Brighton 4-30 now a match

So how did experts like Racing Post Timeform Betfair etc. have them in the race until an hour before racetime ?

more importantly, how did Wetherbys let them be entered in the first place.

Had a bit of a touch here...
Put 2 in the last in the Placepot, luckily the 2 left in...
So gotta cop it for 80p, but a massive difference in dividends
Cheer on number 1 for me if you've got no other interest, ta

somebody at fault, should not have been a restricted race.

well done Reg.

n1 reginald. about 2k ppot. i usually do short field ones meslf but not today

Nice reg.
1.01 beat pre

Cheers ash and mitolo
Yeah, copping about 1,600 instead of about 100
A while since a mistake has gone my way

Well done butler . Great result for you.

Cheers Freddie and sludge... Only laid out 6.40 this meeting
I've done a decent perm on bath this evening, hope my luck keeps going

Yeah thats a nice scoop for £7

Gl tonight

An administrative error by the BHA and Weatherbys meant four runners in a field of six were withdrawn from a handicap at Brighton on Friday after they were discovered to be ineligible to run, shortly before the race was due off.

Spirit Warning, Kondratiev Wave,  Vitesse Du Son and Rivas Rob Roy were announced as non-runners in a BHA release sent out at 4pm, half an hour before the 1m4f handicap (4.30) was due to start.

The handicap was for horses rated between 46 and 65 but for those who had not won more than two races. The four runners had all won at least three races, including Rivas Rob Roy, who is a nine-time winner.

Roscioli, the lesser-fancied runner, beat 1-4 favourite Girl In The Picture in a match race.

[b]You really couldn't make it up, unless you knew a bit about British Horseracing administration. The fact that they are apologising to trainers and compensation is being offered suggests that they forgot to add the full conditions for entry to the race. The RP article follows....

The BHA and Weatherbys issued a joint apology and said they would consider providing compensation for entry fees and transport cost for the affected horses while Brighton said it would make a "goodwill payment" to the owners and jockeys of the four horses.

The statement added: "They entered the race in good faith and will have expected to run. As such, we can only apologise for the inconvenience that they have experienced. We will, of course, be in touch with our colleagues at the BHA and Weatherbys to get to the bottom of the issue."

Looks like you can enter races even if you are ineligible for that race.  I take it they normally chuck you out at declaration stage and keep your money ?

Well done Reg.

Despite a system where ineligible entries get through, I think some trainer's secretaries/ assistants have not been in full concentration mode, probably switching in and out between social media and their proper jobs.

Thought it was the notorious Bri G to F
Amazed that they were pulled for ineligible
Got to be a system fault as Rp clearly shows it today

The race conditions clearly stated, for horses that had not won more than two races. 

The trainers or their staff clearly didn't read the race details properly when entering!!

Well sir wingnut what procedures are the race planners that instruct weatherbys to accept entries going to do about it

Surprise surprise, trainers are relying on Weatherbys to check on eligibility. It is clearly the trainers who are at fault and to some extent the owners who would surely know that their horse had won more than 2 races. It was their entry fee wasted after all. It is a bit like the nanny state. Very few people thinks that anything is their responsibility.

It is not just the trainers who did not read the race conditions when entering unqualified horses. No sharp minds on Betfair flagged it up, nor the various punditry organisations. Whoever did Spotlight for the Racing Post, for instance, must be expecting a rocket.

Many don't like to blame trainers as in horses not going into the stalls promptly and blaming the size of the stalls or the stall handlers themselves.

I do blame the trainers or the staff to whom they delegate but if Weatherbys have given them the impression that the computer will sort it out so don't worry, they share some blame. Clerks of the course who come up with obscure race conditions without clearly flagging them up are not helping either but the buck stops with the owner.

Sageform is right. It is often the case that screw-ups have more than one cause acting together.

Quite why we need races for winners of no more than two races is beyond me but these complicated conditions races have long been part of the scene in America so it is probably another mindless import from there. Whatever, the race conditions clearly failed if only two qualified runners were entered (and that is to give their trainers the benefit of the doubt that they actually knew what the limits were, and did not just get lucky). This is clearly not the future of race planning.

^  " .... the buck stops with the owner."
----------

"The OWNER" -

Just how do you work that out?

I would have the OWNER down as the LAST person to be responsible.

The vast majority of OWNERS - have their TRAINER act as their 'Agent' when making Entries - and the vast amount of Trainers entrust their SECRETARY to then make the Entries - and DECLARATIONS - (on Instruction from the Trainer) - often during the earlier part of the morning - whilst the Trainer is out on the gallops organising work.

The fault lies at Weatherbys - acting as Agents for the BHA - for ACCEPTING the Original Entries

It would appear that - There is probably Far too much reliance on 'The Computer' checking VALIDITY of any Entry - and a blithe acceptance of same by all parties (including 'Experts' at such as the Racing Post)

Just as there are no longer any Proof-Readers on Newspapers and News websites - leading to a multitude of awful errors.

Also - Not dissimilar to the, foisting upon the public, likes of frustrating Algorithms having taken over 'Live Chat' everywhere - eliminating any human response, and ANY consequent intervention - whilst NOT answering your question adequately, let alone accurately.

It is partly Weatherbys' fault but what sort of race planning goes on in those trainers' minds? Clearly not "look for the best race for Flying Dancer"; more "run him on Tuesday because the mother-in-law's visiting so I need to get out".

And why is Haydock putting on races with silly conditions and not telling trainers about it? How will Tellwright attract the sorts of runners he wants if he does not advertise the fact?

And for what it's worth, the Racing Post did print the "two wins" condition, probably automatically off a feed from Weatherby's. Trouble is, no-one read it, not even the tipsterers tipping in that race. Not even the sharp minds on this forum.

Definitely off WEATHERBY'S AUTOMATIC Feed - That is surely a 1.01

Not often I agree with him but onlooker is spot on re Owners been the Last people to be accountable for making Entries...

In law we are all responsible for any mistakes made by employees, agents, financial advisers and accountants acting on our behalf. So are racehorse owners. I accept that most owners know far less about training and racing horses than the trainers they appoint but in a similar fashion, most self assessment taxpayers assume that their accountants know more about tax than they do but they are still the ones who sign the return and are liable in law. 90% of horses are owned by people who have less horses to worry about than their trainer so they should be better informed than the trainers are. Similarly trainers may delegate to a secretary but that is no defence.

I was at Brighton yesterday and absolutely nobody had a clue as to what was going on.

Friday....

I was also there Slippy as guest of one of the four owners

mrcombustible -- as guest of one of the owners, did you look at the card to see if your mate's horse had a chance, and if so, did you not then spot that he was not qualified?

Assumed it was a low grade handicap. Didn't read the condition

That's the point. No-one read the conditions. Not the owners, not their guests! Not the trainers who made the entries. Not whoever did that card's Spotlight in the Racing Post. Not the pundits on the racing telly gravy train. No-one.

Which brings us to another question. Why frame a race with those conditions and not alert every trainer in the land to the race? It is like that all-greys race. How did Haydock think they would attract horses with less than two wins if they did not tell anyone?

The whole thing defies rational analysis.

And why did I write Brighton as Haydock?

On a different topic, those paying the £26.00 for members got a pie and a pint as well so that's fair enough. As the bars were relatively understaffed, to save time I heard the manageress tell the workers that don't bother scanning people's phones for the free pint code just take it as read and pour them.

So, apparently, certain racegoers had several pints each and never paid so much as a shilling for any of them.

Thing is it's a brand new type of race, presumably dreamed up by Race Planning, who have to come up with new ideas to justify their pay. This was the first one, so why would anybody be looking for those conditions, when they've never had anything like it in a class 6 handicap before.

The first race at Lingfield today was another and there are more of them over the next few weeks. Whoever wrote the conditions for Lingfield put enough info in the race title to alert trainers to the requirements. Brighton, for whatever reason, didn't do that.

The new aspect also explains why the Weatherbys software didn't raise a red flag. There would have been nothing in the software code to cover that specific condition of entry.

In the discussion of this incident on the Racing Post's The Front Page video, it is revealed that as well as this, two horses ran at Brighton with headgear different from published on the racecard after the stewards accepted this was different from what the trainer had originally entered (yeah, right).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNdQ5AIPZio