When It Comes To Riding Fouls, What Are The Rules, Anyway?

Andre Ramgeet didn't get a leg up in the first race at Charles Town July 15 imagining it may be his last ride.

He was aboard a horse called Monkey Wrench, an Isaac Barahona trainee he was told to take to the lead of the seven-furlong contest at the West Virginia track. The pair went to the front early, choosing a spot on the rail. Rivals De's Castle carrying J.D. Acosta and Red Hot Toddy with Marshall Mendez raced to his outside. For a while, Ramgeet cruised in front, but then felt his horse starting to tire.

As the field reached the far turn, Red Hot Toddy and De's Castle edged ahead of Monkey Wrench and they were joined on the outside by Neverpopthecork, the eventual winner, ridden by Antonio Lopez. According to the Equibase chart, Mendez “came in a path” aboard Red Hot Toddy, taking De's Castle inward with them. De's Castle's hind heels clipped with Monkey Wrench's foreleg and Monkey Wrench somersaulted into a tumble, pitching Ramgeet and rolling over top of him. Hillbilly Rock, carrying Abnel Bocachica, fell over Monkey Wrench and threw his rider. Both horses got up and ran off, apparently no worse for wear, and have either raced or worked out since the incident. Bocachica walked away.

Ramgeet wasn't as lucky.

He was hospitalized for three days with various spinal fractures, including multiple in his T7 that will have him in a back brace for at least two to three months. It's too early to say whether he will ride again.

If he does, Ramgeet has said he won't be doing it at Charles Town.

Stewards there disqualified Red Hot Toddy and Mendez for their role in the incident and held a meeting to review film several days later. Ramgeet, still struggling to walk comfortably and on pain medications, was unable to attend. A July 21 stewards ruling states, “Jockey Mendez let his mount Red Hot Toddy angle in leaving the far turn, pushing De's Castle down taking the room away from Monkey Wrench causing his rider to clip heels and fall.”

Mendez was suspended three racing days, July 27-29.

The summary of the film review Ramgeet heard suggested the stewards blamed him for being in a bad spot along the rail through the track's tight final turn and therefore being available to be interfered with.

“I've ridden with the best in the country at Gulfstream and I've ridden with other riders across the states, and never had this issue of stewards and riders getting away with reckless/careless riding and blaming the turns,” he wrote on social media later. “At this point right now, I will not be coming back to Charles Town to race ride, it is very it's-my-way-or-you-can-get-out-and-leave.

“I guess in a way they got what they wanted – a newcomer that has some talent not to ride here at Charles Town and be successful.”

Ramgeet and his wife/agent Julie Ramgeet say they were frustrated long before Andre's fall with what they view as unwillingness by the stewards to come down harder on interference. Julie Ramgeet said Andre has lodged objections against other riders for interference six other times this year, with four of those objections coming against Mendez. All of them were dismissed.

The Paulick Report made multiple requests for daily stewards' notes to corroborate whether the objections took place and better understand the decision-making process. We did not receive those records. Only one objection by Ramgeet shows up in post-race charts.

A study of decisions by Charles Town stewards between 2021 and 2023 reveals that, while a three-day suspension seems light for a rider whose actions caused two other jockeys to fall, it's not out of line for this particular stewards' stand.

Of 113 stewards' rulings issued in 2021, 18 dealt with interference, and five of them involved incidents that resulted in falls or near-falls of other riders. One, the case of Angel Cruz in the fourth race on Nov. 19, indicated the offending rider elbowed another horse in the head. Two of the 18 were termed “careless riding” violations.

In 2022, 23 rulings dealt with interference, four of which involving falls or near-falls. None were termed “careless riding.”

In 2023, 17 rulings published thus far have dealt with interference, one of which involved a fall (Ramgeet's). None were termed “careless riding.”

In no case did stewards suspend a rider for more than four days. The majority (38 of 58) involved no suspension at all, but fines between $250 and $1,000.

That approach is different from the stewards' patterns in Kentucky and New York. In both states, all rulings involving interference from one rider to another was termed “careless riding” and carried suspensions and not fines. Minimum suspensions in both states appeared to be three days, ranging up to 30 in New York (Irad Ortiz, 2021) and 15 in Kentucky (Sonny Leon, 2022).

Racing fans have complained in recent years that stewards at NYRA tracks don't call more fouls on riders for careless riding. The public receives little or no information from stewards on why a foul is or isn't called, or how officials determine how long to suspend someone after a foul.

So why the inconsistency?

Broad rules

Dr. Ted Hill, longtime regulatory veterinarian and former Jockey Club steward at New York racetracks, points out that many states have incredibly vague language around what constitutes a violation and often gives no guidance about what penalties are appropriate.

New York's rule 4035.2 on “foul riding” reads, in part:

“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. The stewards may also take into consideration mitigating factors, such as whether the impeded horse was partly at fault or the crossing was wholly caused by the fault of some other horse or jockey.”

And later: “The stewards may disqualify the horse ridden by the jockey who committed the foul if the foul was willful or careless or may have altered the finish of the race. The stewards may also take into consideration mitigating factors such as whether the impeded horse was partly at fault or if the foul was caused by the fault of some other horse or jockey.”

Nowhere are “accidental,” “willful,” or “careless riding” offenses differentiated, and target suspension ranges for each are absent.

By contrast, British Horseracing Authority published a press release in 2016 outlining changes it made to better define the different types of interference in races. It has separate definitions for careless riding, improper riding, and dangerous riding, and gives prescribed penalty ranges for each. A detailed guidance section of the BHA rules lays out the potential scenarios a steward may encounter, with suggestions about how each situation fits in the three categories, and what to do about it.

Part of the 2016 BHA rule changes removed the requirement that careless riding (the least offensive of the three categories by definition) carry a minimum one-day suspension and allowed riders to receive a warning. The most serious offense of dangerous riding can carry up to a 28-day suspension, and the rider loses their fee for the ride.

Stewards in America have much more latitude, and Hill is comfortable with that.

“It appears the determination of degree of careless riding is largely left to the stewards 'on the day,' and I think that's okay,” he said. “The essentials are safety, fairness, consistency and the confidence of your riding colony.

“Sounds good, but it's a moving target.”

The process

Although the rules in many places are pretty vague about how serious an incident is and what a steward should do about it, many of them follow the same adjudication process, even if the result can be different from place to place.

On the day of the race, stewards are tasked with sorting out whether an incident of interference requires disqualification of one of the horses. That can be more complicated than it sounds, according to Hill. They need to review different camera angles of the incident, identify all horses and riders involved, and rewatch the moment to unfold what happened and who was impacted. Hill prefers to call to speak with all riders involved wherever possible. Sometimes that review process can be lengthy, and that's partly because different video angles can tell different stories.

“Head-on shots can appear damning when taken alone,” Hill said. “The pan may soften the incident, showing that the offending horse did have sufficient room to cross over and the other jockey may have overreacted (or sometimes been a little theatrical for effect).”

In order to make a determination about placing, stewards also have to answer key questions about how the offender and the sufferer were behaving around the incident.

“Did the sufferer partially cause the incident, i.e., did he also alter course at the same time or attempt to move through a position that was marginal at best or an opening that was closing down before he got there?” said Hill. “Sometimes the rear view can be very helpful with this, when you can clearly see that the space the jock was moving into (often a tight lane on the rail turning for home) was tight at best and the jock made a poor decision…having to take up sharply as it closed down. Did the sufferer run up on horses that were tiring and just holding their lane, when the jock should have recognized this and made a move accordingly.”

With very rare exceptions, they will not address any penalties to the rider on the day, but will plan to meet with the riders involved, and possibly their Jockeys' Guild representation, a day or two later. They'll review film of the incident in a meeting that most riders call “movies” and ask for feedback from the jockeys involved on what happened.

When a horse or rider falls, it can be emotional for stewards to witness, just like it is for spectators in the stands.

Barbara Borden, chief steward for the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission, said the mental distance between the race and the review can be good for everyone.

“That's why we don't have movies the same day — let everybody settle down,” she said. “Because then you can take the emotion part out of it and act on the factual part.

“Nobody wants to see anybody get hurt.”

The final result

Stewarding philosophy seems to largely be a combination of an official's tutelage under a mentor together with their life experience. Stewards are allowed to take into account a range of factors when they determine what penalty they want to hand to a rider, and a lot of those factors are subjective. Intent, evitability, degree of attention or inattention, and of course the final result – whether a horse or rider was hurt or fell – can all enter into it.

Eddie Arroyo is a former jockey and was the senior state steward in Illinois before being named to the Illinois Racing Board earlier this year. The officials he learned from taught him that the outcome of contact can absolutely have an impact on how he determines the penalty.

“You address it as a matter of cause and effect. If you did cause an incident, you caused a jockey to go down, it's a more severe incident that's caused by your negligence,” he said. “We tell them, beginning of the meet, if you drop someone, the penalty's going to be more severe. They know that going in. And as long as they know what the rules are, they understand that. Usually, anyway.”

Borden said there is something of a fine line there. She can recall incidents where a horse or rider fell as the result of another jockey's actions, but films and interviews made it clear to her the guilty rider had perhaps been sloppy while maneuvering their horse, but didn't see their rival or slightly misestimated the space available to them. In that case, she said, the rider still has to face a suspension, but sometimes it's not as long as the public expects based on the outcome they saw.

“It's bad because everybody wants more because a horse got hurt or a rider got hurt, everybody wants more. But you have to look at what the incident was to form a penalty,” she said. “Horses are running in packs and they're close and it doesn't take much for something to happen.”

Borden said Kentucky officials do not use fines as deterrents for riding offenses because they believe suspensions are more equitable between riders. A $1,000 fine to a top jockey doesn't hit the same way as it does for an apprentice just starting out. A day's suspension isn't totally equal to the two either, since one may earn more than the other in the average day, but it's less likely to get the newer rider into a hole by giving them a debt they can't pay.

A rider's history may also be part of the stewards' calculus when assessing a penalty. That may include warnings the stewards have given to a jockey, or previous rulings against them for similar types of interference.

Marshall Mendez, the rider whose horse came over and clipped heels with Ramgeet's, has three previous rulings against him at Charles Town for interference between 2021 and 2023. Other riders – particularly Carlos E Lopez (seven) and Fredy Peltroche (eight) – had more violations.

In New York, Irad Ortiz Jr. picked up six violations for careless riding in the same timeframe, and Dylan Davis received four (plus one for interference). Kentucky saw relatively few repeat offenders in the same span, and only two (Gerardo Corrales and Joel Rosario) with more than two violations.

Arroyo said he's not sure why some riders seem to have a problem adhering to the rules about interference – after all, they're placing themselves at risk along with the rest of the field.

“In my opinion, the jockeys who do, I don't want to say aggressive riding … they focus too intensely on what they're doing at the time and do not consider the effect their coming in or out is going to have on the race or on the horses next to them,” said Arroyo. “Second to that is, too many times they've gotten away with it and they try to have an edge. As you know, a lot of our races are by inches, a couple feet. Sometimes it makes a difference. Sometimes they knew what they were doing. I've seen riders drop other riders who absolutely did not know they were there, but they allowed their horse to come in and cause the incident anyway. It wasn't intentional, but it was negligence on their part.

“There's no steadfast rule on this, which is a problem. And how would you put that down on paper? It would be difficult to do.”

The post When It Comes To Riding Fouls, What Are The Rules, Anyway? appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post