The Canadian Sportsman

For a moment, let’s not debate the rule itself.

I think just about everyone in the industry has, by now, said his or her piece on whether Ontario’s new whipping rule is good or bad or something in between.

Obviously, the disqualification of Angostura in the Peaceful Way stakes elimination due to Trevor Ritchie’s whipping infraction has been a lightning rod for negative feedback on the rule. People like Trevor Ritchie. People like trainer Dan Creighton. People holding winning tickets on Angostura would’ve liked to cash them. People aren’t quite sure why the owner, trainer and bettors had to suffer for the driver’s mistake.

Beyond those factors, many have turned their minds to the ‘spirit of the rule’ and how something seems amiss when the most notoriously punished whipping offender is now Trevor Ritchie, one of the least likely candidates to ever abuse a horse.

If the spirit of the whipping rule is to prevent horses from being abused, was that really accomplished by disqualifying a mare who may, or may not, have been tapped twice by Ritchie in a momentary brain-freeze?

The judges, of course, acted correctly by enforcing the rule to the letter of the law. As written, and implemented, Ritchie did break the rules when he took the lines in one hand and used his whip. The judges are afforded no discretion to consider factors such as intent or the driver’s history or character, or the fact that the race was an elimination for a very lucrative event.

Much like the poor tennis line judge, at last week’s U.S. Open, who incurred the wrath of Serena Williams by calling a foot fault at a pivotal point in the match, there is no wiggle room in the rules to abstain from calling infractions at inconvenient times. The rule in tennis is black and white: Did the server’s foot touch the service line or not?

If we want mitigating factors to be considered or discretion to be used in such cases, we are back to the same refrain that has been repeated ad nauseam for years now — we need a commissioner.

National Football League (NFL) commissioner Roger Goodell and National Hockey League (NHL) commissioner Gary Bettman (in collaboration with his right-hand man Colin Campbell) exercise their personal discretion all the time when it comes to meting out punishment for infractions committed in their leagues.

Remember the final minutes of Game 2 in last year’s Stanley Cup finals? Leading scorer Evgeni Malkin of the Pittsburgh Penguins, who went on to win the Conn Smythe trophy as playoff MVP, instigated a fight with Detroit Red Wings star Henrik Zetterburg in the last five minutes of the game, an easy win for the Wings.

By rule, a player instigating a fight in the last five minutes of the game is to be suspended for the next game. Bettman, however, ruled that Malkin would not be suspended for pivotal Game 3 in the series, reasoning that the purpose of the instigator penalty was to prevent tough guys from ‘sending a message’ or taking advantage of more skilled players in the dying seconds of the game and not to suspend a frustrated superstar who landed a few soft punches on Zetterberg’s shoulder pads.

Fans in Detroit wanted the rule to be applied. Fans in Pittsburgh wanted discretion. It didn’t matter what they wanted because the only opinion that mattered belonged to Bettman, who had absolute power.

Similarly, how did Goodell arrive at the number of NFL games Michael Vick would be forced to sit out as punishment for his conviction in operating a dogfighting ring? He picked a number off the top of his head. Because he can.

Goodell originally said that Vick could be suspended for the first six weeks of the football season, then reduced the suspension to two weeks because he was impressed by Vick’s behaviour, community service and association with mentor Tony Dungy.

Like it or not, in a commissioner system, these men hold all the cards.

Would a harness racing commissioner have looked at Ritchie’s past history, his good character and the unharmed Angostura and decided that a disqualification was not in the spirit of the new whipping rule? Maybe. 

Would he or she ensure that the rules are applied fairly and reasonably in all instances? Maybe not.

Do we want black-and-white or shades of grey? Do we want structure or discretion?

Pick your poison.