KENTUCKY DERBY 2019 CONTROVERSY – WHY THE RULES NEED TO CHANGE

Like many other horse racing fans (and just about anyone who watched the Kentucky Derby) it hasn’t sat right with me the way this year’s race ended.  

The outright winner and favorite (Maximum Security) was “disqualified” for impeding the paths of other horses.  The second-place horse (Country House) was awarded the victory instead.  (Note: Max Security was technically demoted and placed behind Long Range Toddy in the seventeeth finishing position – behind the worst finishing horse he affected. Final Results)

Chief Steward for the State of Kentucky Barbara Borden gave a statement about the incident: “The riders of the 18 (Long Range Toddy) and 20 (Country House) horses lodged objections against the 7 [Maximum Security] horse, the winner, due to interference turning for home leaving the quarter pole… We determined that the 7-horse drifted out and impacted the progress of number 1 [War of Wil], 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.”

Racing stewards are the officiators who supervise the outcome of horse races.  In this instance (Kentucky), they made their decision by referencing Section 12 of the 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.”

So, under these rules, it seems the Derby stewards may have gotten it right. There is no doubt that Maximum Security caused some kind of “interference”.   However, I do question how this has all been adjudicated.  

First, I am confused as to how there has been no inquiry into the actions of Maximum Security’s jockey, Luis Saez.  No one seems to think any malicious intent on his part was the reason that Maximum Security tried to block other horses from advancing.  Instead, Saez indicated that crowd noise may have caused his colt to bounce around awkwardly before the final turn. He said after the race, “I thought I never put anybody in danger. My horse shied away from the noise of the crowd and may have ducked out a little.”

That said, according to the stewards’ decision, are we to assume the rules are set up to censure a horse… for being a horse?  

What written rules would a 1,000-pound domesticated animal comprehend?  They can’t read.  They can’t understand that they are not supposed to change lanes.  They don’t know the ramifications of being spooked by all the crowd noise.  Which begs the question:  why are there rules for the horses in the first place?  

Rules are put in place for the authority in power to govern and regulate.  But, how can rules have any effect on someone (or something) if they never understand them in the first place and never will?

Let’s pretend for a moment that an alien ship landed on planet Earth and took over the world.  The aliens in power create rules for everyone in some kind of language that we don’t understand.  Yet, they condemn us when we break them.  Doesn’t seem fair.  Yet, that is what we are up against here.   

It makes more sense that rules would be set in place for the JOCKEYS alone.  If the stewards thought Saez purposely tried to stop other horses from gaining on his horse, then he should be the one who gets punished.  But, according to the ambiguous rules, it doesn’t matter. Disqualification is the punishment whether or not the horse alone caused interference.  

Here is the rule again:  “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. …”

Interestingly, many veteran horse people are defending this debacle. Trainer Mark Casse who ran the 1 horse (War of Will) in the Derby said after the race, “Should (Maximum Security) have come down? Absolutely positive… After watching it a few times, I knew they were going to take him down. It doesn’t matter whether it’s the Kentucky Derby or not. He put horses’ lives in danger. He put jockeys’ lives in danger. It’s unfortunate because I don’t know what (Maximum Security) shied from.”

With all due respect to Mr. Casse who is a very decorated elite trainer, how can he blame Maximum Security for… being a horse?  Yes, some horses were impeded by Maximum Security’s movements at the far turn. But Casse said he agreed with the stewards’ decision because the colt “put lives in danger”?  

Marc Guilfoil, executive director of the KHRC, also expressed confidence in the decision.  He said, “I agree with the stewards 100 percent… It was the right and correct call. It wasn’t a popular call. (But) it’s an integrity and a safety issue and they did what the rules provide (for) them to do… “We avoided a complete catastrophe there. The racing gods were smiling on us.”

Again, how can any written rule make a horse have more integrity and keep safety on his mind? Unless you are pointing fingers at human beings, this rule makes no sense and neither do the consequences.  

But, in the end, safety is the key concern here and it should be.  We certainly did not want to see any horses go down in the Derby and thank goodness, it did not happen.  If that is the real reason for the interference rule, then I can accept it.  

This leads into another problem with how this Kentucky Derby has been adjudicated.  The second-place horse (Country House) was not bothered by Maximum Security, yet the rider claimed foul.  

In actuality, Maximum Security knocked into the 1 horse (War of Will) who then was forced into 18 (Long Range Toddy) who also had to stop abruptly.   The stewards thought 21 (Bodexpress) was affected as well.  None of these horses had a legitimate chance to win the Derby. So, why was Max Security still disqualified?  Because of a rule that only the U.S. and Canada follow, which needs to change.

In November 2018, a racing think tank, The Thoroughbred Idea Foundation (TIF), wrote extensively about the subject of disqualification and interference in horse racing.  They explained that there are two systems of officiating in place set by the International Federation of Horseracing Authorities (IFHA).  One is used by the US and Canada (Category 2 system) and another used by the rest of the world (Category 1).  (These rules are the foundation under which each state in the country creates its rules for the stewards to follow.)  

The Category 1 rule reads: “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.”

By contrast, Category 2 rule states: “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.” 

Thus, if the U.S. followed Category 1 like the rest of the world, Maximum Security would likely have remained the winner.  None of the horses he interfered with would have finished in front of him.  Under this system, a horse is only disqualified if the horse it bothered clearly would have finished ahead of the offending horse if not for the incident. 

In fact, the TIF has pointed to inconsistencies Category 2 is causing in officiating all over the country.  The problem is that each state is interpreting the rule differently, rendering mixed results and disparity.  By switching to Category 1, the TIF feels there would be a clearer understanding of the rules and “far fewer inquiries and fewer demotions”.  

Specifically, the TIF stated in their November 2018 paper the major flaws under Category 2: “Clear-cut winners can be demoted for interference which had minimal impact on the race – penalizing the jockey, owners, trainers, bettors, and in some cases, even the racetrack itself.  Now imagine the application of Category 2 rules in a Kentucky Derby or Breeders’ Cup Classic. A winner that rolls clear only to lose the race in the stewards’ room. The outcry would be deafening.”

The TIF foresaw Saturday’s incident with disturbing clarity…

Further, the TIF stated, “Racing should want to promote a sport where the best horse wins. The Category 1 philosophy aims to ensure that standard… The consequences of a single jockey’s action, or a horse’s uncontrolled shifting, reach deeper in North America than anywhere else in the racing world. In races with much closer finishes, stewards in Category 1 jurisdictions won’t hesitate in hoisting the inquiry sign if needed, but the burden of proof is significantly tougher.”

This makes too much sense, doesn’t it?  

Finally, my third problem with how the Derby has been adjudicated is that there is a lack of an appeals process for the connections of horses that have been demoted/disqualified like Maximum Security.  

According to Kentucky Horse Racing Commission (KHRC) regulations, stewards are responsible for “all findings of fact as to all matters occurring during and incident to the running of a race,” and “findings of fact and determination shall be final and not subject to appeal.”

The Kentucky stewards who officiated the Derby this year never allowed the owner of Max Security (Gary West) to discuss the situation and/or review the footage they relied upon to make their decision.  Mr. West told the Today show this morning that he was willing to stay as long as necessary on Saturday to go over everything, but the stewards said absolutely not and turned him away.

Instead, the head steward only briefly addressed the media by reading from a piece of paper that was likely written by attorneys which included their decision and left.  They refused to answer any questions and indicated they will not make any further statements.  Why?  Because they don’t have to be transparent about anything.  The rules are set up that way.  

Mr. West said he’ll still try to appeal to the KHRC and could go to the Federal Court for relief, but he’s not sure yet if they’ll go that far.  There really is no other legal entity he can seek out.

It’s a shame that the Kentucky Derby 2019 ended up with a major controversy like this.  The horse racing community seems to be reeling right now about safety after what occurred in California recently, even to the point where fairness is not a concern.  

But, we still need to keep equity in mind.  Beyond the revenue the Wests will lose on Maximum Security for not winning the Derby, they lost out on a possible Triple Crown Winner.  Churchill Downs, Inc. is also now getting unfairly scrutinized for their role in this situation. The connections of Country House are not receiving respect they deserve for being declared the winner.  And, fans/bettors lack a clear understanding of what occurred. 

The solution(s) are easy ones:  The United States should convert to the IFHA Category 1 system, complete and full transparency is needed from stewards and appeals should be made available to the connections of demoted/disqualified horses.  

As an aside, this is the perfect time for the horse racing industry to bring the states/entities together and appoint a Commissioner, similar to what the big sports have. If there was a Commissioner in place today, he/she would be invaluable in helping to provide more lucidity about what happened Saturday.

Unless the rules and processes I mentioned are modified soon, I can’t see safety remaining paramount within the horse racing industry and fairness restored.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at https://theladylovessports.com/contact.