On Monday of this week, I was flicking through Twitter/X when a tweet from the BHA stewards caught my eye. The tweet was simply a copy of the Kempton Park Steward’s report for racing later that day, and in the non-runners section it stated the reason for the non-participation of a horse called Ballarat Bertie was “Self Cert (Other) (Owner unable to attend).”
For today’s Going and NRs @kemptonparkrace, see below. For further updates throughout the day, please see here ➡️ https://t.co/dlVZ2QZtlA pic.twitter.com/VRvBDQqW4e
— BHA Stewards (@BHAStewards) September 16, 2024
This surprised me, as I had never seen any reason similar to this proffered previously amongst the reasons that come under the self-certification banner, and I tweeted to that effect, adding in the fact that the horse had been supported in the betting market from 14-1 into around 3-1 earlier in the day (because I knew that if I didn’t include that fact, I’d immediately get umpteen replies pointing it out).
My interest in the matter is in the rules rather than the individual case; I had always assumed that there was a band of acceptable criteria that would be covered under the self-certification banner, but having consulted the appropriate section of the BHA Rules website, it’s clear that’s not the case.
As is widely known, any horse that has been the subject of self-certification is not allowed to run until 7 days later. It’s worth pointing out that if that’s intended as a sanction, it only really impacts horses that already hold future entries, as otherwise a horse that is entered at the six-day stage the following day will be eligible to run in that race.
The only circumstance cited in the Rules where a trainer cannot choose self-certification is if “if the reason for not running is related to the Race’s prize money”.
Unless I have misunderstood, that means that an owner or trainer can self-certify a horse as a non-runner for any reason they choose, including, for instance “poorly drawn”, “betting odds unacceptable”, “rivals clearly well fancied in the market” etc etc, and the only sanction (other than losing the entry fee and in some instances having to pay the riding fee) would be that the horse is unable to take up any alternative engagements it may hold in the next 6 days.
The BHA released a statement yesterday highlighting the fact that in 2018 they introduced a series of initiatives to try and stem the rise in non-runners, notably the publication of a “league table” of each stable’s non-runners, with any trainer with a non-runner rate 50% above the average set to lose the right to use self-certificates.
BHA statement regarding Ballarat Bertie, a self-certification non-runner at Kempton on Monday pic.twitter.com/YJSRoli1nC
— British Horseracing Authority (@BHAHorseracing) September 18, 2024
That rule is probably a sound way of discouraging general overuse of self-certification, but it doesn’t appear to give the BHA any way of tackling individual instances. Again, I’m not particularly interested in this particular example, not least because presumably the trainer could have simply cited something such as “not eaten up” as his self-certification reason and I doubt anyone, including me, would have mentioned the matter.
My tweet rather predictably drew a flurry of replies which broadly came into two categories – those who thought the situation was an outrage, and those who think owners pay the bills so should be able to do what they want.
As someone who has an interest in both betting and in racehorse ownership, I don’t think either of those viewpoints are particularly helpful as they reflect the dichotomy that so often exists between racing professionals and the betting public, when what we surely need are rules that take into account both parties.
As the BHA’s chief operating officer Richard Weyman stated in 2018 when launching the initiative: “Non-runners are a source of frustration to those who watch and bet on the sport, creating uncertainty in betting markets, reducing participation, the number of runners and the competitiveness of races.”
Broadcaster Nick Luck in his podcast yesterday reported that the BHA had cross-checked the Ballarat Bertie story with the owner, which is laudable. I don’t know whether this is a regularly-triggered process, and if not perhaps that should be the case for non-runners announced after a horse has been adjudged by the BHA Integrity team to have shortened significantly in the market.
Nobody with a balanced viewpoint would want to inflict draconian restrictions on owners, just as nobody with a balanced viewpoint would want to ignore the interests of punters, and where there are possible loopholes in the Rules of racing, even if a solution isn’t immediately obvious, I’d like to think it’s in everyone’s interest to try and point them out.
