'WEIGHING IN LIGHT' – IS THE CURRENT RULE FAIR? THE REMONSTRATIONS AND THE REPERCUSSIONS

By David Dawson | Monday, February 10, 2014

What happens when a jockey weighs in light? Is the current rule fair? Does the argument for a change in the rule have any validity? In essence this is a multi-layered debate. The fact that you can approach this issue from a variety of angles, many of which are motivated by the emotion of winning or losing, can cloud the matter. In this detailed overview of the situation guest blogger and seasoned punter David Dawson looks to clarify the issue or, at very least, to make certain that everybody is aware of all factors that should be given due consideration before a decision on any proposed changes is made.

HORSES THAT WEIGH IN LIGHT:

Australian Rule of Racing AR.143 reads:
If a horse carries less weight than the weight it should carry
(a) it shall be disqualified for the race, provided that a rider shall be allowed by the Clerk of the
Scales a half kilogram for the weight of his bridle; and
(b) notwithstanding paragraph (a), the rider and/or any person at fault may be penalised.

Clearly, the intention of the rule is to ensure that each horse carries its allocated handicap weight. If a horse does not, it is disqualified and punters who have supported the horse lose their money.

Understandably, those punters cry foul! Their protests are balanced by the cries of joy from supporters of the horse that is consequentially promoted up the list of placings.

Thankfully, instances of a winner or placegetter weighing-in light are uncommon these days in Australia. I’d estimate we see around 5 cases at TAB fixtures each year. But when they do occur, there is media exposure which varies depending on the profile of the meeting and the personalities involved.

More so than in the past, recent incidents have prompted robust commentary on racing chat shows and internet blogs. Lack of fairness and ‘you shouldn’ t be able to lose if you cannot win’ are comments often heard.

There seems to be a concerted call for AR.143 to be amended so that the horse is declared a non-runner with refunds to its supporters and, presumably, with deductions applied to the consequential winners. Supporting commentary has come from Chief Stewards in Sydney and Melbourne, with media reports implying that an amendment to AR.143 will be tabled at a meeting of Australian stewards later this month.

While details of the amendment have not been made public, a treat-as-a-scratching approach seems likely.

****************************************************************************************************

HRO columnist David Fowler gave support to the proposed rule change in his blog of Feb 4.

Because I attend most race meetings in Brisbane, David Fowler and I talk about lots of things in racing. We agree on most topics, but DF correctly outs me as one who is vehemently opposed to any change to AR.143.

I’d like to make a response, not only to explain the reasons for my opposition to change, but also to ensure that the potential ramifications of the proposed change are publicized to others who work and play at racing.

Before going on let me say I’ve been punting for more years than I can remember and have been on the receiving end of every possible form of unfairness that a punter could endure. (There are several Rules of Racing that could be construed as unfair to punters).

I virtually lived in the old Flat as a teenager and was at Eagle Farm to see Tulloch win his Brisbane Cup in 1961. I was also at Eagle Farm for Fine Cotton and lost $40 on him at evens the place with Gentleman Jack Hows. Was it unfair that I lost my money? The Rules of Racing said I had to.

Back to AR.143.

***************************************************************************************************

Apart from minor amendments such as the increased tolerance of discrepancy up to 0.5 kg, AR.143 has been in place since 1912 when the Australian states agreed to adopt a uniform set of Rules of Racing.

Without doubt, the founding fathers had integrity at the forefront of their minds when they wrote AR.143 they recognized that handicapping was fundamental to the proper conduct of racing. They wanted jockeys and their gear weighed before and after a race, and wanted the call of Correct Weight to mean precisely that.

I also suspect they recognized the risk of a jockey intentionally discarding weight on a beaten horse and thus made no provision for refund of bets.

Also, we must acknowledge that since 1912, AR.143 has been subjected to critical scrutiny by hundreds of racing administrators yet it remains essentially as it was written a century ago.

Of course that does not mean the rule should never be changed, although one could argue there would have to be a compelling reason.

****************************************************************************************************

Until we're better informed, for the sake of argument, let’s accept that the proposed rule change will have a lightly-weighted runner declared a non-runner, all bets on that runner will be refunded, and consequential winners will have deductions applied as for a late scratching at the barrier.

Now let’s consider a few hypotheticals.

My mate Bill backs Tulloch at $2 and I back Sharply at $6. Both are win bets.

SCENARIO A: Tulloch wins by 3 lengths from Sharply, 2nd, but Tulloch weighs in 1 kg light.

Current Rule: Tulloch is disqualified and Bill does his money. I get paid in full. That is seriously unfair to Bill, since Tulloch deserved to win. I certainly don’t deserve to be paid.

Proposed Rule: Tulloch is declared a non-runner. Bill gets a refund of his stake. I get paid less a deduction of about 45c in the $1. Still not fair to Bill, but more fair than current rule? Again, I don’t deserve to get paid.

SCENARIO B: Tulloch wins by a nose from Sharply, 2nd, but Tulloch weighs in 1 kg light.

Current Rule: Tulloch is disqualified and Bill does his money. I get paid in full. I reckon I deserve to be paid, considering the narrow margin. Seems fair to both.

Proposed Rule: Tulloch is declared a non-runner. Bill gets a refund of his stake. I get paid, less a deduction of about 45c in the $1. Bill gets an undeserved refund, while I lose half my winnings. Unfair to me!

SCENARIO C: Sharply wins beating Tulloch, 2nd, but Tulloch weighs in 1 kg light. (The margin is unimportant in this instance.)

Current Rule: Tulloch is disqualified and Bill does his money. Bill expected to lose his money because his horse was beaten and would not have won had it carried its allotted weight. I get paid in full, which I deserve. No complaints from either of us.

Proposed Rule: Tulloch is declared a non-runner. Bill gets a full refund. I get paid, less a deduction of about 45c in the $1. Bill gets an undeserved refund, while I lose half my winnings. It is me who funds what’s repaid to Bill, yet my horse beat his horse fair-and-square. Grossly unfair to me!

We could go on looking at other scenarios, including place-only betting, and exotic betting, all of which raise new arguments, depending on the rule applied.

I believe the three scenarios described (for win betting) clearly illustrate that the issue is far from simple. The decision as to what’s fair or unfair is dictated by both the margin and the finishing position. In reality, only in Scenario A can the current rule (of disqualification) be scored as unfair to those who backed Tulloch (the horse that weighed in light). In Scenarios B and C, if we invoke the suggested new rule (with Tulloch declared a non-runner) those who backed Sharply, who was a totally innocent participant, are the ones who cop the unfairness.

*****************************************************************************************************

SCENARIO C requires more discussion.

I see it as critical in the rule-change debate.

Here, the lightly-weighted runner has been beaten on its merits. I fail to see that a punter who backed the beaten horse could have claims to a refund. Yet supporters of the rule change argue that they do deserve a refund because I shouldn’t lose my money because my horse could never have won the race. That argument certainly has some merit, however.

We cannot be concerned only for those lightly-weighted horse that run 2nd and face disqualification. What about those that run 3rd, 4th, 5th, even last?

No reasonable person would accept discrimination against them, since, just like the horse that runs 2nd, they have run in the race when they could not possibly be a winner due to their weight discrepancy.

Remember, we’re looking at a rule change designed to enhance fairness. But there’s a problem.

These days stewards require only the placings that earn prize-money, plus one more, to weigh in. Thus many runners complete the race and return to their stalls without the weight they carried being checked.

Given the evidence of occasional weight discrepancies among horses that do weigh in, we can reasonably assume that there will be some lightly-weighted horse among the also-rans. Under present practice, these are not being detected. (Some may be carrying excess weight but that’s another story.)

If indeed the proposed amendment to AR.143 decrees that lightly-weighted runners be treated as non-runners, there’ll need to be a change of post-race procedures to ensure that every lightly-weighted runner is detected.

If not, the new rule would be unfair to the backers of these horses. Are we prepared to wait until the 24 runners in the Melbourne Cup are weighed-in before declaring ‘Correct Weight’?

****************************************************************************************************

As it currently stands, AR.143 is clear, understood by all, and has stood the test of time for a century or more. Granted, it is potentially unfair to one group of punters while benefitting another group. (The integrity element should not be ignored, either.)

If AR.143 is amended so that the disqualification provision for lightly-weighted horses is removed, the unfairness is shifted from one group of punters to another.

I see many contentious outcomes, particularly for place and exotic betting when the horse does not win. Punters will be collectively worse off than under the existing rule.

It’s the deductions from legitimate winners that do the damage!

Importantly, the integrity element in the current AR.143 seems to be at risk of being discarded.

I believe the founding fathers got it right and I see no compelling reason to amend AR.143 in its present form.

***************************************************************************************************

As a final comment, it follows that there would be no need to refer to AR.143 if stewards could devise processes that more effectively reduce, even eliminate, the risk that a jockey will weigh in light.

I see modern technologies as offering real opportunities, e.g. hard-copy and video recording of jockeys weights (with and without their saddle) prior to mounting. Such initiatives eliminate human error at the scales, and ensure that significant change in a jockey’s body-weight between weigh-out and weigh-in does not come into play.

Of course there’ll always remain the risk of a towel or lead-bag being left off during the saddling step, or some gear slipping from beneath the saddle during a race, but the number of cases requiring stewards to invoke AR.143 in whatever form it is written should be close to negligible.

More articles