TUCSON, Ariz. – The chairman of an international horse-racing rules committee on Tuesday urged North American racing jurisdictions to abandon their current protocols for deciding disqualifications of horses for racing infractions, saying that an acceptance of rules in place in most major racing countries world-wide would benefit bettors, owners, and the public perception of the sport. Kim Kelly, the chairman of the International Harmonisation of Racing Rules Committee, said racing jurisdictions that have recently switched to so-called Category 1 rules on interference have seen less public outcry about stewards’ decisions, more consistency in their decision-making processes, and better outcomes for the sport. He delivered his comments during a panel at the University of Arizona Global Symposium on Racing on Tuesday morning that also featured regulatory representatives from Oklahoma, the single state in North America to adopt Category 1 rules. Simply put, under Category 1 rules, stewards only demote a horse for interference if it is clear that the horse would not have achieved its final placing without the interference. The Category 2 rules in place in most U.S. racing jurisdictions are usually simplified to “a foul is a foul is a foul,” which means demoting horses for interference based simply on the infraction. Kelly said that instances of inquiry, demotion, and public dissatisfaction plummeted when Japan, France, Germany, and the Organization of South American Racing States all switched to the Category 1 rules over the past 11 years. The Category 1 rules are already in place in other major racing jurisdictions likes Great Britain and Australia. Kelly also said that stewards can maintain safe riding conditions under the Category 1 rules by disciplining riders involved in infractions without demoting horses for violations. “It penalizes the person who causes the offense but doesn’t drag everyone along for the ride,” Kelly said. “It doesn’t drag the owner along for the ride, it doesn’t drag the bettors along for the ride, it doesn’t drag the trainer along for the ride. It penalizes the person who caused the incident.” Despite a number of advocates arguing for the change in North America over the past several years – the most consistent and persistent has been Patrick Cummings, the head of a racing think tank that was recently disbanded – only one state, Oklahoma, has so far decided to switch to Category 1 rules. In Oklahoma, regulatory officials have been extremely satisfied with their decision, at least when applied to Thoroughbred races, the state’s chief steward said. “I believe in the philosophy and I believe that it is working," said Victor Escobar, the chief state steward for the Oklahoma Horse Racing Commission. Even in the event of declining to issue a demotion, Escobar said, “We’re still holding the rider ultimately responsible [by issuing penalties to the jockey], and we’re not going to accept a win-at-all-costs mentality in our jurisdiction.” One criticism of the Category 2 rules is that they consistently favor well-bet horses, because stewards base their decisions on whether the “best horse” wins the race. But Kelly Cathey, the director of racing at Remington Park, said that had not been the case, at least in his experience of observing the rule in action. “Some people got the idea that a 9-5 horse would never get demoted,” Cathey said. “But it’s not true. The stewards never look at the odds. It’s always whether that horse was the best horse in the race. Doesn’t matter what the odds are.” North American racing jurisdictions have been resistant to adopting the rules for a variety of reasons, according to officials, including the inertia created by the centuries-old policy of calling a foul a foul. There is also the somewhat American idea that a horse that commits a foul should be held accountable for the infraction, what the moderator of the panel, California Horse Racing Board executive director Scott Chaney, called a “question of equity.” Chaney is a former steward. But resistance has also come from many riders and their representatives, who question whether the Category 1 rules encourage jockeys to ride aggressively, knowing that the horse will not be demoted if the horse eventually wins the race in an otherwise impressive performance. On the morning of the panel, the Jockeys’ Guild, which represents riders in the U.S., released a statement announcing its board’s opposition to any change to Category 2 rules in the U.S., citing their members’ concerns that the shift would “lead to more hazardous riding styles.” “By giving the stewards the ability to disqualify the horse which has caused the interference, regardless of where the horse finished, it will serve as a deterrent to unsafe riding,” the statement said. “We, as an industry, have a responsibility to assure safety for both the horses and the jockeys.” The statement asked the Association of Racing Commissioners International, which is meeting late this week in Tucson to discuss potential rule changes, to reject the call for Category 1 rules, and it stated that Guild representatives will appear “virtually” at an ARCI Model Rules Committee meeting “to express concerns on behalf of the jockeys.” The Model Rules Committee will be discussing the Category 2 rules at a time when two other North American jurisdictions, Ohio and Ontario, are closely looking at adopting the changes. Tanya Boulmetis, the deputy director of the Ohio State Racing Commission, said that the commission is expecting to promulgate Category 1 rules and collecting public comment on the proposal beginning next year. :: Want to learn more about handicapping and wagering? Check out DRF's Handicapping 101 and Wagering 101 pages.