change other standings. Because of the weight of those decisions, he said participants and bettors need to trust the process.
Cummings believes that increased transparency will help improve the consistency of rulings in racing.
“Having managers explain their decisions in some public forum is one way to ensure consistency,” Cummings says. “If you have to defend that decision through transparent communication, it can make you think about how you make those decisions.”
