Kelly Leading Charge for Harmonization of Protest Rules

To be sure, stewarding is an imperfect science. The only consistent thing about stewarding is, a lot of times, the inconsistency. A pair of recent disqualifications, including the much-discussed demotion of McKinzie (Street Sense) in the GII San Felipe S. Mar. 10, have only served to amplify that notion.

But Kim Kelly, chief stipendiary steward of the Hong Kong Jockey Club and the chairman of the International Harmonization of Raceday Rules committee of the International Federation of Horseracing has, for the last decade or so, been doing his part to normalize and standardize stewarding practices. Previously the deputy chairman of stewards in Sydney, Kelly joined the Hong Kong Jockey Club in 2002 and was appointed to the role of chief steward in 2009. Since then he has chaired the harmonization of raceday rules committee, has also been chairman of two international stewards' conferences in conjunction with the Asian Racing Conference and will do so again when this year's ARC convenes in South Korea. And he has accomplished much in his short time at the helm.

Most of the world's major racing jurisdictions abide by the so-called Category 1 philosophy as it relates to protests, i.e. claims of foul (see below). In 2013, the Japan Racing Association adopted Category 1 and beginning with this year, France and Germany will align with the rest of Europe, while the majority of South American countries will abandon the 'old' way of thinking.

IFHA Model Rule Relating to Protests/Objections (Category 1 rule)

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.

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 and if not for the incident(s) the sufferer would have finished ahead of the horse causing the interference, the interferer will be placed immediately behind the sufferer.

Racing Authorities may, within their Rules, provide for the disqualification of a horse from a race in circumstances in which the Staging Authority's relevant judicial body deems that the rider has ridden in a dangerous manner. (Adopted 10/17)

North American racing jurisdictions continue to employ the Category 2 philosophy, a broader standard, allowing for greater interpretation and guided by a subjective assessment of whether or not a horse was cost a placing as the result of interference.

The United States and Canada represent the missing piece in the harmonization of rules puzzle, but it is not an obstacle that cannot be overcome, in Kelly's estimation.

“I am a born optimist,” Kelly said by phone from Hong Kong. “To be honest with you, if you had said to me five years ago that Europe, and France in particular, would change to the Category 1 philosophy, I'd have been very pessimistic about that. Yet here we are in 2018 and by the end of this year, all of Europe will be operating under Category 1 philosophy. Between 2013 and 2018, Japan and the whole of Europe have changed over, so that gives me valid reason to be optimistic, because whilst I appreciate that it will be a long journey, it is one that can be completed and if I wasn't optimistic about that, there wouldn't be any point in pressing on.”

Kelly admits that neither solution to the protest question is a perfect one, but that Category 1 is “more perfect” and that North America aligning itself with the rest of the world is a critical next step.

“Because of the internationalization of racing,” he replies when asked why harmonization is so important. “If we were still living in the 70s where there were very few horses traveling from jurisdiction to jurisdiction to race, if we were in a time where we weren't betting on each others' races–if it was just Americans betting on their own races, if it was just Hong Kong people who were betting on Hong Kong races–that would be a case of each for their own.

He continues, “But that's not the case any longer. Horses are traveling regularly from overseas to other jurisdictions to take part in races, more than ever before, and it's almost become part of the every day for horses to travel for races. But even more significant than that is the commingling aspect of racing and the international betting on races. Punters in Hong Kong can bet on a number of jurisdictions from all over the world, whether it be a Breeders' Cup, a Royal Ascot, a Melbourne Cup, the Durban July in South Africa. It is critical for punters that are betting on overseas races to have the confidence that the rules that are applied at Royal Ascot or at Royal Ascot or Hong Kong are the same that are going to be applied at the Breeders' Cup.”

Kelly agrees with the notion that Category 1 thinking affords racing officials the opportunity to deal with rules that are far more black and white and consistent, reducing the chances of causing disillusionment or even deeper dissatisfaction among racing's customers.

“There is nothing more galling to a punter to lose his money in one set of circumstances one day and to lose his money in another set of circumstances the next day when a week before he would have gotten paid out. That disenfranchises punters,” he said. “If the owners or jockeys or trainers lose a race because of a set of circumstances that doesn't occur anywhere else in the world, they are more reluctant to take and campaign horses overseas if they are not working under the same set of rules and the same set of policies that are in operation in every other major racing jurisdiction around the world.

“I think punters around the world would prefer the across-the-line placings to stand because that, in the most cases, is the result of the best horse winning the race,” he continued. “If you apply the situation of 'was there interference between horse 'A' and horse 'B' and they finish first and second, if you establish that, yes, there was interference between the two horses, then the only question that has to be answered from that point onward, is 'if that interference did not take place, would the second place-getter have beaten the winner?' They're two very simple questions. The first one is very easy, because, usually, you can work out simple enough whether there's been interference. Once you've ticked that box, it becomes a very simple process. You get away from the situation where a horse will roll in on the home turn or something like that and cause interference and then go on to win by four lengths. But because there is nose margin between the second and the third and the horse that was interfered with was the third horse, in a situation where a horse that wins by four lengths–understanding that the third place-getter wouldn't have beaten the winner even if he had a head start–is taken down, that disenfranchises punters and horsepeople. Clearly the best horse in the race won, but has been taken down.”

(Watch Secret Gesture's controversial DQd from an apparent win in the 2015 GI Beverly D. Stakes.)

The 2015 GI Beverly D. S. is a perfect example of how the two sets of rules diverge. In the race, Secret Gesture appeared on her way to victory in the final sixteenth of a mile when she came out on Stephanie's Kitten. The latter crossed the line in third as Watsdachances rallied late into second. Stewards ruled that the interference caused by Secret Gesture had cost Stephanie's Kitten the chance for a better placing and therefore demoted Secret Gesture to third. Despite never looking a winner, Watsdachances was awarded the race. Under the Category 1 philosophy, Secret Gesture would have kept the victory, as she was clearly best, and penalties could have been leveled against jockey Jamie Spencer. A simple Google search of reports in the aftermath of the race yields story after story critical of the decision, particularly from overseas scribes. A subsequent appeal of the demotion was unsuccessful.

Kelly appreciates and is mindful of the work involved with an ideological and procedural shift of this variety, but he said that inroads have been and are being made at events like last year's Pan-American Conference in Washington, D.C.

“Category 2 is what their customers know, it's what their horsemen know, it's what their officials know,” he said. “When a country goes from Category 2 to Category 1, it is a significant move because it is cultural as far as the way that the rules are applied and the way that interference is approached. It's not just a case of we'll be Category 2 one day and Category 1 the next. It does take the people that are associated with the sport–the trainers, the jockeys, the owners, the punters–some time to understand how the philosophy is going to be applied and how it's going to work in operation. It's not insignificant to move over.

He added, “We have had a harmonization committee meeting in New York and we had one in Washington in conjunction with the Pan-Am Conference. At those meetings, we were able to sit down with the stewards and explain the reason for the philosophy–how it works, how it is applied, why we believe, and, indeed, every other major racing jurisdiction believes, that's it is a fairer application of the interference rule than Category 2. Those discussions, I have to say, have been terrific. There were 20-plus stewards at the New York conference, there were equally as many in Washington and what we were able to do was show different videos from different jurisdictions and say, 'this is what happens under Category 1 and these are the reasons for it' and then they would explain how it would be interpreted in Category 2. There was some significant divergence in how those incidents would have been treated. The harmonization committee will continue to work very closely with the Racing Officials Accreditation Program (ROAP) and with The Jockey Club to see whether there is an appetite for change and if there is, how that change can be affected and how the policy can be applied. The application is critical. But nothing is too challenging that it can't be taken on.”

Kelly again cites the example of Japan, where he says there has not been a single disqualification since the switch to Category 1 at the beginning of 2013. Additionally, he said the number of inquiries have also dropped dramatically–from 143 in 3400 races in 2012 to a grand total of nine in 2017.

“Japan had one year of education of putting things on their website, putting videos on their website, explaining the two philosophies,” he explained. “So they would have an incident on the website and they'd explain, 'OK, this is how it would be in Category 2, this is what the situation would be under Category 1 and this is why the two differences in the way they are approached. It's very big education process that is required. We had worked very closely with Japan in the lead-up. We traveled over to Japan on a number of occasions to have discussions with their stewards as to how the philosophy works, what are the principles behind it, what's the application of it and on raceday, how does the philosophy apply to racing. It really is cultural, but certainly Japan has shown and France and Germany and the rest of Europe are about to show that it can be done if there is an appetite to do it.”

Even as he admits that instituting this type of change in North America won't be easy, Kelly is embracing the task and welcoming the challenge.

“Universal harmonization is still very much a goal and we'll continue to work very hard at that for the benefit of racing around the world,” he offered. “As I said earlier, I don't think anything disenfranchises punters more. I often use the analogy of a restaurant. If you go and spend US$100 on a meal and you don't get value for money, you won't go back to that restaurant. You'll go to one of the 20 other restaurants in the street. It's the same with racing–if a punter walks off the track and he did not get a fair run for his money, he won't come back to that restaurant, he'll go to another one. Racing needs the confidence of horseplayers, owners, jockeys and trainers to continue and to thrive.

“Without that, the sport is simply marking time.”