4 horse limit in handicaps

Race entries are made in the name of the owner, entry fees are paid by the owner, the trainer is merely an agent given an ‘Authority To Act’ by the owner. So if they persist along this ridiculous path, the limit has to apply to an owner, not his agent.

——————-

I presume entries into the race would not be limited, AP. So any owner could enter any horse. I’d hope the rule would only come into play at declaration time. It is then up to the trainer to tell the owner of his decision which horses he’s chosen to run.

I share your view that having a rule limiting owners would be impossible to police.

For this rule on trainers, there may be a rule brought in as to how near to the race a horse can change trainer and still run ** . The horse would presumably also need to change yards.

** Special dispensation may be granted if the trainer dies or is banned etc.

If Gigginstown moved some of the Elliott horses to other trainers, odds are extremely high that said horses would still be declared for the exact same races (because we know the programme is limited for a lot of these type of horses), so then the only thing the BHA have done is change the optics and not solved a problem that I don’t actually believe is a problem to begin with.

The reason Elliott/Gigginstown are moaning about it is simply because they will be the ones affected pretty much to the exclusion of everyone else…….one could see that as an individual(s) being specifically targetted for soemthing that hasn’t even happened and is very unlikely to either.

Incidentally, Mullins had 5 runners in the National last year for 5 different owners, the best of his finished 3rd and the only other one to complete was 14th of the 17 that finished, Elliott also had 5 runners 3 of which were for Gigginstown (JP actually had 5 runners spread between 4 trainers) but not a single one of Elliott’s finished the race.

So between them, the two offending trainers had 10 of the 39 runners and their domination amounted to a 3rd and 14th place and 8 non-completions……….yeah, I can see why the BHA are so worried and are potentially looking to put a cap on multiple runners from individual trainers

Agree CAS.

The BHA has made a right mess of things. Firstly, they introduced the reduction to the National field size, which will make minimal difference to equine fatality rates, and which sets concerning precedents for the future. They even ignored their own previous thorough research.

Then, as a result of this poorly-thought through initiative, they are now trying to solve what they perceive to be another problem, which has ironically been made worse by their own meddling. Furthermore, most posters here seem to agree that runners per owner/trainer is not a significant concern anyway, or something that is realistically solvable.

“Then, as a result of this poorly-thought through initiative, they are now trying to solve what they perceive to be another problem, which has ironically been made worse by their own meddling. Furthermore, most posters here seem to agree that runners per owner/trainer is not a significant concern”.

——————-

…And I just wonder Marlingford…

If the BHA had done nothing and Gordon Elliott turned up with 12 of the 23 runners in the Ultima… The trainer having 70% of the betting book and took the win, second, third, fourth and sixth… Many of the TRFers who are saying there is no problem now, would’ve said “the BHA should’ve known what might happen after the Troytown”, and castigated the BHA for it.

I think by running 14 in the Trytown Gordon Elliott may well have been seeing what the reaction would be if he did the same in an even bigger handicap in Britain or Ireland.

And what the BHA might be doing is putting this out as a warning, that if Elliott / someone does the same over here what would happen.ie The BHA may not now need to put this rule into action, as it is in itself a warning for what would happen to the rules if a trainer did flood a handicap.

I don’t see why Elliott (and possibly Mullins) can’t come to a verbal compromise agreement with the BHA that they will voluntarily limit themselves and never flood a British handicap like Gordon did in the Troytown. Doing away with the need for this rule.

“Elliott has been doing this kind of thing for a while now

I wouldn’t be happy about the lack of diversity among connections as it is not good for the health of the sport.

the authorities should be focusing on how they can incentivise a greater diversity of people to be involved rather than looking at ways of penalising those who already are”.

——————

Thanks for your reply Marlingford.

I am a bit confused of what you want though.
You agree that the lack of diversity is bad for the health of the sport…
And that “Elliott has been doing this kind of thing for a while now”.

I agree, 14 is not a one off in that he’s been steadily increasing his runners…

Then how do you propose the BHA “incentivise” owners having their horses with a greater number of trainers without it – how you say – “penalising” the trainers that have most horses?

Because surely whatever the BHA comes up with to improve the diversity situation will (if successful) penalise the trainers that have the greatest percentage of horses / runners?

Thanks GT. There’s a distinction between actively barring someone from having more than a certain number of runners, compared to doing more to encourage others to participate. Both should lead to the same end result of greater diversity.

Elliott didn’t prevent anyone from running in the Troytown, so limiting his entry would simply have led to a smaller field. The issue that needs addressing is encouraging others, not limiting Elliott. That’s the real problem that I think the authorities on both sides of the Irish Sea should be much more worried about solving. I think the BHA’s focus is in the wrong place.

Then what is the solution, Marlingford?
You keep mentioning “encouragement”…
What is the “more encouragement” that you want to see that will make a difference?

“If the BHA had done nothing and Gordon Elliott turned up with 12 of the 23 runners in the Ultima…”

An odd choice to use for your point as Elliott has run between zero and 2 horses in this race for each of the past 5 years. He doesn’t target it heavily. Perhaps he might, if he’s restricted in the likes of the Grand National- they have to spill over somewhere.

“Elliott has been doing this kind of thing for a while now; this year’s Troytown was far from the first time he’s had a double-digit number of runners in a big handicap. The 14 runners didn’t come out of the blue”,

————————-

Not my words, RTB; but Marlingford’s

It does “happen regularly”.