- This topic has 67 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 6 days, 8 hours ago by
.
- Posts
Greg Wood’s opinion, making the point that the decision is not very good for racing’s finances:
Surely if you take the rule as it is worded the horse should not have been declared a non runner, there was no starting stalls fault and the jockey remained in the saddle. Why have these rules only for someone to fudge it’s intention for an unjust outcome. It is odd that the losers in this fiasco are actually the winners who backed Christmas Day if they had the Rule 4 applied to their winnings. The people who claim to run horse racing in the UK really do themselves no favours.
The more I know the less I understand.
Key question not asked or answered – who or what prompted the decision to hold an enquiry? And why did it take so long to make a decision on what is a simple yes/no issue.
The race was off at 4:04, in the stewards report it states that the horses was withdrawn by the stewards at 4:24.
It also begs the question that if they can declare a horse a non runner before the weighed in signal, why is it different when there’s an excessive use of the whip on the winner?
“It also begs the question that if they can declare a horse a non runner before the weighed in signal, why is it different when there’s an excessive use of the whip on the winner?”
They’d probably get that wrong too. It’s hard to have any confidence in stewards especially with Shaun Parker as head steward.
Interesting to look back at this thread, which dates from the day Sariska planted herself in the stalls when favourite for the Yorkshire Oaks:
Interesting comparison because she most definitely did not run.
The more I know the less I understand.
Doesn’t set a precedent, really?
https://www.racingpost.com/news/festivals/derby-festival/bha-stresses-benvenuto-cellini-non-runner-call-most-extreme-test-of-rule-and-does-not-set-dangerous-precedent-aLEiT2I7xoK4/The more I know the less I understand.
I lost faith in the BHA with its over-zealous modifications to the Grand National that rendered its historical records pretty meaningless. Much of it not even based on proper analysis.
So here we are again. When these new rules on non-runners were introduced it seemed blatantly obvious then that the BHA and stewards were going to tie themselves up in knots.
It won’t be long before connections of beaten horses will be demanding their horse is deemed a non-runner for all manner of reasons and wanting recompense.
I think most punters can accept that bad luck plays a part in any sport and most do not want the VARification of horse racing.
It’s interesting to see the BHA apparently doubling down in the face of stringent, well informed and pretty much universal criticism from across the spectrum of bookies, media, dedicated racing fans and casual punters.
I try to take some comfort from the line that the BHA’s rules are “under constant review”. I hope against hope that they rethink this ludicrous regulation and quietly announce the new version at an opportune moment – such as during an England match at the World Cup.
The most nonsensical pronouncement has been the suggestion that Saturday did not set a dangerous precedent. Of course it does.
It’s not hard to imagine, for instance, a well-backed horse stumbling out of the stalls at Royal Ascot and the jockey pulling up after half a furlong in the knowledge that bets will be refunded as an NR because its chance has been “materially affected”.
The five horses deemed NRs under rule H6:
The first two ran in NH races and were well adrift of the main body before the field came under starter’s orders. To make both non-runners was the only logical decision. The first one on the Flat had a gate failure, the 2nd one got it’s legs STUCK in the stalls and in the 3rd case the jockey couldn’t remove the blindfold. I think that all five decisions are 100% reasonable.
The Benvenuto Cellini rule doesn’t even come close to those mentioned above, imo.
I agree. It is unusual that from what I can see there is total agreement amongst everyone outside of the BHA that this was wrong. I’ve not seen anyone siding with them.
The more I know the less I understand.
I’ve not seen anyone siding with them.
Same with me, but the BHA just living in their own bubble.
I see the Racing Post have altered the form record on their website yet again. Initially Benvenuto Cellini was shown as a non-runner in a 13 runner field.
Then changed it to show he did finish 10th and put a duck egg in his form figures.
Today it now shows a 14 runner field but with A Taste Of Glory finishing 10th and the form for Benvenuto Cellini being voided and a V sitting in his form figures.
Even the trade paper appears flummoxed on how to deal with the non-runner decision on Saturday.
“It also begs the question that if they can declare a horse a non runner before the weighed in signal, why is it different when there’s an excessive use of the whip on the winner?”
Exactly.
Just read he went from 4.5 starting price to 5 within the first 10 seconds and was matched at a low of 3.9 with 2.5 furlongs to go
That doesn’t read like a horse that lost it at the start
Gaelic Warrior Gold Cup Winner 2026
It does show Hughsie that there’s some mug in running punters though …
Pick 3 on Saturday champion 2025/2026
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.