The Dissenting Call Judge
An Examination of the 2026 Celebration Judges’ Cards Through Class 114
Executive finding
Using a strict definition of the “dissenting call judge”—the call judge places one horse first while all four other judges unanimously place another horse first—Rollie Beard has used the pattern more than any other call judge so far.
Call judge Classes called Dissenting-call occurrences Rate
Rollie Beard 25 3 12.0%
Sam Sorrell 24 2 8.3%
Chad Williams 24 2 8.3%
Derek Bonner 25 0 0%
Scotty Brooks 25 0 0%
The analysis covers all 123 results posted through Class 114 on August 31, 2026.
There is an important distinction:
* Rollie Beard leads in dissenting first-place calls while serving as call judge.
* Chad Williams leads in lone first-place dissents overall, whether he was the call judge or not, with ten.
What the call judge can do
The Celebration uses the High-Low Olympic Judging System. Five judges place the class independently. First place receives ten points, second receives nine, continuing down to tenth place receiving one point.
For each horse, the highest and lowest scores are normally discarded. The three remaining scores determine the result. If those totals tie, all five scores are counted. If the horses remain tied, the call judge breaks the tie. The published rule identifies Judge No. 1—shown as Judge A on HorseSpot—as the call judge. Celebration judging rule
Judge A rotates among the five judges. Therefore, the call judge is not permanently Derek Bonner or any other member of the panel.
The seven dissenting-call cases
In every one of these seven cases, the other four judges unanimously agreed on the winner. The call judge placed that horse second and selected a different horse first.
Class Call judge Call judge’s first Other four judges’ first
19 – Weanling Fillies Sam Sorrell Sweet N Shady Ella Langley
47 – Youth 6–11 on Mares Sam Sorrell Cheatin’ On Charlie I Sang Dixie
62 – Youth Western Country Pleasure Chad Williams Habanero Picante Thunder Storm In Dixie
81 – Youth Medallion Performance Rollie Beard Cash Reaction El’s Predicted Storm
91 – Youth Country Pleasure Rollie Beard The Tiger Lily Shipwrecked
98 – Youth Walking Ponies Rollie Beard Switchblade FSS I Am March Madness
113 – Young Trainers Chad Williams El Hombre In Black Lethal Ambition
The four-judge choice won every one of these classes.
The Rollie Beard pattern
Beard’s three dissenting calls occurred in Classes 81, 91 and 98. In each case, the card displayed precisely the same first-place split:
* Beard placed one horse first.
* Beard placed the eventual winner second.
* All four other judges placed the eventual winner first.
* The horse Beard selected finished second.
That repetition is worth examining. It does not prove improper intent, but it is more than a vague accusation: it is a documented and recurring card pattern.
Even more noticeable, all three of Beard’s dissenting calls happened in youth classes.
Five of the seven dissenting-call cases across the entire panel occurred in youth classes. That clustering deserves attention because youth classes should inspire additional confidence in the judging—not additional questions about why one judge repeatedly saw the top two horses in the exact opposite order from everybody else.
Can this particular move change the winner?
Not by itself.
When four judges unanimously place the same horse first, a lone call judge cannot defeat that horse merely by placing another horse first. After the high and low scores are discarded, the four-first-place horse retains three ten-point scores—the maximum possible total of 30.
In all seven cases, the system correctly preserved the four-judge consensus.
Therefore, it would be inaccurate to claim that these seven dissenting first-place votes actually stole a victory. They did not.
The greater danger lies elsewhere: the call judge becomes decisive when the remaining totals tie, the five-card totals also tie, or when strategic lower placements help create or break those ties. A judge trying to influence an outcome would need to do more than cast a lonely first-place vote. The meaningful investigation must examine the judge’s entire card—particularly unusually low placements assigned to the principal rival.
Dissenting judges overall
There were 31 classes in which one judge selected a different first-place horse while the other four unanimously agreed. Only seven of those lone dissenters were call judges.
Judge Lone dissents in any position As call judge As non-call judge
Chad Williams 10 2 8
Rollie Beard 8 3 5
Derek Bonner 5 0 5
Sam Sorrell 5 2 3
Scotty Brooks 3 0 3
Thus, the answer depends upon the question:
* Who has used the dissenting call-judge position most? Rollie Beard.
* Who has been the lone first-place dissenter most often anywhere on the panel? Chad Williams.
* Who has never used the pattern while serving as call judge? Derek Bonner and Scotty Brooks.
Conclusion
The cards do not establish deliberate manipulation. They do establish measurable patterns that should not be dismissed as mere ringside opinion.
Rollie Beard has been the most frequent dissenting call judge through Class 114, doing it three times in 25 assignments. Chad Williams has been the panel’s most frequent lone dissenter overall, disagreeing with a unanimous four-judge first-place choice ten times.
Most importantly, a dissenting first-place vote is only the beginning of the analysis. The real opportunity for manipulation is hidden farther down the cards—where a judge can place a contender third, fourth, fifth or lower, knowing that the Olympic mathematics may discard one extreme but retain another.
That is where the next examination should concentrate: not merely who marked a different horse first, but who repeatedly buried the consensus winner’s closest rival deeply enough to alter the three scores that survived the high-low cut.
Source: HorseSpot’s 2026 Celebration class results and judges’ cards.
About the Author
