- This topic has 3 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
HBF statement regarding non-runners in British racing, 7 July 2016
Following a small but significant amount of correspondence from the British horseracing public, as well as expressions of concern from its own members, the Horseracing Bettors Forum discussed the issue of non-runners at its meeting on 6 June 2016.
HBF members were unanimous in wishing to convey to the BHA the Forum’s belief that the high incidence of non-runners in British racing is disruptive and unwelcome to bettors, while the reasons given for many of those non-runners stretches credulity and undermines the wider appeal of the sport.
BHA has since confirmed that it is currently conducting its own review of the situation and that HBF’s input will be considered as a part of that and of subsequent discussions on this matter.
Among the observations/suggestions made (which are given in full below), HBF proposes that the trigger point for self-certification – beyond which trainers may have their right to self-certify withdrawn – should be lowered.
Additionally, it proposes that: the BHA veterinary team conducts work on the reasonable length of recovery for common ailments and for the findings to inform mandatory suspension levels; that horses declared as non-runners on account of the going should not be allowed to run on the same or very similar going for a significant time after their withdrawal for that stated reason; and that this should go hand in hand with increasing public and professional confidence in official descriptions of the going.
HBF has also conducted a forensic study of non-runners in one area of British racing in recent times and is likely to recommend that non-runners in circumstances which are harmful to betting markets and which could be construed as suspicious be investigated thoroughly on an individual basis.
The study also revealed that just over 10% of declared horses in turf Flat races became non-runners since the end of May, 2014, that the incidence of non-runners was less in higher-class races, and that it increased as going became more extreme.
The following are the full list of HBF’s current observations and recommendations:
A high incidence of non-runners creates uncertainty in betting markets and discourages participation. This is particularly true of late non-runners
Some of the consequences of non-runners – including Rule 4 deductions, amended each-way terms and unexpectedly altered race scenarios – are frustrating, off-putting and occasionally costly to punters, and therefore to the sport
A certain incidence of non-runners is inevitable, due to unforeseen events, but HBF believes the level is much too high and that steps need to be taken to improve matters
HBF understands that the trigger point for self-certification, beyond which trainers may have their right to self-certify withdrawn, is 20% on the Flat and 15% over jumps. This seems much too high and needs to be revisited
More leniency could be applied when trainers have withdrawn horses in a timely manner, well in advance of the event
HBF would like to see work conducted by the BHA’s veterinary team on the reasonable length of recovery for common ailments, and for the findings to inform mandatory suspension levels for horses who miss races for those declared ailments
In general, public confidence in the system might well increase if horses were not permitted to run for a longer period after being declared non-runners, for whatever reason. This can be justified on the grounds of integrity (to counter suggestions that the system is being “gamed”), and welfare (should horses that were reported as “lame” on one day be allowed to run shortly after?) besides anything else
Horses declared as non-runners on account of the going should not be allowed to run on the same or very similar going for a significant time after their withdrawal for that stated reason
The possibility of a horse becoming a non-runner on account of the going should be flagged up much more clearly and much more widely. For instance, “will not run if going is unsuitable” (if it appears at all) is of no use to a punter unless it is known what “unsuitable” is imagined to be in this context
The guidelines for non-runners on account of the ground appear too permissive. Connections may want the absolutely ideal circumstances for their horses, but this should be balanced against the consequences of non-runners to the betting and race-going public, to other racing professionals (including jockeys), and to the good reputation of the sport
Tightening of ground-related non-runners needs to be accompanied by a greater confidence in the official description of the going and of how the going is arrived at (e.g. watering)
It should not be possible for an apprentice to be replaced by a fully-fledged jockey, or vice versa, on account of a non-runner, other than in extremis. Again, this is important for the reputation of the sport, as well as for the consequences such changes have on betting markets and on the attractiveness of betting on the sport
Their site : http://ukhbf.org
BHA site about HBF : http://www.britishhorseracing.com/bha/horseracing-bettors-forum/#!
There are no "Systems".
While not doubting the likes of Simon Rowlands intentions and enthusiasm I said at the time it was instigated that this forum would be futile and toothless, frankly a waste of time for the people involved. I’ve seen nothing since that has changed my mind.
The BHA have shown time and time again they have no interest in punters interests unless they can use them. I see Rust has used punters interests as one of the reasons why the BHA are against the Corals/Ladbrokes merger lol.
The non runner situation has been done to death over the years on here and the BHA has never ever shown any inclination to do anything meaningful about it.
Most of the suggestions by the HBF regards the issue are impractical or unenforceable. eg Preventing horses from running on similar ground to which they have been withdrawn on. When and how would you decide that? Wouldn’t it create more non runners?I am puzzled though by no mention of the effect of 48 hour decs on non runners compared to 24 hour ones.
The only suggestions the BHA will be taking up from the HBF will be the ones they would have done anyway and certainly none for the sole benefit of punters.
The HBF is just a token gesture from the BHA to pretend they care for punters.
The BHA want punters to lose.Your figure of only about 850 people responding to the HBF account survey tells it’s own story, if correct.
I’m surprised as many as 850 responded. People in general, not just punters, will moan about things, sometimes incessantly, but when it comes to doing something – writing letters, responding to surveys, attending meetings, etc 99% cannot be bothered.
The HBF is the best chance punters have ever had, or likely will have of getting wrongs righted – but that chance is still minimal. I suspect that the perception among bookmakers is that much of the support for the HBF, most of the lobbying and separate campaigning is coming from punters who do well at the game, or at least as well as bookies allow them to. And the bookies would like to wipe them out.
Racing is probably the Alamo as far as bookies and punters go. It is the one remaining betting medium where bookies are often guessing as much as punters are. It’s a sport which is very well regulated, but still open to multiple legal ‘dodges’. Unlike football matches, bookies will seldom balance a book by laying the whole field. Those they do lay to any great extent, they are running scared of. A growing number of punters roam the daily betting landscape like quiet but deadly marauders. They know their stuff. They have access to huge amounts of information. Their race-reading skills are finely honed. They are the enemy, so far as the bookies are concerned.
So long as racing survives, margin-control will be a problem for bookies. Their casino ‘products’ have margins built in and guaranteed. Their growing football business (it accounts for 30% of online turnover against racing’s 20%: Gambling Commission figures) is mostly predictable and profitable with the exception of the odd bad Saturday. Greyhound turnover is growing (I don’t know enough about that to comment, but I don’t hear bookies complaining). Pretty much everything in the garden is rosy, but the racing rose comes with huge damaging thorns.
On the subject of non runners. I don’t think I’d complain about a horse being withdrawn for going change reasons. I’d see that as a protection. If the BHA agree it is being abused, perhaps they could disallow a withdrawal if that horse has previously run within 5lbs of its OR on the same ground (I won’t get into soil types and track layouts).
As for self-certs, maybe allow a trainer an agreed low level and beyond it, allow self cert but with a withdrawal fee of £500, refundable if the trainer appears in person at BHA HQ and makes a convincing case. Equally if there has been little change in the weather in the 48 hours before the meeting, and trainers who rarely use the ‘ground’ as a reason to withdraw, take horses out, the clerk of the course should be fined/disciplined.
Replacing an inexperienced jockey with an experienced one is another dodge I’d be in two minds about condemning if I was a regular punter with a constant eye on the ball, but, in general I suppose it would at least be a cosmetic improvement, although one that bookies might celebrate more than punters.
If I’m right about the majority of campaigners being successful, or potentially successful punters, then the creation of groups like the HBF makes little sense to me. Why would so many poachers want to form a gamekeepers’ group? It’s almost as though they believe they are betting against bookmakers rather than fellow punters.
I am puzzled though by no mention of the effect of 48 hour decs on non runners compared to 24 hour ones.
If memory serves 48hr decs were introduced in order to make betting on UK horseracing easier for those in time zones far ahead of ours e.g the Far East
Has there been any hard evidence submitted that betting turnover in these zones has increased due to 48hr decs?
And if there is no concrete evidence, then should they be returned to 24hr, which as is plainly obvious would benefit the primary betting market here in the UK no end?
48hr decs and self-certification is a marriage made in hell
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.