Thought of the Week

Note that this article dates from 2006. The rules in NZ do now indeed match those of Australia.

Kicking Telecom for Xtra and its absurd alliance with Yahoo! would be too easy. Since Xtra decided to make the change from MSN to Yahoo! as a partner its service has been so unbelievably bad that it's hardly worth bagging them for it.

Instead, I'm going to have a look at human justice, rights and objective morality - all through the eyes of horse-racing.

The rules of racing in the 20th century were very clear: if a horse which finished in front of another prevented that horse from finishing in a higher placing, the one in front would be relegated to behind the horse which was interfered with. The message behind the rule is quite plain - you may not cheat to win/beat an opponent. In a money solely based on the amount people gamble on the outcome, it seemed pretty sensible.

During the 1990s, this was amended to protests only being accepted if the interference stopped a horse filling a dividend-bearing place. If a check cost you 5th, tough luck.

An example of how the rule works: two horses fighting well for first & second, wide apart on the track. Another horse making no headway is half a length behind this pair, in third. 100m from the post, a horse making ground strongly from the tail of the field sweeps past, but as it does, it ducks in, checking one horse, costing it a clear couple of lengths. It is now passed by the horse which had been in third behind it and despite rallying again close to the line, it finishes fourth. No question that had the interference not occurred, it would have been third.

The current rules would immediately have the winner relegated to fourth and the horse copping the interference would gain its rightful prize for third.

In Australia, the rule only applies if the horse suffering the interference can show that it would have finished in front of the one causing the interference, so in the case above, no change would be made. People who had been clearly done for their third place money would have done it cold.

There are moves to import the same rule into New Zealand now that the two countries largely share betting pools. That this is likely to occur was evinced last week at a race meeting where almost the above scenario happened. The unquestionable winner was allowed to retain its win, despite having - equally without question - cost another horse third place in the race.

The winner was a very strong favourite to win and there would have been considerable Australian investment on it, which would have been very unhappy investment if the horse had been relegated in contravention of the rules of racing as Ockers are used to. That New Zealand punters may have been upset by flagrant misuse of the rules by not relegating it was probably outweighed by the fact that it is a very popular horse, and as a $2-00 favourite, carried an enormous amount of Kiwi dollars on it as well.*

*Note that I'm not financially bitter about the win, I didn't back the loser, but I did back the winner, so this isn't my pockets talking.

The New Zealand Racing Industry Board more or less runs racing as the NZRU does rugby - although it does have a luxury not even accorded to NZRU, the NZRIB also makes its own rules with no international board to tell it what to do. Like the NZRU, it is accountable to nobody but itself and has 100% financial control of the industry. But that's a "whole 'nuther story", as Tom Sawyer would have said, but there is no doubt that the rules of racing have been ignored for reasons best known to those involved.

I feel the more interesting question, which has far wider moral reasoning attached is the matter of why the rules are different and which way - if either - is the right way.

Which is more just? That the rightful winner wins, or that it may not cheat in doing so?

Who decides which way is the just way? Should it be those involved in the sport, or an independent body? When is a cheat a cheat?

Why do humans struggle so badly with moral issues?

There are varying types of moral position:

Moral realism [or objectivism] asserts that moral statements express propositions about the actual state of reality, that a statement such as "murder is wrong" is in fact true or false in the same way that the statement "it is raining" or "the Earth revolves around the Sun" is true or false.

Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth - that all morality is simply human construct through social conditioning.

Theistic/Deistic morality. Where morality is received from a god or gods.

While these three might all seem quite different, they can on occasion, agree with each other. Take Saudi Arabia's caning of women for being seen with a non-relative male.

A moral relativist has to allow it, because it's the law of Saudi Arabia, while the laws are written from a theistic morality, because it is the twisted theology of Islam which makes the law work like that. A moral realist will see a clear case of something which goes against natural justice - a punishment for a non-crime.

Moral realists and theistic morality agree 100% on murder, while a moral relativist can find a reason or a time when murder is allowable. If our culture develops into one which allows cannibalism, then that is our culture and morality.

Moral relativism is clearly at work in Australia, so we can see where that leads to on the vexed question of fairness - what is fair is what suits the majority of people. Rather than just accept the word of the great unwashed, I'd like to apply some alternative moral viewpoints to racing's conundrum.

Theistic morality quite clearly supports the Kiwi rules - cheating is nothing more than stealing and stealing is banned by every recognisable theistic or deistic moral code. Christians are forbidden to steal, as are Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Rastafarians and the Falun Gong. Cheating to win - especially where there is demonstrably something worth stealing involved - is out. A poll of gods showed a 100% backing for stopping cheating.

Moral realists bottom line is how to define whether something is intrinsically good or bad. Often, an easy way is to have a look at where the morality which allows this type of behaviour ends and unfortunately for the relativists, a moral realist must side with the theists this time. No good can come from allowing a situation where the rewards for cheating far outweigh the penalty. Which is the next rule to be deleted because the majority of [moneyed] interests desire a new moral code to be imposed? For racing in Australia, and soon to be followed by New Zealand, this is the thin end of the wedge. Who shall, in future decide which form of cheating is deserving of greater or lesser punishment than a jockey who wins by costing others a place in the dividend-bearing positions? What about a horse which wins by six lengths but weighs in 3/4 of a kilo light? It would still have won without the extra impost, so why not let it stand?

The signal should be clear - cheats will not prosper, but unfortunately, the horse racing industries of Australia and New Zealand seem determined to let that old adage die.

Back