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.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 148
|
By:
I can't see anything wrong with multiple runners if owners want to run them, they pay the bills.
|
|
By:
not before time.
|
|
By:
Time to put a cap on the number of Horses a Trainer can have.....I mean how anybody can Train over 100 Horses is bloody ridiculous in my book.
|
|
By:
Small Trainers going out of business left and right and nobody gives a sh1te.
|
|
By:
An idiotic idea imo, owners should be free to have their horses where they want without any restrictions on entries.
And the only thing that matters to punters is that those which run are all running on their merits. |
|
By:
If it’s the BHA thinking of bringing this in,couldn’t it be 4 horses per English trainers and 1 horse from Ireland,at least then the punters can latch onto the Irish runner to back a winner.
2 or 3 from same owner would be a better rule,some trainers could have loads of horses from different owners wanting to win same race,why punish these,but the same owner could decide which of his,hers should run. You could end up with 4 Elliott’s,4 nicholls,4 Mullins,all owned by same owner. We d run out of colours for caps to let them run. |
|
By:
acey, should they have banned supermarkets to save corner shops?
|
|
By:
Small Trainers going out of business left and right and nobody gives a sh1te. -- That's because most of them are useless. Plenty of small trainers are doing well and this daft limit won't make any difference to them. If you think anyone will take horses away from the likes of GE and give them to a small trainer you are delusional.
|
|
By:
The only exception should be if a trainer has more than 4 owned by different owners, been saying for a decade or more there should be a limit.
|
|
By:
I stick by my guns here it will be good for Racing trust me i worked in he game for over 30 Years.
|
|
By:
I think it adds intrigue, I'm sure most punters think the yard are sure which is best and will back the shortest.
|
|
By:
It might help reduce the practice of leaving horses in to suppress the weights for stablemates.
|
|
By:
I think it works perfectly well in places like Hong Kong i am not sure about Japan but it is a complete no brainer to me.
|
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
George B, I respect your opinions always but are you not missing the point. " Owners should be free to have their horse where they want without restrictions on entries". Precisely. And they wouldn't be restricted. They could have as many entries as they like. What they could NOT do is have them all with the same trainer. Matter of opinion of course, but I find the running of so many horses from the same trainer (generally, but not exclusively, from the same owner) unattractive. Should JP/Gigginstown/Ricci etc want a number in excess of 4 then they can...........just with other trainers. I cannot see a problem with that. Otherwise I fear for the NH game.
|
|
By:
It would be odd to limit the number of entries a trainer can have, but not limit the number an owner can have.
|
|
By:
It would be odd to limit the number of entries a trainer can have, but not limit the number an owner can have. -- That logic's is beyond the capacity of the BHA I'm afraid.
|
|
By:
Owners & trainers should be able to have as many as they want.
What will happen if they have a few on the same H'cap mark? Which horse misses out? |
|
By:
Aiden O'Brien could have 6 Derby runners, all under different ownership.......... or not, there's the problem.
|
|
By:
Can't see why limiting the numbers of horses a trainer will have is going to benefit racing.
If present owners wanted to have a horse with David Pipe they can, its called a free market. Most trainers need to get better |
|
By:
DonegalPrince, why should trainers be 'punished' for being successful?
Gordon Elliott had all those runners in a race because owners want to have their horses with him, if you can't beat them, join them! |
|
By:
swiftynifty 11 Dec 23 18:53
Aiden O'Brien could have 6 Derby runners, all under different ownership.......... or not, there's the problem. Only applies to handicaps, swifty' |
|
By:
* Class 1 & 2
|
|
By:
The issue isn’t the trainer. He needs to keep all owners happy,the issue clearly is the owner,he can chose his best 4,he pays the bills,he wins the race,
Either way,no one wants to stifle competition,it’s just a bad look,espically if 2milers are running in national trials etc. 4 seems fair,having half the field in a 20 runner hcp just makes the race a farce. There’s enough hcps,so can’t blame opportunities etc. It’s just a small tweak of the rules. A lot of sports do it,football,active non active offsides etc. All sports need to alter rules if new problems arise, Racing has whip rules,wind op rules etc Just a sensible tweak,but must be owners not trainers. How can a trainer explain to 5 big owners,that one horse won’t run. |
|
By:
We already have restrictions on how successful (in terms of number of winners) jockeys can be with the one meeting a day rule.
Tom Marquand, for example, wants to be free to ride when and where he likes as he believes it would improve his chances of becoming champion jockey. But under the cover of "covid" (stewarts rise will be impressed by this), the "temporary" (  ) measure became a permanent one. |
|
By:
GEORGE, of course, and I actually read the article!
But with the National reduced to max 34, I think this rule will be necessary to keep interest in the race. |
|
By:
George. Excellent shoehorn of covid rules.
|
|
By:
People pay good money to keep a horse in training,why should
they be told where they can run? |
|
By:
comingupthehill, there seemingly already had been a "compromise" with the 9-meeting a week rule for jockeys, which some jockeys hadn't been happy with at the time, so there was already an agenda under way to limit how many meetings a jockey could ride at each week, then along came covid...Never let a good 'crisis' go to waste, eh?
|
|
By:
Because those people will have 4 entries allowed. So choosing which 4 ain’t going to deter them.
|
|
By:
If they are proposing a change like this, they really ought to state clearly what problem(s) they are trying to solve. Otherwise it just looks like doing something for the sake of it.
|
|
By:
George B, I don't seek to punish them. I am a free market devotee but, normally, that priciple applies is where it is to the benefit of the economy. This is a sport, and in the end, doesn't matter. I just think that encouraging owners to "join them" means they will all go to GE/WM/PN/NH we will end up with too many races which are, in effect, private gallops between rich owners and 3 trainers. Appreciate that the handicap system should ensure the best horses run but, as we all know, there are loads of JP/Gigg/Ricci horse who have a handicap mark way in excess of any recent form which excludes the younger developing horses, perhaps with smaller trainers, even getting into the race. I just find it dull tbh. If these horses want to run for their owners they can pootle around various courses in G2/G3 races. Try something different with handicaps is all I say. Good luck chap.
|
|
By:
By the way, it wasn't a handicap, but what a great story with Fastotslow, turning over the Mullins-quintet in the John Durkan.
|
|
By:
George,but for years jockeys were racing,pardon the pun,around the country,
Wouldn’t be a good look if a jockey crashed on the m6 rushing from haydock to Wolverhampton night meeting,espically if members of the public died. Plus weight,stress etc etc. Seems sensible, |
|
By:
sorry. Appalling typing. "...that principle applies where....etc..."
|
|
By:
Stront ,a reaction to the Elliott race the other week.10 runners.half the field.
No matter of the rules,it just isn’t a good luck if loads of runners from a trainer or owner,a limit seems sensible. |
|
By:
when the grand national begins to have only 20 odd runners and the public is turned off by the lack of spectacle the BHA may decide this is an ill conceived policy like most of their decisions
|
|
By:
comingupthehill 11 Dec 23 19:24
George,but for years jockeys were racing,pardon the pun,around the country, Wouldn’t be a good look if a jockey crashed on the m6 rushing from haydock to Wolverhampton night meeting,espically if members of the public died. Plus weight,stress etc etc. Seems sensible, You're right, comingupthehill, jockeys were racing around the country for decades, and what happened? This argument could apply to others, eg, the delivery drivers working god knows how many hours at this time of year, rushing here, there and everywhere. The bottom line is that riding at two meetings a day is not breaking any laws. |
|
By:
Well yes and no CUTH. That race didn't fill, so if Elliot has been limited to four runners there'd have been a field on only 8 or 10. I agree it didn't look good, but I'd like a better basis for changing the rules than that.
I'm not saying there isn't a problem with trainers having many runners per race - I'm saying the BHA ought to state what they think the problem is that this rule change would solve. Is it corruption? Is it small trainers being driven out of business? Is it uncompetitive races? The people replying to the consultation can't say if this solution might work unless they know what problem the BHA wishes to solve. |