Written by: Tommy Williams
email:tommywhc@aol.com
931-492-2825
WHC Publisher-Williams Media Entertainment
The Illusion of Fairness: Why Trimming Scores Undermines Trust, Not Bias
The pursuit of fairness in competition is noble. Heck, even Vanderbilt gets a chance to win. But when scoring systems prioritize the appearance of neutrality over genuine accountability, they risk becoming exercises in public relations—not justice. Take the Tennessee Walking Horse National Celebration, an event steeped in tradition and controversy. Its five-judge panel, which discards the highest and lowest scores before averaging the rest, is often framed as a safeguard against bias. But let’s be honest: If you need to throw out two out of five opinions to find the “truth,” what does that say about the judges themselves? Either two are incompetent, two are corrupt, or the system itself is broken. This isn’t majority rule—it’s institutionalized distrust.
The Myth of the Middle Ground
Majority rule means every vote counts equally. But in systems like the Celebration’s, nearly half the judges’ voices—40%—are silenced before a winner is declared. Imagine an election where the most passionate supporters and critics of a candidate are dismissed to find a “moderate” outcome. Would we call that democracy? Of course not. Yet in equestrian sports, we accept this math as fairness.
The logic is flawed. If judges are trained professionals, why are their extremes treated as outliers rather than valid perspectives? If a horse’s performance is truly exceptional, wouldn’t most judges agree? Conversely, if two judges see glaring flaws others miss, shouldn’t that raise questions about the majority’s oversight? By erasing dissent, the system doesn’t eliminate bias—it hides it.
A Culture of Distrust
The Celebration’s scoring method feels less like a solution and more like an admission of guilt. For decades, the event has faced scrutiny. In this context, dismissing judges’ scores reads as a tacit acknowledgment that corruption exists. Why else would organizers preemptively invalidate two votes? It’s a Band-Aid on a bullet wound, designed to placate critics without addressing systemic rot.
True majority rule requires transparency. If judges’ scores diverge wildly, let the public see that discord. Let questions be asked: Why did Judge A score the horse 20 points lower than Judge B? Instead, the trimmed system sweeps inconsistencies under the rug, protecting reputations rather than horses or riders.
The Olympic Comparison
Proponents argue this model mirrors the Olympics, where gymnastics or diving scores drop extremes. But the analogy falters. Olympic judges evaluate technical precision under globally standardized criteria. At the Celebration, scoring is inherently subjective, shaped by cultural preferences for flashy gaits—styles historically tied to abusive training methods. When the criteria themselves are ethically fraught, trimming scores doesn’t ensure fairness; it sanitizes controversy.
Accountability Over Convenience
If the Tennessee Walking Horse industry wants legitimacy, it must stop conflating mathematical convenience with integrity. A five-judge system that only trusts three judges is a confession that the panel can’t be relied on. Either overhaul judge selection and training to ensure unanimity of expertise, or admit that the spectacle is too compromised for objective scoring.
Majority rule isn’t about silencing outliers—it’s about trusting the collective. Until the Celebration confronts the rot at its core, no scoring system will mask the truth: When you discard two-fifths of the votes, you’re not preserving fairness. You’re proving you don’t believe in it.
