The 1977 Jamaica Racing Commission (JRC) Racing Rules make for interesting analysis and, therefore, prospects for change. Consequently, many of the practices of the promoting companies informed by the rules fall into this category as well. There are several areas where decisions made in the past by the boards of the two entities are no longer relevant or practical in the 2026 environment.

Let’s take a look at some of the rules that should either be amended or abandoned as time wears on, starting with Rule#44. The incidence of unruly horses at the start is now a frequent occurrence. “Permission may be granted by two of the stewards by the trainer or groom to lead the horse to the post.” Trainers and grooms are aware of the temperament of their charges and should be allowed to take advantage of this at their discretion without requiringany such permission.

Rule#25 in part states: “The promoter is the sole person responsible to the Stewards for the general arrangements of the meeting…” This surely includes an ambulance with a registered medical doctor; however, according to Rule#50, it is the Starter who has the power to “send back to the Paddock any jockey who in his opinion is intoxicated or otherwise incapacitated”.

Here now is a throwback to the halcyon days of the breeding industry. Rule#65(ii) states, “There shall be at least one race for two-year-olds in each day’s programme, after the 1st of October in each calendar year.” At an average of six race days each month to December 31, this would mean up to 18 races. That will not be possible in the foreseeable future and maybe forever.

“A two-year-old, which is either a native-bred, a Barbados-bred, or a Trinidad-bred horse, shall not run against older horses before the 1st day of December” (Rule 69c). Under the handicap system of classification based on ability, the applicable date was September 30 locally, as in the United Kingdom, and in all jurisdictions operating with the British Jockey Club methodology.

Interestingly, Rule#73 states,“The weights to be allotted shall not be more than 57.0kg for all races and Rule#74 states, “The weights to be allottedshall be described in kilograms”. When metrication under the Weights & Measures Act was promulgated, I was at pains to suggest that, as far as horse racing is concerned, it was not necessary to change to metrication, since it was not goods sold by weight.

On September 18, 2015, the Act was amended to include substantial fines for noncompliant business operators. I still believeit is unnecessary for the weightstoted by horses in a raceto be quoted in kilograms.

The track race callers announce weights both in kilograms and pounds when the horses parade,butalways describe the races in furlongs and yards. To this day,some punters find themetric dimensions imprecise and even annoying, and in any event, for simulcast races, the weights and distances are not in metric.

As far as the Claiming is concerned, Rule#86(B) states, “Not more than two(2) claims may be made by the same trainer in any race, provided the claims are not for the same horse”. This is basically fine, although this restrictive policy may not be fair enough to be applied in all circumstances, as the racing calendarprojection could leave a fit horse or two idle.

Affirmative action is not ideal at times, and Rule #92L dictates that “In all claiming races not more than four horses under the charge, custody or care of the same trainer can be entered in one race. In claiming races, not more than four horsesowned by the same person, whether as sole owner, part owner, licensee, or lessee, are eligible to be entered in one race. The same racing opportunity-missed argument could be applicable here. Is this an anticipation of corrupt practices by the regulatory JRC, oran effort to minimise the possibility?

There are many more,and those will be discussed going forward,but I have one for the promoting company. The Jamaica Oaks, restricted to three-year-old fillies, will be staged on August 1 four days before the Jamaica Derby, making it unlikely that a filly capable of winning both realistically has to settle for one or the other.

When this was implemented six years ago, the rationale was unjustifiable. My view was that this race, not being part of the Triple Crown series, should have been scheduled for October. The consolation, Winston Griffiths, restricted to non-winners of any of the Classics, could then have a later staging, possibly in November, and attract a good-sized field.

Contact: wesmartinhorseracing@gmail.com