The home of intelligent horse racing discussion
The home of intelligent horse racing discussion

Elimination – how does it work?

Home Forums Horse Racing Elimination – how does it work?

  • This topic has 11 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 9 years ago by Anonymous.
Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #19623
    tarmon
    Member
    • Total Posts 16

    I have a share in a horse which is entered in a two year old maiden race and he has an elimination number against him, as do many of the others. Can someone advise how the elimination numbers are determined, whether a higher or lower number is better, and how the system works? Thank you.

    #370843
    TuffersTuffers
    Member
    • Total Posts 1402

    The elimination procedure can get quite complicated but in general terms for maiden races the fewer runs the better. In terms of the number next to the horse’s name, the higher the better as the highest number is the first to get into the race if one of the entries currently ‘in’ the race doesn’t get declared to run.

    #370844
    robnorthrobnorth
    Participant
    • Total Posts 4580

    tarmon

    If you have a spare hour or two the full criteria for elimination are detailed in Schedule 8 in the BHA Race Administration Manual (from the BHA Rules website)

    http://rules.britishhorseracing.com/Orders-and-rules&staticID=126770&depth=3

    Rob

    P.S. When you look at it and curse me, I’ll have to say that you did ask!

    #370847
    Marginal Value
    Participant
    • Total Posts 664

    If Robnorth’s speedy and excellent reply has not enabled you to get to sleep yet, you can always try

    Rule 102. Steps where declarations to run exceed applicable limit

    http://rules.britishhorseracing.com/Orders-and-rules&staticID=126518&depth=3

    and/or

    Rule 103 Procedure for division of race and reduction of runners

    http://rules.britishhorseracing.com/Orders-and-rules&staticID=126519&depth=3

    I particulary like:

    103.8 Neither the Authority nor anyone acting on its behalf shall be under any liability to any Person by reason of a horse being eliminated from a race, even if the elimination is made in error.

    Does this just show a lack of confidence in the BHA managers, staff and systems; or is it the perennial “Even if I mess things up, you can’t touch me, because I’m in charge, so there”. So comforting to know that the sport is in the hands of such fine, upstanding people.

    #370848
    robnorthrobnorth
    Participant
    • Total Posts 4580

    MV

    I think you will find such ‘cover your a***’ clauses exist in all businesses, so no reason to expect racing should be any different. Try reading any business contract and there will be something along those lines included.

    Rob

    #370859
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    • Total Posts 17718

    … [snip] … is it the perennial “Even if I mess things up, you can’t touch me, because I’m in charge, so there”. So comforting to know that the sport is in the hands of such fine, upstanding people.

    You’ll find that such exception clauses are the rule in most walks of life. Without them we’d be even more in thrall to litigation and lawyers than we already are. Is that what you’d like,

    Marginal Value

    ?

    #370865
    Marginal Value
    Participant
    • Total Posts 664

    robnorth and Pinza,

    Stangely enough this type of clause is becoming less frequent, rather than more, at least in the UK.

    What I write below concerns laws relating only to Consumer Protection. However, they are having a knock-on effect in business-to-business relationships, and have reduced the ability of companies to just say “… it is in our Terms and Conditions and we can therefore insist that our view is the correct view”.

    It is quite possible that such new approaches to unfair contract terms do not affect the relationship between racehorse owners and the BHA, but I cannot see in the exclusions allowed in the current regulations where the BHA have much room for manoeuvre. If not affected, perhaps because it is considered a sporting relationship within a set of rules, it still leaves the BHA out of step with the rest of the commercial community in the UK.

    There was a European Commision directive (93/13/EEC) in 1993, which the UK implemented in the 1999 Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations. This was updated by The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

    A department of the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) known as the Unfair Contract Terms Unit deals with unfair terms in consumer contracts.
    Examples of the types of contract terms the OFT will consider to be unfair include:

    Excluding liability for poor work or work & materials.
    Binding you to the contract when the company or business is at fault.
    Restricting your rights and remedies.
    Contracts which allow the company or business not to perform obligations at all.
    Binding you to the contract while allowing the company or business to offer no service at all.

    As I say, these regulations probably do not apply in this case, but one can see the direction in which things are moving. Times change. Leaders sometimes lead by example; Marks and Spencer puts pressure on other retailers because of their customer friendly returns policy. Goverments push people into doing business in new ways. I hope it will not be too long before the BHA adopts a different view of its partners. Can I imagine that an owner calculates correctly from the rules that his horse will not be balloted out of a race; spends money to organise a day out with some potential customers to watch his horse run, only to find that the rules have not been correctly applied and his horse cannot run; and then has that money reimbursed. Surely it would be better for the BHA to puts its systems and relationships in order, rather than to rely on soon-to-be-outmoded legal clauses. Relying on such clauses is a disincentive to improvement.

    I could probably bore for England on the subject, but owners and punters are the two groups of people who put money (usually their own earned income) into horseracing, all the other players just redistribute it, taking a percentage for themselves. Why the BHA pays such little heed to relationships with the ultimate money providers is a puzzle to me.

    Sorry about the length of the reply.

    #370869
    tarmon
    Member
    • Total Posts 16

    I am now in a deep sleep! Thank you all.

    #371136
    andyod
    Member
    • Total Posts 4012

    Just sit down, relax and it will emerge.You won’t have to figure it out.I have done it many many times.

    #371141
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    • Total Posts 17718

    Sorry about the length of the reply.

    No need to apologise,

    Marginal Value

    . But we are not talking here about

    "consumers"

    , who are rightly protected in law from unfair exclusion clauses; but about people who are effectively making a

    wager

    – whether it’s to put down money to enter their horse in order to have a chance to run and win a prize, or punters who are

    "investing"

    money with no guarantee of return.

    These groups are not

    "consumers"

    (horrid word!) but

    investors

    – that is to say, gamblers. Exclusion clauses are very much the order of the day in financial or monetary investment dealings, and they are there to protect the vendor of those services from unfair practices on the other side. And without them, the lawyers would have even more of a stranglehold on daily life than they do.

    #371164
    robert99robert99
    Participant
    • Total Posts 897

    Sorry about the length of the reply.

    No need to apologise,

    Marginal Value

    . But we are not talking here about

    "consumers"

    , who are rightly protected in law from unfair exclusion clauses; but about people who are effectively making a

    wager

    – whether it’s to put down money to enter their horse in order to have a chance to run and win a prize, or punters who are

    "investing"

    money with no guarantee of return.

    These groups are not

    "consumers"

    (horrid word!) but

    investors

    – that is to say, gamblers. Exclusion clauses are very much the order of the day in financial or monetary investment dealings, and they are there to protect the vendor of those services from unfair practices on the other side. And without them, the lawyers would have even more of a stranglehold on daily life than they do.

    The law that voids unfair contract terms applies to all contracts. An owner could sue with certainty of compensation of any monetary loss if elimination was due to an official’s error. It could be argued also that the BHA is acting illegally in preserving and publishing such a "my mistake is your problem" clause which the Act clearly states as being unfair.

    Making parties responsible for the things which are in their control actually simplifies business transactions and leads to less involvement of the law. Other laws such as Sale of Goods Act actually raise the quality of products as it forces the retailer to take responsibility for the quality of the products they sell. Most retailers abide by that law removing the need for litigation. If they don’t they lose in the Small Claims Court which specifically does not require/ expect the complainant to have/ need a lawyer.

    #371173
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    • Total Posts 17718

    The law that voids unfair contract terms applies to all contracts. An owner could sue with certainty of compensation of any monetary loss if elimination was due to an official’s error. It could be argued also that the BHA is acting illegally in preserving and publishing such a "my mistake is your problem" clause which the Act clearly states as being unfair.

    Robert

    , thanks for your sensible post: a contract is indeed a contract, irrespective of whether we’re talking about consumers or investors.

    Nonetheless, when it comes to exclusion clauses, there is a distinction to be made. If

    "it could be argued"

    that the BHA are

    "acting illegally"

    with their Clause 103.8, then so are stockbrokers who include similar clauses in their small print to investors.

    Of course it hasn’t been seriously argued (by any owner or lawyer acting for them) that BHA

    are

    acting illegally with this clause, because in commercial law they are following precedent.

    And to be accurate, 103.8 of course does not say that

    "my mistake is your problem"

    . It says that

    "Neither the Authority nor anyone acting on its behalf shall be under any liability to any Person by reason of a horse being eliminated from a race, even if the elimination is made in error."

    This is not quite the same thing, as it does not state that they won’t accept liability at all: and in reality, when errors do occur, owners are compensated. If they were not, then that would indeed be the time for litigation!

    The law is not such an ass as not to take precedent and fair practise into consideration.

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.