SARATOGA SPRINGS, N.Y. – Stewards at racetracks across the United States should become far more transparent when adjudicating inquiries and objections, to the point of considering a live broadcast of their discussions with jockeys and their own decision-making processes, participants on a Monday panel at the Racing and Gaming Conference in Saratoga Springs said. The overall reticence of American stewards to explain their decisions on inquiries and objections came in for sharp criticism during the panel, which included a steward who has officiated in Hong Kong and Australia; a Standardbred attorney; a U.S. steward who now works for the New York Racing Association; and the executive director of a reform-minded think tank. All said that bettors and the racing industry overall would benefit from far more transparency during the adjudication of the inquiries. “We have to show bettors that there is a consistent application of the rules, and the only way to show that is to provide them with an understanding of the adjudication process as a whole,” said the NYRA steward, Victor Escobar, who previously worked as a steward in New Mexico and Oklahoma.  NYRA hired Escobar in February, two months after a notorious incident in which the stewards at NYRA tracks erroneously disqualified a horse who was not involved in any physical contact during a race. The Jockey Club steward involved in the incident also was fired and replaced. During the panel, Kim Kelly, the steward with experience in Hong Kong and Australia, showed a video that was broadcast to the Australian public after the stewards announced an inquiry into a race. During the video, the stewards take live testimony from one of the riders involved in the two-horse incident as the other waits to be interviewed. Later, the stewards provide a detailed explanation for their decision to demote one of the horses. No U.S. racetrack provides live video and audio of the adjudication process, though cameras sometimes catch images of riders near the winner’s circle providing testimony over phones connected to the stewards’ stand. Only a handful of tracks require their stewards to issue explanations of their decisions. :: Get the Inside Track with the FREE DRF Morning Line Email Newsletter. Subscribe now.  Kelly explained that Australia requires the adjudication to be broadcast in the interest of “total transparency.” “The benefit of that scenario is twofold: those people who had a betting interest in the race, they have gotten explained to them why there’s been a change in placing,” Kelly said. “The owners get to understand why the horse was being taken down. But it also shows the public the process. Even though a bettor may have lost his bets, it shows that the process was legitimate and that it had merit and that everything was done by the book.” Kelly said that being upfront and “on the front foot” allowed stewards in Australia and Hong Kong to “control the narrative.” He said that in the age of social media, if stewards don’t control the narrative, then someone else who “may be conflicted” will step in to fill the gaps, often to the detriment of the industry. Pat Cummings, who is currently the executive director of an advocacy group recently founded by Thoroughbred owner Mike Repole, the National Thoroughbred Alliance, said that other sports are adapting to the rapid changes in the information landscape to deliver more information to their fans on how decisions are being made, and he urged American racetracks to catch up.  Cummings also pointed out that the current layouts and amenities of U.S. racetracks would require major investments in infrastructure to enable live broadcasts of deliberations. Citing his previous tenure as the vice president of communications for the Hong Kong Jockey Club, he said that such an investment would pay immediate dividends. “I don’t know if we’re going to get to the Australia and Hong Kong model anytime soon, but we should at least get on the pathway,” he said. Chris Wittstruck, the attorney for the Standardbred Owners’ Association of New York, said that stewards would make better decisions if they were committed beforehand to informing the public about how they arrived at their results, because the requirement of an explanation would improve the adjudication process in real time. “If we get them to explain themselves and act transparently, they will be compelled to act consistently,” Wittstruck said. Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority panel In a separate panel at the conference earlier in the afternoon, representatives of four racing commissions offered differing accounts on the impact of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority on their operations, budgeting, and staff. The panelists included the executive directors of racing regulatory bodies in California, Florida, New York, and Texas, a remarkably diverse group when it comes to their level of cooperation with HISA and acceptance of its authority and jurisdiction. California, along with Kentucky, are the two jurisdictions in the United States that have fallen most solidly behind HISA. New York has been supportive of HISA’s goals, but the status of its employees and its regulatory mandate have complicated its efforts to cooperate with HISA on many of its programs, provide direct funding to HISA, or receive credits for work on HISA’s behalf. In Florida, the state legislature pays the fees its racetracks owe to HISA, and racing regulators have taken a stand-back attitude while allowing HISA to perform many of its regulatory duties. Texas has rejected HISA’s jurisdiction completely, and as a result, its tracks do not send their signals out of state. Regardless of the extent of their relationships with HISA, none of the officials said that the advent of HISA has had a substantial impact on their budgeting and staffing so far. In part, the officials said, that was due to a reluctance to fire long-term employees who had become redundant. But officials also said that the various legal challenges still unresolved regarding HISA’s constitutionality have made it hard to commit to large changes. “Everyone is sort of in a wait-and-see approach, because you don’t want to get rid of a position in June if you need it in July,” said Scott Chaney, executive director of the California Horse Racing Board. :: Bet the races with a $200 First Deposit Match + FREE All Access PPs! Join DRF Bets. Among the four states, spending and staffing at the Florida Gaming Control Commission seemed to have been the most affected, according to Louis Trombetta, the commission’s executive director. While commission staff still collect samples, HISA handles all the other drug-testing duties. HISA also has been given the authority to conduct all adjudications of racing violations, and the commission has eliminated the positions of the attorneys who previously handled those cases, Trombetta said. In addition, HISA did not certify the testing lab in Florida that previous conducted its drug tests, leading to lower budgetary outlays for the lab, Trombetta said. The panelists also were asked whether HISA has led to progress in creating uniformity among racing jurisdictions. Most of the panelists agreed that the association had taken measurable steps on the issue, but they also all said that additional progress needed to be made. Trombetta said HISA’s ability to enforce one set of rules in all of the states under its jurisdiction was an improvement over the previous system of states individually adopting recommendations from a national group, which he indicated was the fatal flaw that kept racing from achieving any semblance of uniformity despite decades of advocacy on the issue.  “That’s where the failure was,” Trombetta said. “It’s hard for states with different rule-making authority and different objectives to adopt model rules.” Amy Cook, executive director of the Texas Racing Commission, the state that has not recognized HISA’s authority, called uniformity a “great term of art,” but then said it was “impossible to achieve.” :: Want to learn more about handicapping and wagering? Check out DRF's Handicapping 101 and Wagering 101 pages.