Balan: Differing DQ Standards on Display at Symposium

[Andy Asaro]

Excerpt:

For instance, in the U.S. a horse who commits a foul that costs a rival second- or third-place money is disqualified to a placing behind the fouled horse. In Japan that same horse who commits an infraction would only be disqualified if it is determined that the infraction cost the fouled horse the chance to defeat the horse who committed the foul. The fouled horse's finish relative to other horses in the race does not factor into the decision in Category 1 countries.

The Japanese Racing Association representative on the panel, Atsushi Koya, lauded the change the JRA made in 2013 to Category 1 and provided statistics to support his decision. From 2013-16 not one horse (from about 3,400 races a year) has been disqualified from first place. Six have been disqualified from placings underneath the winner.

"This change was a true reform to make our racing better," Koya said. "With this change the stewards are able to make decisions faster and straightforward, even in complicated cases. I think it helps ... the punter move onto the next race quickly after knowing the result and a decision."

https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/225076/differing-dq-standards-on-display-at-symposium

[Tom]

They way we officiate horse racing is ridiculous and antiquated.
First of all, the jockey should never talk to the stewards. Those who barely speak English are already at a disadvantage. And don't tell me there is not bias on many levels in the stewards cave. Technology is barely used in the process.

Like so much of racing, tradition is confused with out-dated.

[JohnGalt1]

I agree.

Baseball umpires don't ask the first baseman and the runner who was safe.

Football refs don't ask the offensive and defensive players if it was a hold or pass interference.

In photo finishes, stewards don't ask the jocks who won.

Jocks, trainers and stewards have a right to ask for an inquiry.

Racing stewards should make a decision from all the camera angles, without input from biased jockeys.

Just like other sports, if the camera doesn't show a reason to overturn, let the results stand.

[zawaaa]

Board steward Scott Chaney, while expressing that the ease of the Category 1 system is a benefit, ultimately made the point that Category 2 rules are fairer to all participants.

"When you switch to Category 1, you're sacrificing fairness, equity—things like that—for certainty, consistency, and (being) easier to understand. ... Our current philosophy introduces a lot more judgment and a lot more subjectivity in an effort to make the races and their outcomes more fair—more just," Chaney said

i guess if they keep repeating that what they do is actually fair & just, they somehow believe that's it true.

kudos to japan, at least.

[Tom]

A DQ affects tens of thousands of dollars.
I think racing owes its customers more than "rinky" and "dink."
They have the timing systems to cover that. :bang:

[JustRalph]

Like so much of racing, tradition is confused with out-dated.

Great way of saying it :ThmbUp: