- This topic has 20 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
A rather over the top article in the Post today on this topic that uses the word ‘scourge’ in it’s headline and generally implies that all self certificated non runners are somehow a scam. I’m not denying that some are, especially those related to the draw in sprints at places like Beverley and Chester. But most would have still ben non runners under the old system, just at greater cost to their connections.
As it happens, I have a potential problem with a runner this weekend -so what would you do in these circumstances?
I own a 5-y-old called Power Shared that has been off the track for 18 months with a tendon injury. He’s been in training for three months, gradually building up to full fitness with the 2m 6f handicap hurdle at Wincanton on Sunday as his long term target. Because of the injury, understandably, we don’t want to run him on anything quicker than good to soft.
At present, Wincanton is ‘good, good to firm in places’. That’s unlikely to change much before we have to decide whether to declare at 10:00 on Friday, 53 hours before the race. There is a forecast of heavy rain in the area on Saturday, which if correct would be likely to provide the going we want. If he doesn’t run at Wincanton, there is no suitable race for him until Nov 15th – that is suitable in terms of distance and his current handicap rating.
So what would you do – declare on Friday and take him out if the rain doesn’t arrive by Sunday morning. Or decide that self certification is the work of the devil, withdraw on Friday morning and settle for another three weeks training fees before he has a chance to run?
AP
If the current situation allows you to declare a horse and withdraw it at no cost if you feel the ground is unsuitable then the answer is obvious.
Surely the more pertinent question is whether the current situation should be allowed.
Just in case it is not clear, the answer is:
"declare on Friday and take him out if the rain doesn’t arrive by Sunday morning" (assuming it is an offence punishable by no more than a 6-day ban on entries for your horse).Personally, and as a small-time owner myself, I would expect to pay for late cancellation, be it a hotel room, train ticket or declaration of a horse.
Having a horse who is so beholden to circumstances requires patience and deep pockets, as I know. Racing should not be the one who picks up the tab though.
Therefore allowing you to withdraw him without having reservations, as no doubt several others will if the rain does/doesn’t arrive and we’ll be provided with the usual mountain of Sunday NRsIt seems to me the scenario you describe here has more to do with the drawbacks to 48hr declaration than the ‘honesty’ of self-certification.
Which as it happens I do believe is too open to abuse, like the soon to be banned self-certified mortgages. It will always be a minority who abuse it and it’s a fact of life unfortunately that the honest majority will be tarred with the same brush.
Best of luck if he does run, 18 months is a long time to wait
Drone,
There’s nothing official about that sort of proviso.
The options if the ground hasn’t altered are basically to self certificate and accept the six day ban on running, or take the horse to the track, walk the course and then withdraw. The latter obviously incurs a transport cost and delays the announcement of the horse as a non runner, which hardly helps punters.
AP
I wasn’t aware the ‘will only/will not run…’ proviso was unofficial and still necessitated horse and connections to be present on-course on the day in order to withdraw the horse without incurring the ban.As you say late NRs are particularly annoying, so purely from the punters’ point of view early self-certification is preferable
A difficult one
When they list the reason for non-runners, I reckon only 10-20% are self-certificate, so I agree AP that I thought the use of the word scourge was over the top as well. (That is unless the not eaten up etc excuses are also self-certificate.)
The options if the ground hasn’t altered are basically to self certificate and accept the six day ban on running, or take the horse to the track, walk the course and then withdraw. The latter obviously incurs a transport cost and delays the announcement of the horse as a non runner, which hardly helps punters.
I must be missing something as if there is no other suitable race till November then what’s a six day ban matter and if the other option incurs costs then your gamble is to accept the costs for the chance of the run you want if nothing to give him the chance of some sort of race under his belt?
Come the 2010 flat season it won’t be the low drawn runners in Beverley sprints self-certing, it will be the high drawn ones.
Connections of high drawn horses will be faced with two choices: feign illness before the race or catch swamp fever in it.
While the farce of 53 hour decs continues self cert is a minor irrelevance, what about all the non runners created by 53 hour decs?
What use is "will only run if ground suitable" to man or beast?
How much is racing making from 53 hour decs and how much is it losing from punters backing all the non runners?
Owners pay up to £500 a week to run for paltry prize money, rather than be pilloried for seeking the best opportunity for their horse they should be applauded for keeping the show on the road.A lot of rubbish spoken about self certification, here’s all you need to know,
http://website.markjohnstonracing.co.uk/?section=11068
It’s hard to disagree with any of it, racings rulers have a lot to answer for in my view
As Wincanton are still reporting ‘good, good to firm in places’ and a forecast of just 6mm of rain tomorrow, we’ve decided not to declare anyway.
As they also indicate a going stick reading of 9.7, I reckon it’s really good to firm all round and the official report is what they hope it will be by Sunday.
We’ve opted to give him a run in a 2M handicap at Wolvwerhampton next Friday instead, so self certification would have been ruled out as well.
My sole intention in starting this thread was to show the business of non runners from the connections side of the debate. Most of the time when I enter a horse, I fully intend to run barring injury, but sometimes the early declaration time makes the decision tricky.
There’s no doubt that the system is being abused (and in ways not even mentioned by the Post), but most of us are just doing our best to work within whatever system the authorities provide.
AP
Self certification is a lot more ethical than asking a vet to sign a certificate for something that he has not
personally witnessed.It is usually not done lightly either as, unlike a vet cert, you cannot run again for a week.
Only just seen this so no real help!
I would have declared with the proviso that the horse wouldn’t run unless it rained.(Your trainer will need to ring up Press Association to get them to print this).
There should be in place at every racecourse a nominated local trainer who will inform you of the correct going. No use ringing the Clerk of the Course – they just say "what sort of ground does your horse want – good to soft? Then it will be perfect for Sunday!" I invariably rang the groundsman as well and they are far more accurate i.e. they will tell you that the anticipated 11ml of rain forecast will turn the ground to good to soft. Add to that hourly phonecalls to the Met office!
It is a very hard call though and I used to spend hours deliberating on shall we run/shan’t we run. Quite often I got it wrong and was really pissed off and quite often the CofCs did an appalling job with false watering and got it in the neck from me!
I’ve noticed that there has been a lot of horses self certified in the last week drawn wide over Kemptons 5F.
It must be something in the air there!!
So far there are three non runners from the original 21 declared for the Wincanton race. One of those ran yesterday and fell.
The other two have been withdrawn on the basis of the going – one on a self cert, the other being the one with a proviso ‘will only run if it rains’ in the paper.
Since there has been absolutely no change to the official going report since declaration time on Friday morning, my reading of the rules (Rule 96) is that both these trainers will be fined £140. The problem is that these fines are never made public, thus adding to the impression given to the punter that people are getting away with abusing the system.
The fines, if they are levied, are simply charged against the Weatherby account of the trainer and are not the subject of a stewards enquiry.
AP
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.