Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
11 Dec 23
18:21
Joined:
Date Joined:
18 Feb 02
Bombshell for biggest yards as BHA proposes limiting trainers to four runners in major handicaps
No ride in The Grand National
The BHA has asked for views on limiting the number of runners trainers can have in big handicaps
Credit: Alan Crowhurst
The BHA is considering whether to limit the number of horses a trainer can run in major handicaps, the Racing Post understands.
The governing body has written to a number of stakeholders to tell them it is contemplating the move and to seek their views.
It is understood the BHA is proposing a change to the rules of racing that would mean a trainer would be limited to declaring a maximum of four runners in any individual handicap at Class 1 or Class 2 level.
It does not favour applying the same limits to weight-for-age races due to concerns it would compromise the quality of such contests, and nor are there plans to place similar restrictions on the number of horses an owner can run in a race.
Asked to comment, a BHA spokesperson said: “From time to time the BHA will contact stakeholders for views on various issues. We would not comment on speculation around private discussions."
Comment: Only a baby step but an important one if racing is to keep some of its David v Goliath moments
The news comes following the reignition of the debate over the increasing domination of a small number of trainers in jump racing.
Last month Gordon Elliott was responsible for a record 14 of the 20 runners in the Troytown Chase at Navan, winning the prestigious contest with Coko Beach and being responsible for four of the first five home.
Afterwards Elliott said: "All my owners are paying training fees and entry fees and they want to run, so I don't think I have anyone to answer to. All I want to do is do my best for every horse and every owner."
Following the Troytown, Racing Post readers were asked whether they viewed the domination of a major handicap as a problem in a poll run for the daily Front Runner column. More than 78 per cent of respondents said they believed it was.
The Troytown once again raised questions about major trainers stifling competition, questions which have been given greater urgency with the decision to reduce the maximum field for the Randox Grand National to 34 runners from 40.
For the last two runnings of the race Elliott and his fellow trainer Willie Mullins have provided a quarter of the field between them. Were the BHA to take its proposals further then it would have to act quickly in order for them to come into force in time for this season's Grand National as entries for the 2024 running of the National, which will take place at Aintree on April 13, close on February 6.
Gordon Elliott with all of his jockeys before the Troytown Chase
Gordon Elliott with all of his jockeys before the Troytown Chase
Credit: Patrick McCann
If a rule limiting a trainer to four runners in top handicaps had been in place in the last two years, it would have affected Elliott at the last two Cheltenham Festivals. At this year's meeting the trainer had five runners in the Coral Cup and six representatives in the Martin Pipe Conditional Jockeys Handicap Hurdle. In 2022 Elliott had five runners in the Boodles Juvenile Handicap Hurdle, six apiece in the Martin Pipe and the Pertemps Final and seven in the Coral Cup.
Mullins was also responsible for five runners, including the winner State Man, in the 2022 County Hurdle.
On the Flat, trainer David O'Meara would also have been caught by a limit of four runners in a number of top handicaps. He had five runners in the 2022 Coral Golden Mile at Goodwood, including the winner Orbaan, and six representatives in this year's running.
O'Meara also had five runners in the 2022 Balmoral Handicap at Ascot, including the winner Shelir, and five runners in the Howden Challenge Cup at the same course in October.
No ride in The Grand National
The BHA has asked for views on limiting the number of runners trainers can have in big handicaps
Credit: Alan Crowhurst
The BHA is considering whether to limit the number of horses a trainer can run in major handicaps, the Racing Post understands.
The governing body has written to a number of stakeholders to tell them it is contemplating the move and to seek their views.
It is understood the BHA is proposing a change to the rules of racing that would mean a trainer would be limited to declaring a maximum of four runners in any individual handicap at Class 1 or Class 2 level.
It does not favour applying the same limits to weight-for-age races due to concerns it would compromise the quality of such contests, and nor are there plans to place similar restrictions on the number of horses an owner can run in a race.
Asked to comment, a BHA spokesperson said: “From time to time the BHA will contact stakeholders for views on various issues. We would not comment on speculation around private discussions."
Comment: Only a baby step but an important one if racing is to keep some of its David v Goliath moments
The news comes following the reignition of the debate over the increasing domination of a small number of trainers in jump racing.
Last month Gordon Elliott was responsible for a record 14 of the 20 runners in the Troytown Chase at Navan, winning the prestigious contest with Coko Beach and being responsible for four of the first five home.
Afterwards Elliott said: "All my owners are paying training fees and entry fees and they want to run, so I don't think I have anyone to answer to. All I want to do is do my best for every horse and every owner."
Following the Troytown, Racing Post readers were asked whether they viewed the domination of a major handicap as a problem in a poll run for the daily Front Runner column. More than 78 per cent of respondents said they believed it was.
The Troytown once again raised questions about major trainers stifling competition, questions which have been given greater urgency with the decision to reduce the maximum field for the Randox Grand National to 34 runners from 40.
For the last two runnings of the race Elliott and his fellow trainer Willie Mullins have provided a quarter of the field between them. Were the BHA to take its proposals further then it would have to act quickly in order for them to come into force in time for this season's Grand National as entries for the 2024 running of the National, which will take place at Aintree on April 13, close on February 6.
Gordon Elliott with all of his jockeys before the Troytown Chase
Gordon Elliott with all of his jockeys before the Troytown Chase
Credit: Patrick McCann
If a rule limiting a trainer to four runners in top handicaps had been in place in the last two years, it would have affected Elliott at the last two Cheltenham Festivals. At this year's meeting the trainer had five runners in the Coral Cup and six representatives in the Martin Pipe Conditional Jockeys Handicap Hurdle. In 2022 Elliott had five runners in the Boodles Juvenile Handicap Hurdle, six apiece in the Martin Pipe and the Pertemps Final and seven in the Coral Cup.
Mullins was also responsible for five runners, including the winner State Man, in the 2022 County Hurdle.
On the Flat, trainer David O'Meara would also have been caught by a limit of four runners in a number of top handicaps. He had five runners in the 2022 Coral Golden Mile at Goodwood, including the winner Orbaan, and six representatives in this year's running.
O'Meara also had five runners in the 2022 Balmoral Handicap at Ascot, including the winner Shelir, and five runners in the Howden Challenge Cup at the same course in October.
Show More
And that’s just the car insurance,Frankie was in a plane.
as I have implied, the usual rules applied to a free market economy don't need to apply to a sport. we can do what we want. The real issue is whether we want, in years to come, the big handicaps with 3 trainers having all, or most, of the runners. I don't. It is dull , uninteresting and undoubtedly will lead to lower £ taken in betting. All sports benefit from a multiplicity of competitors. You see that now with footy. If you are owned by a state, great. If not you may as well pack in. I don't want that to happen to racing and miss the Danolis of this world as a thing of the past (which they are now). The big £ spenders can run all they like in graded races. Just leave the handicaps to a few others. To paraphrase another poster, they don't need the £....ffs
A few mentions of thr Troytown there were 2 nr's but only 22 declared when the field could have been 24 so no 1 was stopping the other 2 entries
It's long time coming; 4 might be one too many to be honest. Any sport unless it's a single human competition cannot be dictated to by an entity merely with the ability to pay to dominate the composition of the competition at the expense of others. Hence, in the UK we have fee paying and scholarship students with the prerequisite/necessary qualification for any Uni/organisation; exclusivity is non-competitive and non-conducive. It can only stifle productivity, induce cronyism/nepotism and devalue the prestige of any competition.
Impossible, Donegal, would you also limit the number of runners one owner can have in a race?
Impossible.
I think it just dosent look good,resonates better than your correct evaluation.
Some might say racings a bit of a farce at the best of times,without going out of its way to actually look a farce.
I think it just dosent look good,resonates better than your correct evaluation.
Some might say racings a bit of a farce at the best of times,without going out of its way to actually look a farce.
Having duplicate owner colours in a race I’d confusing to public,and looks stupid.
If an owner is lucky enough to have 4 horses capable of running in a class 1/2 hcp,I m sure he wouldn’t sulk because he can’t enter 5 or 10..
Imagine a 10 runner race in Giggs colours ,all 10 Giggs.
It just looks pathetic.
If an owner is lucky enough to have 4 horses capable of running in a class 1/2 hcp,I m sure he wouldn’t sulk because he can’t enter 5 or 10..
Imagine a 10 runner race in Giggs colours ,all 10 Giggs.
It just looks pathetic.
the irish national as an example , not enough colours in the rainbow for caps, utter farce.
Limiting a trainer to 4 is a good start for competition and punter. It can also be good for small owners eg an owner buying a horse to run in a particular race can choose the next best trainer available with the most probable chance of achieving his/her objective. Any abuse on this (only prevalent in National Hunt and Ireland) could be mitigated by a similar rule imposed on owners.
Even coolmore have sussed this,they have about 4/5 different colours,depending on who owns them.
It’s sold has a competitive sport.so make it look like that.
It’s sold has a competitive sport.so make it look like that.
I stick by my guns here it will be good for Racing trust me i worked in he game for over 30 Years. - I'll let you know when you've caught up. There's a perfectly good system for restricting horse in a race, its called a handicap mark. Stopping higher rated horses form running is detrimental to the integrity of the sport (positive discrimination at its worst). Every nutter is screaming for less races, now they want to restrict runners that a trainer can have in them. Utter nonsense.
The most logical and articulated comment IMO...
The most logical and articulated comment IMO...
And if you restrict trainers or owners they can easily find a way round the system... place them with other trainers just before the race or swap ownership to family or friends...
Its a no brainer....
Its a no brainer....
I'd limit trainer to 4 entries not just 4 runners.
That'll sort em, and make our life a tad simpler.
That'll sort em, and make our life a tad simpler.
Again,it’s not about trainers.they might have 10 top rated 3 mile chases with 10 big owners.so unfair to restrict them.
But there’s no justifiable logic for an owner to need more than,4 entries to want to win a race.
If the 36 top rated staying chases all belonged to 1 owner.
Given the free enterprise brigades logic,then every runner in the national would carry the same colours.
10 million viewers scratching their head wondering what was happening,kids asking parents,why are they all the same colour.
Whilst mick Fitz has to explain,those are the rules,the owner is perfectly within his right to run them all,as they are all qualified to run.
As 10 million viewers decide to watch WWE wrestling as they want to watch some competitive sport.
But there’s no justifiable logic for an owner to need more than,4 entries to want to win a race.
If the 36 top rated staying chases all belonged to 1 owner.
Given the free enterprise brigades logic,then every runner in the national would carry the same colours.
10 million viewers scratching their head wondering what was happening,kids asking parents,why are they all the same colour.
Whilst mick Fitz has to explain,those are the rules,the owner is perfectly within his right to run them all,as they are all qualified to run.
As 10 million viewers decide to watch WWE wrestling as they want to watch some competitive sport.
You need to go to specsavers exactaman and perhaps look up the definitions of logical and articulate. What you attribute to honcho is actually contrary opinion and it is acey who worked in racing for over 30 years and he agrees with the proposed changes as do I. These are just proposals at this stage anyway so the pointless speculation about actuality is pretty pointless although the posts probably are fair in terms of questions that will no doubt be asked or maybe have been.
It is not going to make a huge difference within the whole picture anyway but someone mentioned certain trainers and owners monopolising some races. This was one of the reasons I supported mention of change several years ago.
Few can argue that monopolies in any form or circumstance can be a good thing, but just take the Grand National if the proposals are put into practice. It will be less tempting to enter one just to keep the weights down and then withdrawing said animal as that would leave a trainer less incentive even if not stopping the practice.
It would also give smaller trainers more hope of not being balloted out only to see a few taken out from the multiple entry brigade before the race and more idea of their chance of a run. Nothing is ever perfect but I don't see the issue about the proposals and even extending them to certain Group ones on the flat would not be detrimental e.g the AOB blanket approach dilutes the Kudos of some when his rags beat his "Best I ever had" superstars?
It is not going to make a huge difference within the whole picture anyway but someone mentioned certain trainers and owners monopolising some races. This was one of the reasons I supported mention of change several years ago.
Few can argue that monopolies in any form or circumstance can be a good thing, but just take the Grand National if the proposals are put into practice. It will be less tempting to enter one just to keep the weights down and then withdrawing said animal as that would leave a trainer less incentive even if not stopping the practice.
It would also give smaller trainers more hope of not being balloted out only to see a few taken out from the multiple entry brigade before the race and more idea of their chance of a run. Nothing is ever perfect but I don't see the issue about the proposals and even extending them to certain Group ones on the flat would not be detrimental e.g the AOB blanket approach dilutes the Kudos of some when his rags beat his "Best I ever had" superstars?
What nonsense you talk Gagliari. Handicap racing is all about providing competitive racing and horses talking part on merit. If a horse is not allowed to run in favour of a 5lb inferior animal that is blatantly weakening the competitiveness of the race not to mention undermining the rights of owners to expect a level playing field for their horses. The example of AOB winning with his 'rag' just about sums up your ignorance of the situation. The fact is if he doesn't provide some competition for his 'next best thing' then any victory by that horse risks being facile.
When trainers have large numbers of runners its not ideal but its not their fault (or their owners), its clearly an issue about the way the sport is funded and managed. The BHA has underfunded lower grade racing for years and that is the crux of the problem. Small trainers find it more difficult to attract owners and because of this struggle to get funds to buy better quality horses. Having a runner they may not have had on the odd occasion ( and lets be clear it will not have much of a chance if it needs horses to be pulled out for it to get a run) isn't going to make the slightest bit of difference to small trainers. Premiership racing will make it worse and polarise racing even more. The big yards will get bigger and the smaller yards worse off.
The BHA's proposal is simply a PR stunt because of recent events and deflects from the real issues. The question should be why a few trainers have so many of the good horses and thats because of the BHA's bad management.
When trainers have large numbers of runners its not ideal but its not their fault (or their owners), its clearly an issue about the way the sport is funded and managed. The BHA has underfunded lower grade racing for years and that is the crux of the problem. Small trainers find it more difficult to attract owners and because of this struggle to get funds to buy better quality horses. Having a runner they may not have had on the odd occasion ( and lets be clear it will not have much of a chance if it needs horses to be pulled out for it to get a run) isn't going to make the slightest bit of difference to small trainers. Premiership racing will make it worse and polarise racing even more. The big yards will get bigger and the smaller yards worse off.
The BHA's proposal is simply a PR stunt because of recent events and deflects from the real issues. The question should be why a few trainers have so many of the good horses and thats because of the BHA's bad management.
surely you only have to enter 2 horses max to keep the weights down anyway.Seems silly to me, you can have all the runners in a 6 runner graded race but only 4 runners in a 20 runner h'cap.
90 Horses max per trainer. that would give lesser trainers a chance to show there ability.
and agree with max 4 runners per race, i'd include all races, classics as well, if they're owned by the same owners
and agree with max 4 runners per race, i'd include all races, classics as well, if they're owned by the same owners
Honcho showing he is as thick as pigs muck yet again, your PR stunt for recent events has been a decade plus on the agenda and btw has nothing to do with funding. The majority of trainers do not purchase the horses for their owners so another thicket comment about small trainers struggling to get funds to buy better quality horses.
Furthermore the BHA have nothing to do with where owners send their horses nor are the proposals anything to do with Premierisation nor do the proposals mean horses will need to be pulled out and allow inferior animals to usurp them and it is not a given that a trainer with e.g 8 entries will leave their better rated horses in for the final decs.
Re- suppressing the weights cropsick their would be no point if a stable did not have at least 2 runners unless you think they were doing a favour for another stable!!
Furthermore the BHA have nothing to do with where owners send their horses nor are the proposals anything to do with Premierisation nor do the proposals mean horses will need to be pulled out and allow inferior animals to usurp them and it is not a given that a trainer with e.g 8 entries will leave their better rated horses in for the final decs.
Re- suppressing the weights cropsick their would be no point if a stable did not have at least 2 runners unless you think they were doing a favour for another stable!!
I think you'll find all trainers buy horses for the yard. You won't find many small trainers that don't have syndicates that are secured by the trainer before he can find punters for them. Further owners in small yards will have more to spend on replacement horses if the funding and management was fairer. Even someone with your limited intelligence should realise that.
If smaller trainers are not getting a fair crack of the whip then how can they build their yards and get better horses. Do you think owners with decent horses are going to send them to unproven trainers. You just have no clue.
I don't know what you are talking about regarding final decs. If a trainer doesn't run his best rated horse that's completely up to him and his owners. It is totally part of the game and if he thinks he has a better handicapped one then its not up to him to leave the horse in to suit you or anyone else.
If smaller trainers are not getting a fair crack of the whip then how can they build their yards and get better horses. Do you think owners with decent horses are going to send them to unproven trainers. You just have no clue.
I don't know what you are talking about regarding final decs. If a trainer doesn't run his best rated horse that's completely up to him and his owners. It is totally part of the game and if he thinks he has a better handicapped one then its not up to him to leave the horse in to suit you or anyone else.
At least you acknowledge you are TAPS by trying to bullsh!t your way out of your uninformed understanding of the industry.
VWD honcho.
VWD honcho.
Well if the H'capper stops giving the Irish horses 10LB more over here then maybe more of UK horses will get in H'cap.
From the guy who said that he knew a horse was 16 hands 4 inches. Your dumber than the rock you crawled out from under. Even changing your profile name can't hide your stupidity.
LOL well done again honcho, you were the pillock who did not know a hand is 4"!!!
Yeah, yeah, who are you trying to kid you plonker.
Fine honcho, pull up the post you allege?
Keep digging!!
Keep digging!!
CagliariG28 May 23 19:14Joined: 16 Jul 22 | Topic/replies: 6,921 | Blogger: CagliariG's blog
Mawj 15.1 hands,Mediate 15.4 and Tahirya 15.3,not a lot in it but 1.01 Mawj is the smallest,strangely her trainer agrees honcho,or are you going by musculature or BMI?
You utter moron Cagliari.
Mawj 15.1 hands,Mediate 15.4 and Tahirya 15.3,not a lot in it but 1.01 Mawj is the smallest,strangely her trainer agrees honcho,or are you going by musculature or BMI?
You utter moron Cagliari.
And where does it say 16 hands 4 " IYO honcho?
Keep digging!!
Keep digging!!
CagliariG28 May 23 19:14Joined: 16 Jul 22 | Topic/replies: 6,921 | Blogger: CagliariG's blog
Mawj 15.1 hands,Mediate 15.4 and Tahirya 15.3,not a lot in it but 1.01 Mawj is the smallest,strangely her trainer agrees honcho,or are you going by musculature or BMI?
Yeah you're right dumbo. I misremembered you said 15.4 and not 16.4. I'm sorry but it doesn't make you any less of a thicko.
Still you're an expert on the horse racing industry as pointed out by the fact you think limiting trainers to 4 runners will stop them manipulating the handicap.
Its time to change your profile again mate, you've lost all credibility.
Mawj 15.1 hands,Mediate 15.4 and Tahirya 15.3,not a lot in it but 1.01 Mawj is the smallest,strangely her trainer agrees honcho,or are you going by musculature or BMI?
Yeah you're right dumbo. I misremembered you said 15.4 and not 16.4. I'm sorry but it doesn't make you any less of a thicko.
Still you're an expert on the horse racing industry as pointed out by the fact you think limiting trainers to 4 runners will stop them manipulating the handicap.
Its time to change your profile again mate, you've lost all credibility.
Low intellect meltdown, ladder required for honcho!!
It is a hard one bit it is being proposed because of the relentless growth of a few stables who will push more and more small ones out of business. It is all very fine for Elliott to say that they have different owners but he calls the shots and how many races will be fixed over the breakfast table? Jockey A makes the running at a fast pace for a mile when jockey B takes up the pace while the other 3 stable runners just make life difficult for any other runners. A bit of bumping, form a box to stop a horse making ground for a furlong etc. etc. It goes on and will get worse.
What's next, make the horses run around lanes with any Irish horse having to jump more obstacles.
I don’t think any trainer,owner would deliberately pre plan a fixed race ,even if they had 10 runners,basically who d be that stupid.
It’s just about how it looks.looks stupid having 10 entries.
It’s just about how it looks.looks stupid having 10 entries.
Competition is the ultimate here. Inevitably there will be lesser competition if participants are dominated by only a handful of stables and owners. I think there'll also be lesser collusion between stablemates.
I'd rather have a small field in a run-of-the-mill handicap race than saturated with runners from the same stable and/or owner. This limit on runners from one stable will also encourage some owners to have the horses trained elsewhere.
I'd rather have a small field in a run-of-the-mill handicap race than saturated with runners from the same stable and/or owner. This limit on runners from one stable will also encourage some owners to have the horses trained elsewhere.
Yep.
Summed up,hence why they are looking at inventing a rule.
Summed up,hence why they are looking at inventing a rule.
Why do people automatically think owners will move their horses to another trainer or trainers
that they didn't put horses with them in the 1st place, so why now?
that they didn't put horses with them in the 1st place, so why now?
Trainers like GE and Mullins are full to the brim. If an owner did take his horse away there would be a queue to fill the stable. The big trainers will keep getting bigger and this silly proposed rule won't do anything to stop that.
Would you consider having a bet in a race where one owner or trainer had half of the field? I would not even consider it. So if that becomes the norm, I will just stop watching the sport and that is after being a fan for 65 years. I have almost stopped betting on Group 1 flat races as Aiden often has enough runners to ensure than nobody else can win. Anyone who believes that they all run on their merits is free to bet but in my view the result is decided before they start.
Don’t agree about result decided pre race,but either way looks wrong.
Aiden runs 4/5 in a lot of g1 Irish races,cos to maintain their g1 status,the first 4 home must achieve a rating of 120,I think,ish.
So he’s supporting the Irish pattern by improving the quality of their races,which is fair play if he’s got all the good horses.
As for result,coolmore tend to run correctly based on bare form,
I.e a 1m2f horses that ran on strong last time out running at 1m4f bred by 2 stayers,looks a shoe in to win at 1m4f.it loses to the 1m4f winner last time out.bare form,not anticipated form.
He’s won English derbies with odds on shots and complete outsiders,so all his runners run on merit.
It’s just the look,same owners,stable,it just dosent look like a race.
Aiden runs 4/5 in a lot of g1 Irish races,cos to maintain their g1 status,the first 4 home must achieve a rating of 120,I think,ish.
So he’s supporting the Irish pattern by improving the quality of their races,which is fair play if he’s got all the good horses.
As for result,coolmore tend to run correctly based on bare form,
I.e a 1m2f horses that ran on strong last time out running at 1m4f bred by 2 stayers,looks a shoe in to win at 1m4f.it loses to the 1m4f winner last time out.bare form,not anticipated form.
He’s won English derbies with odds on shots and complete outsiders,so all his runners run on merit.
It’s just the look,same owners,stable,it just dosent look like a race.
Usually what used to happen was that big successful stables spawned conveyer belts of new trainers as successive assistants and head lads figured out they knew how to run things at least as well and set out on their own. Elliott from Pipe's for example. This would help keep things more competitive. Trouble is all the clones from the Nicholls "family-tree" are just doing what he was doing. We need a few from the Mullins barn to leave there and set up as opposition. Maybe over here because, while there is less money over here, there is surely a lot of easy money there for the taking.
Why would anyone set up a training establishment in the U K .
The Irish establishment is far more welcoming
The Irish establishment is far more welcoming
'we cant beat them because we are not good enough to attract the better horses so lets restrict them'. Thats kinda what Dr Newland is saying,dont think we will hear the same from Nicholls , Hendo etc.
irishone 13 Dec 23 09:27
Why would anyone set up a training establishment in the U K .
The Irish establishment is far more welcoming
Because (most of the time) you're not competing against Mullins and Elliott? If someone set up over here using Mullins methods would they not be even more dominant?
Why would anyone set up a training establishment in the U K .
The Irish establishment is far more welcoming
Because (most of the time) you're not competing against Mullins and Elliott? If someone set up over here using Mullins methods would they not be even more dominant?
But surely one of the big factors is Government policy? Racing and horse breeding are an important part of the Irish culture and economy while in England it is an insignificant hang over from another age in the eyes of politicians. It is only foreign owners that keep GB racing alive.
Jane Mangan on the Nick Luck podcast this morning on the subject of limits on runners:
"without the big owners we don't have a job, we don't have an industry"
The problem of our press and those in the racing media encapsulated in one throwaway remark. Never mind if it's good for the sport or not, so long as I keep getting fed from the gravy train.
"without the big owners we don't have a job, we don't have an industry"
The problem of our press and those in the racing media encapsulated in one throwaway remark. Never mind if it's good for the sport or not, so long as I keep getting fed from the gravy train.
There would be plenty of smaller owners and syndicate members if the big boys pull out as there will be a much better chance of having a winner.
"without the big owners we don't have a job, we don't have an industry"
Big owners are not new to horseracing. In the past we'd have big owners too but they were not confined to a small handful (1 or 2) stables. Also, the horseracing industry was not run by or controlled by bookies eg the sponsors were varied and aplenty unlike now 99% bookies specific. Similarly, the racing papers were not owned by bookies; the racing journalist not mouthpieces of bookies either.
The above comment by a racing pundit is a clear example of defending one's interest, and pocket-talking. But, horseracing at the moment is that (sadly). Until a radical approach or overhaul is initiated the present me, me, me only scenario will continue; far too many so called horseracing "journalists/betting pundits" around. To me they ought to be culled just their the dominance of high street betting shops catering solely for fobt players or addicts.
Big owners are not new to horseracing. In the past we'd have big owners too but they were not confined to a small handful (1 or 2) stables. Also, the horseracing industry was not run by or controlled by bookies eg the sponsors were varied and aplenty unlike now 99% bookies specific. Similarly, the racing papers were not owned by bookies; the racing journalist not mouthpieces of bookies either.
The above comment by a racing pundit is a clear example of defending one's interest, and pocket-talking. But, horseracing at the moment is that (sadly). Until a radical approach or overhaul is initiated the present me, me, me only scenario will continue; far too many so called horseracing "journalists/betting pundits" around. To me they ought to be culled just their the dominance of high street betting shops catering solely for fobt players or addicts.
The smaller trainers would get better horses and wouldn't be frightened to run them against other top trainers horses,
it would be a great advert for them if they beat them
it would be a great advert for them if they beat them
Short term reactive rule changes are NEVER the way to go: restricting the few successful trainers and owners would be ridiculous and counterproductive - too many races have small fields as it is. If u want to level the playing field, don't cut off the head or leaders but support and encourage the 'also rans' positively but fairly. This is a truly idiotic idea and needs shutting down. I am staggered that anyone could think this thru and support it.
Agree Gagging , all you're doing is lowering the bar instead of helping raise it.
In business we encourage competition; competition = increase in productivity and quality. Thus, monopoly and duopoly in businesses are discouraged with policies introduced and enforced accordingly to generate and encourage competition.
Horseracing is no different.
Horseracing is no different.
Wokery at work - the observant over the last half century may have noticed that some schools feel bad when an individual excels at say, running sports - while others trail in less successfully - so they resort to less competitive races where everyone may have a chance - egg and spoon, sack, 3 legged: thats not how to produce top class athletes competing at their best: we need the competitive environment and initiatives to find other interests so that all can show their merit at something.
I think wokery here is misused and inappropriate. I think it's prudent to just stick to horseracing and not be sidetracked as it's neither conducive nor comparable. Personally I've refrained from betting in Irish races including big ones is mainly due to a stable multi-declaring or with multi-runners on the day eg odds-on taking a walk, lesser fancied contracting; single/multiples are cooked/cheated; follow the market = manipulation/fraud.
Does horseracing elsewhere esp those with various betting mechanisms/platforms experience multi-runners from a stable or share the same owners? And, I do not mean the Middle East.
Does horseracing elsewhere esp those with various betting mechanisms/platforms experience multi-runners from a stable or share the same owners? And, I do not mean the Middle East.
Australia -plenty of owners have multiple runners in the Melbourne Cup.
How many and how often? Same trainer or different? Handicap or non-handicap or Group races? But, Elliot has 14 in the Troytown. I think 4 is one too many already from the same trainer and/or owner.
the way things are going it'll be 17 each for Elliot and Mullins in the Grand National!
If so, the race will be a mockery of competition or fair play. Maybe these big trainers and owners can have their own "egoistic" horseracing league. Then they'd have as many runners as they like. But, will many bet on it?
All the waffle but ultimately this is because of where these trainers are from and nothing to do with the volume.
Lol even the big owners are fodder,who would have thought…..ffs
impossible, I agree with your earlier point about competition but in business areas it is no longer effective or enforced. Monopolies are almost always bad for consumers (including nationalised ones) and in the last 25 years, banking, water and electricity are effectively monopolies and often owned by non UK companies. going back to racing, there has always been a tendency towards bigger training establishments but that has accelerated in recent years but it is accompanied by a growth of "anonymous" owners who spring up in a matter of weeks and acquire 10 or 20 horses. I'm sure a few people know who is behind them but it hardly helps with pr for the industry. It is much more prevalent on the flat. a look at the RP statistics for owners shows that in GB jumping, nearly all of the top 20 are identifiable individuals while on the flat it is only about 25%.
I'm astounded and flabbergasted some of the big stables and owners are moaning how unjust this limitation of 4-runners per trainer given the money they are putting into horseracing. I'm also gobsmacked one of them was the owner of Tiger Roll who repeatedly tried to dictate, bully and even threatened the handicapper of the Grand National about the horse's participation if the horse's handicap mark was deemed "unjust" (again) according to them.
No horse has been invited to take part in a race. As such, connections can decide whether their horses are entered or run in them. It's their choice - no gun is put to their head. This is not an invitation either ie abide by the rules OR there are alternatives.
The bookies are/have been dictating horseracing in the UK for over 2 decades with impunity. Now, the big stables and owners feel they can do the same merely because of the money they pump into this "leisure" game or to pursue their egoistic journey.
My message to them is simple. Horseracing is a leisure sport, and the key ingredient is punters: no punters - no horseracing. Even the bookies cannot make it work if punters refrain from betting; the amount of money plough into the horseracing by owners pales into insignificance if it's non-competitive, dominated by a handful of wealthy owners patronising a very select mall band of trainers (2 or 3). At the moment these select band of trainers are benefiting at the expense of others "unjustly".
Personally, the owners can take their money and spend it elsewhere if they so wish; punters will not miss them. I'm without doubt future (genuine) owners will step in to buy horses whose prices are not inflated by egoistic owners at the sales; advertisers other than bookies will enter the sport to sponsor races; stable lads and lasses will have a better standard of living too eg lesser but better funded racing, and more leisure time.
No horse has been invited to take part in a race. As such, connections can decide whether their horses are entered or run in them. It's their choice - no gun is put to their head. This is not an invitation either ie abide by the rules OR there are alternatives.
The bookies are/have been dictating horseracing in the UK for over 2 decades with impunity. Now, the big stables and owners feel they can do the same merely because of the money they pump into this "leisure" game or to pursue their egoistic journey.
My message to them is simple. Horseracing is a leisure sport, and the key ingredient is punters: no punters - no horseracing. Even the bookies cannot make it work if punters refrain from betting; the amount of money plough into the horseracing by owners pales into insignificance if it's non-competitive, dominated by a handful of wealthy owners patronising a very select mall band of trainers (2 or 3). At the moment these select band of trainers are benefiting at the expense of others "unjustly".
Personally, the owners can take their money and spend it elsewhere if they so wish; punters will not miss them. I'm without doubt future (genuine) owners will step in to buy horses whose prices are not inflated by egoistic owners at the sales; advertisers other than bookies will enter the sport to sponsor races; stable lads and lasses will have a better standard of living too eg lesser but better funded racing, and more leisure time.
'sageform',
(1) Who sold UK companies for a song? CEOs after a quick performance reward usually just prior to x'mas; these CEOs were mainly
foreign too
(2) Why did they sell them? Self interests; money is the root of all evil.
(3) Who were the main buyers, and why? Foreign state investment funds, because the assets were considered cheap and UK
politically sound, lawful and assets prestigious. They can also exert economic powers over the UK eg Utilities.
Some many UK icon companies have gone to foreign hands, and UK residents are paying for them.
(1) Who sold UK companies for a song? CEOs after a quick performance reward usually just prior to x'mas; these CEOs were mainly
foreign too
(2) Why did they sell them? Self interests; money is the root of all evil.
(3) Who were the main buyers, and why? Foreign state investment funds, because the assets were considered cheap and UK
politically sound, lawful and assets prestigious. They can also exert economic powers over the UK eg Utilities.
Some many UK icon companies have gone to foreign hands, and UK residents are paying for them.
Impossible .... much of your statement is true about too much of the ownership being confined to a few ultra rich owners and in turn this has dominated the breeding industry, but restricting a few races to a few trainers runners is definitely NOT the way to stem this. For a start there are easy ways to get around this. The BHA are tackling this at the wrong end and need to focus on innovative ways that are positive and allow new money and investment in - admittedly no easy or quick fixes - but when was it ever? It's typical socialist policies to knock the rich and successful, level down, and over-regulate rather than encourage and build steadily from below.
'Gagging', horseracing is a leisure sport and the key ingredient is betting. At the moment it's controlled and at the mercy of bookies. The dominance of a very select few trainers and extremely wealthy owners this leisure activity will soon be dead; the self-interests and gratification of horseracing presenters and pundits esp terrestrial ones advertising for bookies another deplorable event only the UK will allow.
New money is good, but not from the already powerful and influential ones ie those monopolising and manipulating key prestigious races for their own benefits. These select few cannot be good for horseracing; new sponsors is also key to move this leisure sport forward.
This is not about new regulation. It's about repositioning horseracing on the correct path/track eg less dependence of bookies and powerful owners and trainers, but back to horseracing supporters and communities and punters.
I'm a socialist by nature however, that does not mean my vote is a given; lazy, uninformed and mouthy socialists ain't for friends either. The UK education is amongst the best in the world, and free (generally); utilise it and stop blaming the state.
New money is good, but not from the already powerful and influential ones ie those monopolising and manipulating key prestigious races for their own benefits. These select few cannot be good for horseracing; new sponsors is also key to move this leisure sport forward.
This is not about new regulation. It's about repositioning horseracing on the correct path/track eg less dependence of bookies and powerful owners and trainers, but back to horseracing supporters and communities and punters.
I'm a socialist by nature however, that does not mean my vote is a given; lazy, uninformed and mouthy socialists ain't for friends either. The UK education is amongst the best in the world, and free (generally); utilise it and stop blaming the state.
Allowing unlimited numbers from any one trainer could in the last analysis mean that all of the runners in a race could be from the same trainer. It also means that the old ploy of leaving top weights in a handicap until the last minute to benefit a stable companion will become more common as will team tactics in running. You will never stop gamesmanship but why not try to reduce it if you can. It is not there just to penalise Irish trainers but Gordon Elliott has run 281 NH horses this season already and nobody else has that kind of number.
All except Mr Chris Cook has opined on the above. The other bookie trough-feeders have abstained or suddenly developed a sense of non-acknowledgement or sudden deaf-dumb syndrome - none has uttered a word about BHA proposal of limiting a trainer to 4-runners in a Grade 1 and Grade 2 handicap races eg Grand National.
Mr Harry de Bromhead has offered his support to the BHA for investigating a proposal to limit the number of horses a trainer can run in top-end handicap, but the trainer emphasised the issue was more complex than it seemed and, as such, required careful consideration.
The above was reported in the Racing Post but I'm not a subscriber to post the rest of the article.
The above was reported in the Racing Post but I'm not a subscriber to post the rest of the article.
The possibility of one owner having more than 5 runners but from different trainers does not seem to have been addressed but it should be. It is less of an issue because 3 or more separate trainers might kick back against attempts to operate a "team" strategy.
'sageform', is Mr de Bromhead insinuating the same owner could send horses to other different trainers to fulfil their intention to run more than 4 runners in top-end handicap races? For instance an owner would like to run 8 runners: the owner sends 8 horses to 2 trainers or more to ensure their 8 runner plan is achieved. Is this the gist of Mr de Bromhead's statement?
If so, the BHA must insist trainer/s representing the same owner eg Gigginstown must not together run more than 4-runners in any top-end handicap races.
If so, the BHA must insist trainer/s representing the same owner eg Gigginstown must not together run more than 4-runners in any top-end handicap races.
Possibly but it seems obvious to me that this could happen and you only need to move a horse for 2 weeks and then move it back again. Milton Harris's horses are all still in training and if his license was restored, they would soon be back. Ditto Gordon Elliott after the dead horse fiasco. If another trainer is willing to train them for 2 or 3 weeks there is no rule against it.
It should be easy enough to frame the rule so that if a horse is moved between yards for the purpose of evading the limit, no entries will be accepted for that horse for, say, one year. But I doubt the BHA can make that watertight, given their track record with their own rules.
Short term meddling and inventing new rules is so NOT the way to go.
Can't define it strontium. They could increase the time that a horse must be is in a yard before it can run to 28 days but that is not fair on owners moving for genuine reasons.
Why dont we just ban em from runnung any horses, then all the **** trainers will be happy.
Agree CROPSICK , hilarious how some want to stop Willie & Gordon winning instead of the also rans finding ways to keep up.
The two masters have more depth in quality than ever seen before in the sport , should be admired especially as their race planning is fearless with nothing off the agenda.
They've raised the training bar so let's see if any of the others can get to anywhere near that level.
Good luck today all
The two masters have more depth in quality than ever seen before in the sport , should be admired especially as their race planning is fearless with nothing off the agenda.
They've raised the training bar so let's see if any of the others can get to anywhere near that level.
Good luck today all
So you would not say a word if a trainer won 5 big handicaps in a row with his longest price runner of 6. I for one would not bet on any race with 4 runners from one yard never mind more than that.
You wouldn't have been a fan of Dickinson training the first five home in the Gold Cup then Sage , albeit not a handicap.
No i wouldn't tbh , we're in this business to find betting opportunities and backing 2nd , 3rd and sometimes maybe with a JP horse 4th strings , the depth of quality that doesn't exist in any other yards creates those opportunities to back a 3rd string good horse at a price , admittedly my view can be deemed as selfish as i only back double digit horses win only in handicaps.
Each to their own though as always
No i wouldn't tbh , we're in this business to find betting opportunities and backing 2nd , 3rd and sometimes maybe with a JP horse 4th strings , the depth of quality that doesn't exist in any other yards creates those opportunities to back a 3rd string good horse at a price , admittedly my view can be deemed as selfish as i only back double digit horses win only in handicaps.
Each to their own though as always
I can admire the ability of a trainer to get 5 horses ready on the same day (which is no mean feat) but I would not be betting on them.
Any owner or trainer can run more than 4-runners in a non-handicap but, not in a top-end handicap race with a limit of participants eg Grand National. This is not sporting and deprising other owners or trainers a chance of running.
I think Michael Dickinson had the 1st 5 in the Blue Riband race at Cheltenham one year. This was a great achievement yet to be replicated by any trainer. And, every one of the runners was there on merit, and not as pacesetters or agitators to others in the race.
I think Michael Dickinson had the 1st 5 in the Blue Riband race at Cheltenham one year. This was a great achievement yet to be replicated by any trainer. And, every one of the runners was there on merit, and not as pacesetters or agitators to others in the race.
Don't see why horses with a lower H'cap mark should get preference over higher
rated ones whoever the owner or trainer is.
rated ones whoever the owner or trainer is.
Nor do I Penzance so long as the higher rated ones are there to participate on their merits rather than to reduce the weight carried by a stablemate.
What difference does that make? If it lowers the weight for one then it does for all of them.
What if the manipulated lower weight is just sufficient to accommodate the party with the most participants (possibly to creep in) but exclude some progressive horses with form but still below the handicap mark and limit eg those with potential? The have-been (those been plying their trade unsuccessfully many times) and regressive preventing their participation.
If an owner is abusing the system eg saturate the with their runners then it curtails or demotes sportsmanship; any sport that prioritises or advantages those merely with the deepest pockets or ability to pay in a top-end handicap is not good for horsearcing, simple!
If an owner is abusing the system eg saturate the with their runners then it curtails or demotes sportsmanship; any sport that prioritises or advantages those merely with the deepest pockets or ability to pay in a top-end handicap is not good for horsearcing, simple!
What a pathetic approach to BHA investigation into a 4-runner limit participation from a trainer? It was not even a short discussion; Walsh and Fitzy batted for the trainer citing penalising a successful trainer. But, they forgot to say with deepest pockets owners. And, citing Michael Dickinson greatest triumph in the Gold Cup with his runners occupying 1st 5 places; the Gold Cup is not a handicap race.
I believe the trainer of Golden Freeze who lit up Carvills Hill in the Gold Cup was accused of unsportsmanship; she also had a much fancied runner in Toby Tobias.
I believe the trainer of Golden Freeze who lit up Carvills Hill in the Gold Cup was accused of unsportsmanship; she also had a much fancied runner in Toby Tobias.
How can it be unsporting to take on a natural front runner? If nobody did they would win nearly every time. If they had tried to impede the horse or push it into a wing then they should have a lengthy ban but to go upsides is part of race riding.
Impossible, in the rare cases that may happen so what? I think you could look at it from the point of view that trainers should be getting their horses an adequate handicap mark to get in the race. Not sitting with their fingers crossed that they can get in off a light weight that gets them well in. Both strategies could be considered unsporting but are just part of the game. Certainly nothing to instigate pointless BHA interference.
Personally, the 1st objective in horseracing is fair competition ie an equal chance for everyone eg a runner = a chance of winning; no participation, no chance of winning. A fair competition must not be dictated by only the ability to pay. As for Mr Elliot his predominant backer is The O'Learys; Elliot is like a private trainer for them.
Caldwell Construction seem to be having more runners than most lately and have more entries next week than most trainers.
Dec 16, 2023 -- 1:51PM, impossible123 wrote:
Personally, the 1st objective in horseracing is fair competition ie an equal chance for everyone eg a runner = a chance of winning; no participation, no chance of winning. A fair competition must not be dictated by only the ability to pay. As for Mr Elliot his predominant backer is The O'Learys; Elliot is like a private trainer for them.
don't agree with this, definitely not an equal chance for everyone.
They want the best horses running in the best races with full competitive fields in all races.
If the 40 best 4 mile handicappers are housed with Gordon Elliot then so be it, but the 40 best available horses must be encouraged, mandated even, to run in it.
Similar if Nicky Henderson has the 10 best champion hurdlers then he must run them in the champion hurdle.
More power to Elliot that he has all the staying handicap chasers in his yard.... but maybe other trainers should be asking themselves how he does it. Pulled himself up by his bootlaces and made a very successful career for himself out of nothing. Unlike others who took over a successful yard from their father and have royally f'd it up.
Horses for courses my motto for big top-end handicap. Some have had so many chances and are only running to make up the numbers or frustrate others with potential or late developers. If connections fields more than 4-runners in a non-handicap or Grade or Group 1 races I'm all for it. But, a prestigious one with a specific number of runners eg Grand National some exclusions must be expected eg t&c must apply to a trainer and/or owner to encourage fair play and competition; best handicap horses do not win this race very often.
I think there had been quite a few bottom weights or those outside their handicap mark winning the grand National.
I think there had been quite a few bottom weights or those outside their handicap mark winning the grand National.
. but maybe other trainers should be asking themselves how he does it. Pulled himself up by his bootlaces and made a very successful career for himself out of nothing. Unlike others who took over a successful yard from their father and have royally f'd it up. --- I think is pretty bang on. In meant to be a sport where getting to the top and ruling the roost is what its all about. Making rules to handicap the best just so those not as good can get some success is misguided.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539