by Brett Sturman

In December, this column detailed events that came from a strange disqualification in a race at Batavia Downs. The purpose of this writing just three months after isn’t simply to air more grievances around questionable rulings — I could do that weekly — but to illustrate the desperate need for both clearly defined rules, and for judges that can interpret those rules consistently.

As you’ll see why, it’s no coincidence that the Batavia race, as well as these next two examples come from tracks in New York State.

Beginning with a race from Monticello Raceway on Feb. 20, an apparent pylon violation resulted in a placing that lacks sense. In race 2 that afternoon, a horse named Itzalldowntoluck N prevailed narrowly in a three-horse finish, where second finisher Beddanburg was a head behind and third finisher Sharp Razor was just a neck behind. Following an inquiry that lasted more than five minutes, it was announced that Itzalldowntoluck N would be placed from first to second for a “pylon violation going into the last turn.”

Even on replay, it’s difficult to see the precise extent of the violation, but let’s concede that a violation in some capacity did in fact occur. How is it possible that the horse would have been disqualified to second place, but not third place? If the violation were material enough that it was ruled the initial winner gained an advantage over the second-place horse who finished a head behind, how would that same logic not have held the same for the third-place horse was only a neck behind?

The problem, in part, is with the surprisingly vague rules governing New York harness racing. I did an electronic search through the 151-page harness racing rules subchapter from the New York State Gaming Commission, and the word “pylon” appears just a single time throughout that entire document. The one time it does appear isn’t regarding how to handle violations but rather referring only to the structure of open stretch racing.

The most relevant part to this instance appears to be covered in section 4117.2 (c) where it says in part, “… Any horse or sulky that may partly leave the course shall be disqualified one or more positions, as appropriate, if, in the opinion of the judges, such occurrence has had a material effect on the finish of the race.”

At minimum, provided these were the rules followed, an explanation should have been provided in the decision to place the winner second, but not third.

Then there are times when rules are better documented, but what’s the use of them if they either aren’t followed or aren’t followed consistently? Which brings up another recent example from a New York harness track to complete the column trifecta, this one from Yonkers Raceway.

In race 7, from March 5, the horse Diamondbeach was dueling to the outside of the horse Record Year. Looking as if he might push by and win in the race’s final stages, Diamondbeach broke stride. Driver Brent Holland did all he could to lose ground while on the break, so much so that he ended up being passed at the finish by Contact Zone for second, who never would have gotten as close if not for the break.

Within three and a half minutes, Diamondbeach was disqualified, but not in the manner one would think. Rather than remaining in third place, Diamondbeach was placed all the way back to seventh, for the reason provided by the track announcer of “for interference while on a break to trailing horses.” A separate question – but shouldn’t one of the judges be providing clarity for disqualifications, rather than the announcer?

At any rate, it was a massively large reach to conclude that Diamondbeach breaking had impact all the way to the sixth-place horse. What is clear is that based on the proximity to the finish and the distance between the trailing horses when the break occurred, the initial order of finish was not impacted whatsoever.

The overall point now comes when comparing the Yonkers event to the Monticello event side-by-side. In the same set of rules governing both tracks, how can it be determined in one instance that a pylon violation resulted in a placement of mere inches, but in another instance a break that didn’t materially change any order of the finish be placed back many spots.

Part of the problem is the rules, which leave way too much interpretation to the judges. New York isn’t alone in that, other jurisdictions give judges discretion on how to determine an “unfair advantage” if the violation occurred with just a single pylon. But then on the other side, take Sweden, for example. As one of their disqualification rules for breaking states that a horse will be disqualified automatically if it breaks in the final 100 meters. That rule may sound harsh, but at least it’s crystal clear and leaves no room for subjective interpretation.

Judges, like anyone else, shouldn’t be beyond reproach. I received reader feedback from the Batavia disqualification in December, letting me know they hoped that column would bring more awareness to the poorly handled situation, when fair judges were brought in from another state to fill in for the regular judges that night. It leads one to think, what measures can be put in place to ensure that judges are interpreting rules uniformly.

Like any other sport, bad calls are inevitable – that’s just part of racing. But having rules in place that can at least be followed consistently and transparently should be something to strive for.