Op/Ed: Human Element Still Critical in the Stewards' Stand

Editor's Note: 30 years ago today, the Saratoga stewards disqualified the wrong horse in the second race of the day, taking down the winner, Allumeuse, rather than Syntonic, who had caused another horse to fall. The incident not only shed light on the weight of the decisions made in the stewards booth, but led to checks and balances so such an incident would not be repeated. Dr. Hill was NYRA's track veterinarian at the time. He reflects here on the human element of stewards' decisions.

For those who follow sporting events, it seems like referees, umpires and officials these days often receive as much attention as the athletes who are competing. Someone is always criticizing them and it's not just the avid fans on the wrong end of a particular call.

Instant replay in the NFL, strike-zone technology in baseball and retired officials chiming in to network broadcasts all contribute to the growing disdain toward officials.

Make no mistake. I'm all for transparency.

But I think in many ways, the reliance on technology has helped undermine the respect and authority that used to exist for officials in any sport. And I think that's especially true in horse racing.

I spent 19 years in the stewards' stand at the New York Racing Association tracks and I saw a great deal of change in those two decades.

There was a time when stewards were the law. They were respected and even revered in some cases. They could tell a problem jock to pack his tack and leave town. They didn't tolerate lawyers well and didn't need to consult one for every decision they made.

But times have changed and the horses, trainers, owners and jockeys are competing globally in stakes races for significant purse money and prestige. There is certainly a greater complexity of issues and increased pressure on stewards today.

Medication rules and violations have evolved far beyond the simple Bute or Lasix overage. They watch over races that involve greatly expanded wagering options and, in the case of jurisdictions that allow exchange wagering, the ability to bet on a horse to lose. They are dealing with use of the whip and welfare issues.

While enforcing the rules of their respective jurisdiction, stewards must be cognizant of those of other states. They cannot isolate themselves. They must strive to work with stewards both regionally and nationally.

Consistency by the stewards, or lack thereof, has been a recurring topic among handicappers and regular patrons for decades.

Many fans argue that it is time to take the human element out of the game and use available technology. But are we really ready to make that jump? In most team-sport games, it is generally accepted that officials' calls, good and bad, balance out in the end.

Frankly, baseball without an umpire at the plate making those calls, would be boring, more like another video game without the human interaction. Admit it: we love the drama.

So what about racing? Current technology can accurately record a horse's distance and time in racing and training. Drones are being explored as potential resources to assist stewards in dealing with interference incidents.

GPS data can determine how much ground is lost when a horse is impeded and/or jostled. By the antiquated standard of “a foul is a foul,” a horse must be disqualified for committing a foul, regardless of where the incident happened during the race. Is it time to take that next step and take stewards out of the equation?

Stewards' decisions arguably have greater impact overall than those of ball game officials. A couple of bad calls seldom have any real effect on the outcome of a team's final standing in the course of a long season.

On the other hand, a disqualification or no action taken by the stewards when a horse may have been fouled can have significant results for the betting public and the connections of the horses involved.

The stewards are considering several factors whenever there is an incident, not just was there a foul. The key factor is “did the foul alter the finish of the race,” in their judgment. Did the fouled horse contribute to the incident, was the horse improving his position, holding his ground, or tiring at the time, what were the margins at the finish, did the jockey over-react and how did the jockey of the fouled horse finish to the wire?

The consistency of stewards' decisions is not easy to define. Very few incidents are identical, and when they are, the action is straightforward. When a foul is obvious, causing a horse to check hard, losing ground and beaten a narrow margin for a position, that's an easy call. And a welcome one.

Most incidents are just not that simple.

Is it time to minimize the stewards in dealing with fouls? This writer thinks not.

Dr. Ted Hill served as the chief examining veterinarian for the New York Racing Association for 13 years and as The Jockey Club steward at NYRA for 19 years before retiring at the end of 2015.