Weathering Category 1 storm of controversy

The third week in May began with the fervent prayer on everyone’s lips that Saturday’s 144th running of the Preakness Stakes would transpire without the words “inquiry” or “objection” becoming part of the post-race conversation, and that the identity of the Pimlico stewards would remain anonymous outside their immediate families.

The sport remains badly hung over from the disqualification of first-place finisher Maximum Security in the Kentucky Derby. Hung over, as in blurred vision, cotton mouth, throbbing head, and promises on bended knee that it will never ever happen again.

And yet, there have been winners disqualified in the Travers, the Santa Anita Handicap, the Woodward, the Whitney, the Arlington Million, the Hollywood Gold Cup, the Beldame, the Breeders’ Cup Juvenile Fillies, and three times in the Champagne Stakes, one of them involving Secretariat. As if he needed to cheat to win.

Given such history, what makes the Kentucky Derby so special? Why would that particular contest be exempt from normality, and why should transgressions in the Derby be judged any differently from the Humana Distaff, the Woodford Reserve, or any of the other major events played out in the oppressive crucible of Derby Day at Churchill Downs?

The answer, as the world discovered, is that the Derby is not immune, neither from fouls on the playing field nor rulings from the stewards when such fouls are determined to have crossed the line.

Scott Chaney has been a California steward since 2006. He has been in the stand for five runnings of the Breeders’ Cup during that period, most memorably the 2014 renewal at Santa Anita Park when the start of the Classic was universally scrutinized, and when the name “Bayern” became a trigger word in betting circles. The horse bothered others at the start, then won a close finish 10 furlongs later.

“Had we taken that horse down, I think there would have been just as much controversy as there was by leaving him up,” Chaney said this week. “Clearly there was interference at the start. The subjective application of the rules comes after that. When we polled some international stewards afterwards, 70 percent of them thought it was ridiculous even to consider interference at the start of a mile and a quarter race, much less disqualify a horse.”

Like those international officials, Chaney is a proponent of the U.S. adopting what is known as Category 1 standards for judging interference calls.

“The most common criticism is that stewards are not consistent,” Chaney said. “In fact, it’s the rule that creates the inconsistency. You can have bad interference that doesn’t cost a better placing and call for no change, or slight interference that does cost a placing and a change. What they are really crying out for is certainty, which to a greater extent Category 1 provides.

“Almost every other racing region on the planet abides by Category 1 rules, where you only disqualify if the horse who is the subject of the interference would have beaten the interferer,” Chaney noted. “It does lead to some injustices, and it does require a heavier hand in penalizing jockeys, but it also affords more certainty for the racing public.”

Not surprisingly, Chaney was sympathetic to the challenge faced by the Churchill Downs stewards in the wake of the Derby. Minds have been set in stone since then, and Chaney is not surprised. But that does not keep him from being disappointed in the reaction.

“If you’re a person who says the stewards absolutely got it wrong, or absolutely got it right, you don’t know what you’re talking about,” he said. “Any objective observation of that decision and analysis would indicate that it was a really hard decision.

“Stewards can make what they think is the correct call, the most popular call, or the most defensible call,” Chaney went on. “I thought the stewards in Kentucky made the most defensible call. It’s harder to say they would be making no change despite the interference, and with the other horse almost clipping heels. That said, I don’t think I would have made the change, which is perhaps less defensible but I think the more correct one under both rules and the idea of equity.”

It may come as a surprise to some horseplayers, but stewards are human, and their tough skin sometimes can bruise.

“When people say they’ve been watching races for 30 years and put their analysis on the same level as mine, it can be frustrating,” Chaney said. “In theory, I should be pretty good at this, or at least better than the average member of the wagering public.

“But we live in a world where everyone secondguesses the umpire or the referee, and feel that they have enough knowledge, information, and experience to be making the same decisions, he added. “If that were the case, maybe we should just have people vote. But then it becomes a popularity contest, and you already know who the most popular horse is.”

In the end, Chaney and many of his colleagues agree that the 2019 Kentucky Derby presented the Churchill Downs stewards with the classic no-win situation.

“The controversy occurred when the interference occurred,” Chaney said. “I submit that had they left the race alone there would be even more controversy than there is right now. There is no decision they could have made that would have spared us this brouhaha.”