SAME RING. SAME HORSES. SIX PLACES APART.
Fall Classic judging cards expose disagreements that deserve answers—and “that’s horse showing” is no answer.
By Tommy Williams, Publisher of WHC
Opinion | Celebration Fall Classic, Thursday, November 5, 2026
A horse was second on two judges’ cards and eighth on the third.
Another was second on two cards and seventh on the third.
Those are substantial differences in the assessment of the same performances. They deserve more than a shrug, a ribbon, and a reminder that judging is subjective.
Thursday’s Celebration Fall Classic cards provide something this industry should welcome: an opportunity to examine the judges with the same attention the judges give the horses.
The numbers put Mike Hilley closest to the panel’s majority, Chad Adams a close second, and Jamie Lawrence third. The individual cards show where the questions become sharper.
Using a comparison of every pair of horses appearing on all three cards within each class, Hilley agreed with the majority 90.4 percent of the time. Adams scored 89.3 percent, and Lawrence 86.3 percent.
These are independently calculated agreement scores, not official SHOW evaluations. They measure consistency with the panel, not whether a judge correctly assessed a horse’s performance.
That distinction matters. So does accountability.
Across the 18 classes with more than one entry, Hilley selected the eventual winner 17 times. Adams did so 14 times, and Lawrence 12.
Hilley’s cards were the most consistent with the collective result. Lawrence’s contained the strongest departures.
And two of those departures were difficult to overlook.
In Amateur Two-Year-Old Mares/Geldings, Shes My Rock SBS, ridden by Kailin Graves, was second for Hilley and second for Adams. Lawrence placed the horse eighth.
Six places apart.
What did Lawrence see that caused such a different assessment?
That is a legitimate judging question. The card does not answer it.
In the same class, Lawrence placed Evening Stars Jose fourth, while both colleagues placed the horse first. He selected Indigo Choo first, while the other two judges each placed that horse fourth.
Lawrence’s majority-agreement score for the class was 53.3 percent among the eligible pair comparisons. This was his most divergent class of the evening.
Then came Two-Year-Old Stallions.
Shiloh PCC, ridden by Bill Callaway, was second for Hilley, second for Adams—and seventh for Lawrence.
Again, two judges agreed precisely while the third placed the horse far below them.
There may be a sound performance explanation. If so, a review of the video and the judge’s explanation should establish it. The size of the disagreement makes that review worthwhile.
Adams also produced a card deserving scrutiny.
In 15.2 & Under, Hilley and Lawrence both selected Hes Hot, ridden by Jeff Laughlin, first. Adams placed the horse fourth.
Adams selected Honors MVP first, against seconds from both colleagues.
His most striking elevation was Peace in the Valley CTF, ridden by Robby Bradley: second on Adams’s card, sixth on Lawrence’s, and eighth on Hilley’s.
Second against sixth and eighth is a considerable difference in opinion. Exhibitors should be able to expect a clear explanation of the performance distinctions behind it.
None of this proves favoritism.
A judging card records a decision. It does not establish the motive behind that decision.
Calling these results proof of corruption would outrun the evidence. Dismissing them as routine would dodge the evidence.
Lawrence also deserves fair treatment in this review. He led majority agreement in Trail Pleasure, Mares/Geldings, and Amateur 39 & Under Mares/Geldings. His Thursday performance cannot honestly be reduced to two troubling cards.
Likewise, Hilley’s higher score does not make him automatically correct. A majority can agree and still miss something. A lone judge can recognize a fault the others overlook.
That is precisely why meaningful review requires video, judging standards, and explanations—not merely arithmetic.
But the arithmetic tells us where to look.
Of the 270 eligible comparisons, all three judges agreed on 178. On the remaining 92 disputed comparisons, Hilley sided with the majority 71.7 percent of the time, Adams 68.5 percent, and Lawrence 59.8 percent.
Those figures identify differences in judging behavior. They should begin a conversation about consistency and standards.
The industry asks exhibitors to accept that a few minutes in the ring can determine the outcome of months of work and considerable expense. In return, exhibitors deserve judging that can withstand examination.
Judicial independence should come with the ability to explain a decision.
Thursday’s cards leave specific questions about specific horses in specific classes. Those questions can be reviewed without inventing a scandal or protecting anyone from scrutiny.
The next step should be straightforward: review the largest departures against the video, ask what performance faults or merits drove them, and determine whether the standards were applied consistently.
The horses have been placed.
Now the decisions deserve a look.
Methodology: This review uses the Thursday cards supplied to WHC. Agreement scores compare the relative order of horses listed by all three judges in each class; each eligible pair counts equally. Seven classes had different top-eight selections, so unlisted horses were excluded rather than assigned invented placings. The single-entry class contributes no pair comparisons. No performance video was evaluated for this article, and no finding of bias is established.
About The Author
