With reference to the disqualification of Always Wright from third place in the opening event on January 16, 2026, there needs to be an examination of Rule 113 and its subsections to determineif the interpretation and its application meet the criteria for fairness in all respects. This, against the background of the assertion of the Jamaica Racing Commission (JRC) in the announcement of the matter, states that “it remains committed to protecting the interestsof all parties regulating with fairness, transparency, and consistency”.

Subsection (9)-(a) of Rule 113 states in part, as follows….”For the purpose of the Racing Rules, when a horse has been declared to run in blinkers, a visor, a one cup eye shield, a hood, goggles, a figure eight, cheek pieces, a hood, tongue-tie and a hood fitted with blinkers or any combination of blinkers, one cup blinkers, visor, one cup eyeshield, hood or goggles shall each be deemed to be different items of equipment.”

To summarise the subsections of Rule 09, it is noted that “if a horse is to race in any of the itemsof equipment as stated, a declaration to do so shall be made to the promoter”. Also, the equipment “shall be worn during the post parade and on the way to the start, and if the horse does not wear such equipment, it shall not run”.

Further, save as otherwise provided in this Rule, “where a horse fails to finish the race with any item of equipment in which it was declared, it shall be disqualified from the race. However, subsection {b} (iii) has an exception where “if the tongue-tie becomes loose during the race, this shall not disqualify the horse.” There is no identifiable rational basis for the tongue-tie to be exempted. This may be veterinary informed decision, but be that as it may, it is in the category of headgear.

Although not mentioned in Rule 44, which sets out the Starter’s duties and responsibilities, it is clear that the confirmation of declared equipment rests solely with this operative. There is a Clerk of the Parade Ring not tasked specifically in the text to ensure that, as per the Rule, equipment matches and conforms with the declarations before the horses enter this area and subsequently the track and proceed to the gate.

Effectively, it is left to the trainers, but both of these officials, the Clerk of the Parade Ring and Starter, although being in different locations,should be required tooverseeand satisfy the stipulated dictate of the Rule to ensure fairness to all concerned, especially the owners and punters.

The British Horseracing Authority’s Rules of Racing #5-Tables Of Penalties subsection #8 states inter alia…” there is ‘no penalty’ for accidental loss of headgear during a race”. Inherently suggesting, if deliberate, it would be deemed a corrupt practice. The headgear permissible locally is similar to what prevails in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, and in fact is the standard that applies in racing jurisdictions globally.

Therefore, it would be interesting to be apprised of what informed the decision for the departure from this best practice of fairness by the framers of the JRC Rule. Still, there is a provision for a trainer to be deemed culpable and fined $10,000 for any failure of the equipment to remain secure during a race.

The validity of the delayed disqualification of Always Wright is unclear, as the race was declared official and dividends declared on the mare’s third-place finish. There was a Steward’s Inquiry deliberating an incident, but the failure of Always Wright to finish with the declared headgear was not identified, and the appropriate action taken.

Generally, and in most circumstances,a disqualificationis based on “unfair advantage” in any type of sporting activity. In horse racing there is a presumption that headgear and other equipment, such as whips, enhance performances. Therefore, this begs the question of what advantage accrues from the unintentional lossof headgear or any such equipment during a race?

It is difficult to imagine any rational explanation, so the unfair and therefore unnecessary subsection (9) ii of Rule 113, dictating disqualification, should be deleted from the 1977 JRC Racing Rules.

It may be helpful if a comprehensive data and fact-based analysisof the regulation and promotion of the local horse racing industrywere convened by the minister of finance in a plenary session with the stakeholders. This should include consultants with the requisite expertise as advisors to close the knowledge-deficit gap, which has stymied growth in the sector.