Officials in the NFL, NBA and MLB are on the field of play and as such their decisions are open to the public.
Racing officials in other jurisdictions around the globe make their investigations and decisions public:
Steve Davidowitz
Author, 'The Best and Worst of Thoroughbred Racing'
The fact that other sports provide reasonable public access while a challenge is lodged is interesting, but irrelevant. Fact is, transparency should be automatic in racing.
Horse racing is a public enterprise, operated in the public interest, with serious money decided by the decisions of state appointed stewards, who function on behalf of the public not against them. The public has inherent rights to transparent access that are constantly undermined by a closed door steward's policy.
There should be no hesitation, no special dispensation from the pope needed to provide the racing public with access to quite a few things. First and foremost, we should be able to hear the audio interviews the stewards conduct with jockeys to adjudicate a claim that will affect the outcome of a fairly or unfairly run race.
Likewise, nothing should trump the public's right to the same video tape evidence the stewards are using to make their decisions. Just as anyone in a city council meeting, or congressional hearing, or courtroom should have access to the evidence being presented in public matters, so too should the race going public have similar access to all pertinent evidence.
In my judgment, privacy should be permitted only for the actual vote taking on the claim or inquiry after all the evidence has been reviewed. But even in that instance, the stewards' should be required to provide specific details to the press as to what their decision was based on and who voted yea or nay on the alleged foul or infraction.
The bottom line: Not only would the general public learn a lot more about the nuances of racing through 'transparency in the steward's booth', the time has long since disappeared when racing could get away with making decisions in secret.
Steve Davidowitz... Author of 'The Best and Worst of Thoroughbred Racing'. Steve is a veteran reporter, columnist and handicapper who has worked and gambled at dozens of American racetracks, and is a passionate lover of the racing game.
Jerry Bossert
NY Daily News
Sure I wish their decisions were made public. They hide behind their group decision on a takedown or not. I wish they all had a public record and when they do -- or don't -- make a disqualification after putting up the inquiry sign, write down the reasoning so there is a record which could be compared to down the road.
I think having an official record would help keep the stewards' rulings more consistent. I know you can't keep the same three stewards in the booth at all times because of illness or vacations, but having a written record which they could all study from would, at least I believe, help keep things more consistent.
I also would wish tracks around the country would have the same set of rules, especially regarding whip interference. Some places it is an automatic takedown, other places it is not.
I also don't think the stewards should have to talk to the jockey after the race. No jockey is going to admit fault and say, "Take me down." If the stewards see a foul, they should act on it. When an NFL referee sees a holding call, he calls the foul. He doesn't ask the offensive lineman. Plus, I believe, English speaking jockeys have a huge advantage over those that speak none or little English. This is another reason the stewards shouldn't talk to a jockey.
Jerry Bossert... Racing writer and handicapper for the NY Daily News.
Steve Byk
'At the Races and Beyond', Sirius satellite
Derby Trail.com
Few areas bridging on-track competition and the pari-mutuel wagering process
generate greater consternation from fan and runner connections than the
mercurial modus operandi of the stewards. On a daily basis, the arbiters in
the judge's stand hand down decisions that regularly show little consistency,
uniformity or logic in application. The resultant frustrations, and frequent
lack of recourse for all impacted by the decisions, contributes mightily to
the overall malaise that pervades racing.
Jockey Norberto Arroyo, feeling the sting of Pimlico steward prejudice after
having the 2006 Black-Eyed Susan stolen from him and Smart and Pretty, asked
famously, "Who stewards the stewards?". It's a fair question. Chris Paasch,
furious that his much-the-best longshot winner was robbed for incidental
contact in an overnight stake at Santa Anita, was reminded of a backstretch
incident more than 20 years earlier by a steward when eventually even
provided an explanation of the DQ. Recently, Tampa Bay stewards fleeced
bettors by failing to declare a non-starter of a favorite held by the gate
crew when he tried to beat the bell and reared as a result. Ninety minutes
later, these same stalwarts of the game's sanctity, forced a favorite to run
despite the Lonnie Arterburn runner breaking through the starting gate
TWICE, and jockey Joe Rocco begging that the horse be scratched. In addition
to endangering the health of Arterburn's horse and Rocco's safety, seven other
runners were left in the gate for more than 9 minutes while a 9th unloaded
starter, the eventual race winner, was allowed to parade with an outrider
behind the gate: an obvious, and totally unfair advantage.
Every group of officials in every major sport undergoes regular, exhaustive
evaluation by their respective national governing body. Not racing's...
While an authoritative 'Board of Review' would be a simple solution to the
unending complaints regarding steward inequities, the lack of anything
resembling a national governing body makes any potential progress on this
sorry subject just one more thing in the game that no one seems to care
enough about to address.
Steve Byk... Co-host, 'At the Races and Beyond', Sirius Satellite Radio. Steve is the founder/publisher of Derby Trail.com.
|
|
Ingrid Fermin
Exec Dir, California Horse Racing Board
The CHRB is dedicated to having the agency be transparent. In that regard, the decision of the Stewards after an inquiry is explained by the Association Announcer. Last year, we did experiment with a member of the Board of Stewards making the explanation, but the Associations have since chosen to have that task carried out by their Announcer. Additionally, we do announce whether the decision is unanimous or 2-1. There has been discussion about naming the Stewards and how each one of them has voted if the decision is not unanimous, but we have not implemented that yet.
I believe that the public is entitled to any information concerning the running of the races. As mentioned, we explain inquiries publicly, even if there is no change in the order of finish. In most instances, the riders involved are required to review the incident with the Stewards the following day, and any sanction that is issued is public. The Stewards submit weekly "Minutes" that summarize their daily activities to the Commissioners, and they are available to the public upon request. The "Minutes" note if a rider has met with the stewards, and are likely to summarize the discussion even if no sanction is issued.
The CHRB is in the process of rewriting the evaluations that are used for the Stewards.
Ingrid Fermin... Currently the Executive Director of the California Horse Racing Board. Ms Fermin became the first female steward in California in 1981.
Robert Colton
Retired jockey
Before discussing my opinion on transparency in the stewards' booth, I would
like to state the large majority I the stewards I rode under took their job
seriously and did a good job. It is a difficult job and in EVERY decision
they make, someone is unhappy. Some calls are black and white, most are
subjective, especially now with the rule "did the interference alter the out
come of the race". Maybe I am old school, but I preferred it when a foul
was a foul. There were occasions later in my career when I knew I bothered
another horse and it was either win the race and get days or not win. I'll
plead the fifth here.
Stewards and jockeys relationship is much different than with bettors. I
considered them more of a referee in a football game or an umpire behind
home plate calling balls. Successful jockeys ride to the "line" between
race-riding and carelessness. That "line" is determined by the stewards.
A cheap shot in a race is different than one in a football game or a pitcher
backing a hitter off the plate. Riding is dangerous enough without a
careless jockey. For my safety and the other jockeys, I always wanted to
know exactly where the "line" was. Believe me, it's just as frustrating for
jockeys dealing with inconsistent calls as it is the bettors.
My career lasted for almost thirty years, so I have had a lot of experience with
stewards. There were instances where dealing with a judicial system where
three individuals are the sheriff, judge, jury, and in some cases the
Supreme Court was very frustrating. There were occasions when I questioned
a disqualification or rule and was told if I didn't like, pack my tack. At
race tracks or areas where there is year round racing, personal conflicts
between a rider and the stewards can become very problematic.
So am I for transparency in the stewards' booth? Absolutely. But, this
could harder to do than one would think. We have a seriously dysfunctional
"family" that has been resistant to change, no central authority to
brainstorm & implement change, and less money going to the State Commissions
who would be hesitant to fund any new program.
The cut in state budgets and a higher "perceived" level of integrity has
ended up in the laps of stewards. They are doing more work in areas they
should never have to, which could very well affect the decisions they make
concerning the running of the races. I want to see transparency. I want
stewards to be held accountable. But I don't want a system that discourages
stewards from being tough. Losing money on a questionable call is tough.
Lying in a hospital bed is tougher.
Robert Colton... Retired jockey and former board member of the Jockey's Guild.
|
Nick Kling
Troy Record
My response to every question in the query is simple -- yes.
Although stewards are accountable to their superiors, which in New York are the State Racing and Wagering Board, the Jockey Club, and the New York Racing Association, there is one significant interest group missing, the betting public.
Stewards votes should be public information, with each vote recorded separately. Horse racing in New York is licensed and regulated by government. It should be a requirement that if public money is wagered, bettors have a right to know the votes of those who adjudicate the outcome.
Stewards should be required to issue a daily, written report of that day's deliberations. Inquiries or objections that do not produce a result change should be noted, with reasons included.
Better yet, require a written report, and add a regularly scheduled press conference, where stewards present themselves to the credentialed racing media. Do it at a time when the public can listen to a closed circuit feed that goes out to both on-track and simulcast audiences.
I'll go one step further. In theory, the Racing and Wagering Board steward represents the betting public. However, she or he is also responsible to horse owners, trainers, and jockeys, among others. There should be a fourth steward, with the sole responsibility of representing bettors.
This would also help mitigate controversy. It would require a 3-1 or 4-0 vote for a disqualification, eliminating many close calls that infuriate bettors.
The method of selecting this public steward should be determined by bettors. In the spirit of America, where each person has one equal ballot, voter registration could be as simple as the possession of a single mutuel ticket. Other options might prove more workable, but let the debate begin.
When 2006 Eclipse Award winning jockey Edgar Prado moved to New York several years ago, he was involved in an incident that illustrates the issue. Prado was aboard a horse from a low profile barn, which engaged in a stretch duel with an animal trained by Todd Pletcher and ridden by Jerry Bailey. After watching the head-on replay several times, no one among the several bettors with whom I was with could find any reason for a disqualification. However, the new guy Prado and low profile trainer were taken down from first in favor of the Pletcher/Bailey horse.
Perhaps the decision was legit. However, without an explanation from the Stewards, other than the inconclusive head-on replay, we never found out what it was. That breeds cynicism and distrust of the system.
Nick Kling... Racing columnist and handicapper for the Troy Record. Nick is also co-host of the popular weekly 'Track Facts' program on Capital OTB-TV.
Janine Starykowicz
Chicago Barn to Wire website
Racing fans have become more sophisticated, with access to greater amounts of information, and they are entitled to even more. With simulcasting, our
industry is more global than local. Rules of racing are different from
state to state, but we are making moves to standardize them. One of
these is the
Racing Officials Accreditation Program (ROAP).
ROAP is working to increase the professionalism of stewards through
testing and ongoing training. For accreditation, ROAP requires stewards
to attend an accreditation school, pass a video, oral and three-part
written exam, and meet experience requirements. Stewards are also
required to complete 16 hours of continuing education every two years to
maintain accreditation.
In 2007, ROAP will work towards standardizing the following: uniform
posting of the inquiry sign; requiring jockeys to ride horses out to the
wire; uniform review of race video before declaring a race official; and
routine communications with owners, trainers, jockeys, track management,
fans and other racing officials.
Janine Starykowicz... A life-long fan of racing and sometime owner, Janine maintains the Chicago Barn to Wire website.
Sal Sinatra
Dir of Racing/Racing Sec, Philly Park
- Should racing stewards' decisions be more accountable -- and public --
like those of the refs in the NFL, NBA, or umpires in MLB?
We instituted the "stewards" view here during all inquiries & objections
so that the public can see what the stewards are reviewing.
Unfortunately, a lot of the decisions are judgment calls, similar to
pass interference-type infractions in football and will always be
debatable. A possible thing to look at may be an industry wide review
from management, horsemen's groups, etc. at each track to evaluate their
judges. Another suggestion may be to have steward's work a couple of
weeks with other steward teams at different tracks, to get a different
perspective.
- Should we know not only the vote after an inquiry (was it unanimous,
or 2-1?) but also how each steward voted? Is it fair for the fans to
expect to know if a particular steward is consistently strict?
Consistently lenient? Or perhaps, just inconsistent?
The stewards, once a determination is made, will generally universally
back the decision, regardless if it were a split decision. I think if
they are made to make it public, we would see nearly all decisions
unanimous.
- Does the betting public have a right to know what goes on behind
closed doors and should we hear about inquiries such as those linked to
above from other jurisdictions around the world where perhaps the
outcome warranted no action -- but at least the fans would know someone
is paying attention?
It was nice in the "old days" when the Daily Racing Form would publish
all rulings. There is something to be said about seeing your name in
print. Currently most rulings are known in state and throughout the
backstretch, however unless it is a high profile trainer/jockey we do a
rather poor job keeping our fans in the know.
- Would a written, daily summary of stewards' concerns and inquiries --
both those that resulted in action being taken and those that didn't --
be a good thing?
I think that would be a good thing. If at least some sort of incident
report should be dispersed. There are many times I have to question
what happened, primarily if I didn't see the infraction. I keep a
library in my office of all races, all views so that I can watch and
debate decisions with trainers, owners or jockeys involved. It would be
good practice to have a matching diary of the dq's and non-dq's with
some written backup.
- Should the industry sponsor a "watchdog" group to monitor stewards
similar to the NFL where "NFL supervisors grade every call in every game
for every one of the seven officials ."
There currently is a steward's school where they must continue their
education. They meet and are "graded" on infractions as part of this
program. However, school and on the job are two different animals. In the
age of simulcasting there are so many diverse eyes looking at the same
video replay causing many opinions of outcome.
Bottom line, if our fan base is to be increased, we need to get them
more involved in the process. Regardless if they agree with the
outcome, I have always found that anyone left out will feel slighted.
Sal Sinatra... Director of Racing/Racing Secretary Philadelphia Park.
|
|
