Hall of Fame DQ controversy: A question of consistency?

The controversy caused by last week’s disqualification of first-place finisher Zulu Kingdom in the Grade 2 National Museum of Racing Hall of Fame Stakes at Saratoga might come down to inconsistency in riding rules in jurisdictions across the country.

That was part of the discussion Wednesday on the New York Racing Association’s Stewards Review program.

Late-running Luther crossed the finish line second and was promoted to victory in the one-mile, inner-turf race Friday. Early in the race, Zulu Kingdom, Tiz Dashing and Luther were the trailers. Ridden by Javier Castellano, Tiz Dashing bore inward and pinched Luther and his jockey Joel Rosario against the rail. Flavien Prat and post-time favorite Zulu Kingdom were about a length clear but veering inward at the time of the contact between the other two colts.

Stewards decided Zulu Kingdom caused the trouble because his shift to the inside affected the outcome of the race, and he was demoted to fourth. Read more here.

On Saturday’s program, NYRA analyst Andy Serling questioned NYRA steward Victor Escobar and Jockey Club steward Cody Watkins about making the call that the interference affected the outcome of the race.

Part of the New York rule regarding riding fouls states that “a horse crossing another may be disqualified if, in the judgment of the stewards, it interferes with, impedes or intimidates another horse, or the foul altered the finish of the race, regardless of whether the foul was accidental, willful or the result of careless riding.”

Escobar said that although the interference occurred early in the race, “we still have to weigh the gravity of the foul itself, the incident. And again, just to go back to the rule, it says, does it affect the outcome of the race? Looking back at the gravity of this foul there was significant interference. Significant ground was lost by both horses. For me to look at this and to go back and say that this didn't potentially affect the outcome of a race, I can't confidently justify that.”

Serling then discussed the race, and the difference between New York and California rules regarding interference, with Andrew Offerman, senior vice president of racing and operations for NYRA.

“Consistency is everybody's objective, whether it's the stewards, the participants, handicappers, everybody wants to see a consistent application of the decision-making process,” Offerman said. “When you have different rules throughout jurisdictions, people are watching potentially one race in California, one race in New York, and trying to figure out why they don't get the same decision. Well, they're operating under different sets of rules, which makes it difficult to maybe have consistency in those jurisdictions.

“And you'd like to think in this industry where we agree on nothing, that we could agree that everybody should be dealing with the same set of rules because there should be consistency from state to state all around the country.”

Offerman said the key part of the New York rule is whether the foul altered the finish of the race.

“So you can technically, as a steward, view that in two different ways, in my opinion,” Offerman said. “You can view it as a foul is a foul, the old way of officiating a race, or that the foul must have impacted the finish. You can make a disqualification based on either. I think to the credit of the stewards here, they're trying to take a more modern approach and say it must alter the finish of the race.”

California’s rule reads differently. “A horse shall not interfere with any other horse. Interference is defined as bumping, impeding, forcing or floating in or out or otherwise causing any other horse to lose stride, ground, momentum or position.”

Offerman said California’s rule “is much clearer in terms of what interference is because it actually defines interference as bumping, impeding, forcing or floating in or out, or otherwise causing any other horse to lose stride ground or momentum or position, which is a lot different than crossing over or weaving, in my opinion. And I think that when you look at how to interpret that, it gives the stewards a much clearer A, B, and C. Did this happen? If it did, we must look at whether it cost a horse an opportunity for a better placing, which in my opinion is different than altering the outcome of a race, because I can say alter the outcome of the race is how many positions was it beat for? Was it spread out over a quarter of a mile, over 10 feet?

“In this case, opportunity for a better placing to me is very clear what that is intended to mean,” he continued. “And then the stewards go on to make a decision if there were any aggravating or mitigating circumstances. So the point being that I don't know that the rule is necessarily responsible for this particular case that happened last week or even events that took place during Belmont Stakes week, but if we want consistency across the sport in the United States, we all need to be working towards one rule.”