2-14 Exeter

Not sure how they can spin that as a nr?

As per the "new" rules still don't think it was a non runner:


horses who whip round at the start, refuse, or whose behaviour is detrimental to breaking on terms would not be classified as a non-runner

It'll be an absolute disgrace if that horse is declared a runner.

Racing needs to take a long hard look at itself

Duping punters out of their money isnt a good look for an industry already deep in the mire

Feb 20, 2026 -- 8:20AM, lux wrote:

Not sure how they can spin that as a nr?

backed the winner did you?

Feb 20, 2026 -- 8:23AM, Joe Lampton wrote:

As per the "new" rules still don't think it was a non runner:horses who whip round at the start, refuse, or whose behaviour is detrimental to breaking on terms would not be classified as a non-runner

hasn't done any of that when the tape is released

Didn’t have a bet in the race but that would be a NR in any other jurisdiction but ours, had no intention of starting and would’ve been 10 lengths behind the field if it had

To me it's a runner if the rules are applied correctly. Yes its hard on those that backed it but it came under orders, was facing the right way (albeit slightly adrift), and the jockey attempted to go forward. Planted itself, that's life and they're animals after all.

slightly adrift he's 10l behind

the horse hasn't planted itself after the tape is released

laid it for £55 as it was rearing, fingers crossed.

Did me a favour as I had backed Lisbane Park and layed it off after 100 yards. Managed to get beat a short head!

I did the winner so nothing to gripe about here, but when you see how bizarrely pedantic the starter is on many occasions to have let that race start in those circumstances was a huge surprise to me.

Correct, it's was just behind.

Granted, not the starters finest hour. Did back the winner as it goes. Just interested in the rule 4. Surely they aren't going to call it a NR once they've weighed in. I'm saying it's behaviour was "detrimental to breaking on terms" so it's a runner. Planted itself, whose faults that?

Starter and his 'assistant' were pretty pathetic there too - considering how much they usually f'nny around pretending to make starts 'perfect' at other times.

Cross posting, as said above.

Feb 20, 2026 -- 8:34AM, Joe Lampton wrote:

Granted, not the starters finest hour. Did back the winner as it goes. Just interested in the rule 4. Surely they aren't going to call it a NR once they've weighed in. I'm saying it's behaviour was "detrimental to breaking on terms" so it's a runner. Planted itself, whose faults that?

weighed in signal not yet been posted, enquiry sign is on the board

There's a stewards enquiry. Be a while now that's for sure.

called a NR...??!

its a NR

and they've weighed in weighed in

looks like they gave it as a non runner

Bugg3r, they've just whacked a 35p R4 on my winner

35p nr

They're saying it was withdrawn not under orders?

I benefited slightly from that being a NR, but must admit I'm surprised.

Opens door to lot of question marks in starts, for sure...

Stewards have bottled it. Know its harsh but the wording of the rules applied correctly means it's a runner in my mind despite the unfairness many may feel. Interesting to read the stewards report.

"They're saying it was withdrawn not under orders?"

Well that's clearly an untrue explanation of what happened.

Absolutely ridiculous decision by the Stewards, they must have been on the bottle early!

It's ridiculous. Just created another very grey area that wasn't there before. No difference between that one and others this season that have been deemed runners. If the jockey is on board it should be a runner for the sake of clarity.

I'd agree it should have been a runner given what it was doing/jockey was doing at the time of the off.

Someone should've told the jockey and the woman waving the horse to move then that it had been withdrawn. Stewards made the rules up

Starter a complete moron though (for a change...)

If he had started even if 20lengths behind and then won. Is he still NR ?

Stewards made a pigs ear of that decision.

robbed of a 30,s winner if you backed the 3rd ew or even place only on the tote

Feb 20, 2026 -- 8:45AM, Hibore wrote:

If he had started even if 20lengths behind and then won. Is he still NR ?Stewards made a pigs ear of that decision.

stick to what actually happened hibore it was denied a fair start by the starter therefore is a NR under the new rules

its not 30/1 a place e/w because win stake is a loss

Stewards likely swayed by it being one of the fancied horses. Ask yourself if it would have been if it was 100/1? The enquiry was quick so looks like a bottle job.

It definitely was. No one is arguing that.
But if he had kept going and won would you want to be paid out ?

Feb 20, 2026 -- 8:39AM, Joe Lampton wrote:

They're saying it was withdrawn not under orders?

covering the starter imo

fair play wonder ,but 150,s placed not to be sniffed at,seen people on here and on  tv hire an open top bus for getting a 7 to 2 shot in the places

I get what your saying wonder but to me that main issue was he planted himself that's what caused it not to run not being 10l off the others.

j foxxxx • February 20, 2026 2:43 PM GMT
"They're saying it was withdrawn not under orders?"

Well that's clearly an untrue explanation of what happened.

Very odd. If it was a non-runner a simple tannoy announcement is usual, not a stewards.

probably didn't even cross the stewards minds that it would alter the place terms on the race and does anyone no if it did cross their minds, should it ?

If it had won it wouldn't be classed as a non runner under the new rules. Total pigs ear that's for sure.

whatever anyone thinks about the horse being a non runner or not the only thing thats absolutely certain is that the starter should be demoted to cleaning the toilets for the next meeting,in fact he shouldnt be let start a race for the rest of the day.to call him a bufoon would be kind

it was discussed when they initially brought this in hibore winners will not be made a NR
but places already have been
the rule is well intended but not without flaw

Feb 20, 2026 -- 8:50AM, Joe Lampton wrote:

I get what your saying wonder but to me that main issue was he planted himself that's what caused it not to run not being 10l off the others.

yes I agree the messing around caused him to be 10l behind before the tape was released
but if horses mess about in the paddock/going to post & are therefore late to post are they penalised?

Feb 20, 2026 -- 8:50AM, 1st time poster wrote:

fair play wonder ,but 150,s placed not to be sniffed at,seen people on here and on

unfortunate for those on e/w but if NR ran 3rd horse prob finishes 4th

ran with a fair start that is

I had the winner with the fav who's just sluiced in at Meydan therefore increasing my R4 'losses'. Very unhappy.

I think they were swayed because their official made a pig's ear of it.

Feb 20, 2026 -- 8:51AM, 1st time poster wrote:

probably didn't even cross the stewards minds that it would alter the place terms on the race and does anyone no if it did cross their minds, should it ?

the worst would be making a 3rd placed horse a NR in an 8 runner field
because they'll be refunding some & not paying out others

Am not saying it's necessarily my view but the outcome if the rules are correctly applied.

As well as a horse being prevented from starting on equal terms due to the faulty action of a starting mechanism, Stewards will be able to declare a horse a non-runner if, for example, they rule that the horse in question was in a position at the actioning of the start that denied them the opportunity to start on equal terms, such as facing the wrong way or being significantly detached from the field.



Horses will NOT be declared a non-runner in instances where their own behaviour led to the horse not jumping away on terms, e.g. planting themselves or spinning round after the start has been effected.

So by their own rules it sits somewhere between "significantly detached" (non runner) and "planting themselves" (runner). Pretty much everyone accepts it was significantly detached but it still didn't jump off as it planted itself. Ironically if it had jumped off and come 2nd it should likely be classified as a non runner as per the rules, but equally if it was detached and hadn't it shouldn't be. The core issue to me is that it didn't run because it planed itself...so its a runner. Total f**king mess regardless and the stewards and starter hardly covering themselves in glory.

If it is correctly reported that the horse was withdrawn not under orders, the new rule hasn't been used.

watch it back joe the horse does not plant itself after the tape has been released
all the antics are before & behaviour before is irrelevant

Race 1 - 2:14pm
THE BEST ODDS GUARANTEED OVERNIGHT AT COPYBET NOVICES' HURDLE RACE (CLASS 4) (Novices' Championship Hurdle Series Qualifier) (GBB RACE)

Permission was given for FOLLOW THE PLAN to wear a red hood to post.

An enquiry was held into the start of this race and the participation of DOCTOR BLUE (FR), ridden by Dylan Johnstone. The rider and the Starter were interviewed and shown recordings of the start. The Stewards considered that the gelding was prevented from starting on equal terms due to being over ten-lengths behind the main body of the field when the flag was dropped, without the rider having both feet in the irons and ordered that DOCTOR BLUE (FR) be declared a non-runner.

So wasn't withdrawn not under orders

Here's the stewards report:

An enquiry was held into the start of this race and the participation of DOCTOR BLUE (FR), ridden by Dylan Johnstone. The rider and the Starter were interviewed and shown recordings of the start. The Stewards considered that the gelding was prevented from starting on equal terms due to being over ten-lengths behind the main body of the field when the flag was dropped, without the rider having both feet in the irons and ordered that DOCTOR BLUE (FR) be declared a non-runner.

Have watched start again and it is true that the jockeys right leg wasn't in the irons when the flag was dropped so it is correct that it's a non runner under the rules. Total f**king farce.

We agree wonder it is a non runner. Joke rule though.

Looking forward to Cheltenham BHA stewards and starters?

Feb 20, 2026 -- 9:09AM, Joe Lampton wrote:

We agree wonder it is a non runner. Joke rule though.

yes any rule like this, although well intended, will always be beset with problems

of course a 150,s shot would probably finish 4th at best  if they all ran their race,but your not backing 150,s  shot ew expecting every horse to run its race ,your backing it  hoping something like what happened,happens

hoping for a fancied runner to be denied a fair start by an incompetent official?

that's not a legitimate reason for a bet to kop