TONY CALVIN: The BHA need to take control of the non-runner mess

There was an amusing exchange between Matt Chapman and Johnny Dineen on X on Tuesday afternoon – it wasn’t a Twitter spat or row, it was largely a fair-natured to-and-fro between the two former bookmakers – focusing on the current riding exploits of the Gosdens’ retained jockey Kieran Shoemark.

It was on the back of a rather ham-fisted “Stick or Twist” feature on the Racing Post website on whether time is running out for the jockey at John and The Real Slim Thady’s Clarehaven Stables.

The deputy betting editor Graeme Rodway argued for “Stick”, while colleague, audience editor Tom Park – no, me neither, but I imagine an envious BHA will have one of those soon – presumably thought he was reading the focus group-led room by holding up a “Twist” placard.

Chapman was in the jockey’s, and the media’s, corner, while Dineen pointed out that the press rarely like to criticize riders, even when the evidence is there for all to see.

And in this case he thought it most certainly was when it came to Shoemark.

In truth, there was no way back for Chappers after Dineen came out with the early, bout-ending, zinger below, but they continued to fight the good fight, though it has to be said some actual facts and statistics (a quick call to Proform would have sorted it) would have been invaluable in the bunfight.

Even so, Dineen came out with the following worldie: “He’s not doing fine though Matt and that’s the reality of it. I completely understand that you cannot be seen to be critical of jockeys because you cross paths with them every day. I think the last jockey you criticised was some Mexican out in America at 11’o clock at night.”

Oof.

Oof.

And more Oof.

Anyway, I am not going to dwell on the top-level competence, or otherwise, of one jockey here – in fact, we had a wider discussion on this very subject on Monday’s The Racing Room podcast (you can listen to it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYD09Fh5aQ8)  especially as the some of the worst rides I saw last week came from the likes of Jim Crowley on Enfjaar (money not involved) and Rossa Ryan on Euchen Glen (money most definitely involved)

Indeed, I am not going to focus on the subject at all.

There would have been plenty more Goodwood shockers, but riding is a dangerous, split-second game, and we have to be mindful of social media pile-ons, so I thought I would broaden the discussion, not that I think jockeys should be exempt from criticism. Far from it.

Greater transparency needed for non-runners

Now, I believe most in the sport would agree that field sizes, and lack of horses at the top end, is one of the biggest challenges the sport faces, now and in the years to come.

Along with finances.

It may be a little part of the pot, but where are the British Horseracing Authority, and maybe the media, when it comes to addressing the issue of bogus ground and draw-related non-runners? We need all the runners we can get.

They have seemingly given up on trying to police this area to any effective degree.

I make no apologies for focusing on the case of Align The Stars once again, when last week at Goodwood saw numerous other such examples.

However, it was easily the most stark, and brazen, one, and connections of the horse got a pass.

To briefly set the scene.

Align The Stars was confirmed for the Group 3 Gordon Stakes on Thursday at Goodwood, at 10am on Tuesday morning, while also being entered for the 1m6f handicap on Saturday the day before.

After his Arisaig won on Tuesday afternoon, trainer Charlie Johnston basically said in a post-race interview (I think it was on Racing TV)  that the horse was going to race on Saturday if he got into the handicap, as he was number 20 in a maximum field of 14 at the time.

He duly got in and at 1.07pm on Thursday (some 187 minutes after the final field for the 1m6f handicap was known, so I don’t know what the delay was), Align The Stars was duly declared a non-runner due to the “going” for the 3pm contest.

Johnston was allowed to do so, without any repercussions, because the ground has changed from good to firm, good in places, at the time of confirmation on Tuesday, to good to firm on the day.

Come on.

Punters being short-changed

It was all a bit farcical, but it had betting implications too, as the Gordon Stakes was an ante-post betting heat and his withdrawal from the race resulted in the field going from five to four, thereby eliminating each-way betting.

And I appreciate he was one of the ante-post favourites for the 1m6f handicap, so swings and roundabouts.

To add insult to betting injury though, the Racing Post will now carry the words “Non Runner (unsuitable ground)” next to his name alongside the Gordon Stakes run on good to firm.

And two days later they have him winning on good firm, posting a career-best.

What a complete nonsense.

We are now extending and perpetuating a known lie in the formbook – even if you tone down that language to the lowest tier, you only get to wholly misleading – which is arguably even worse.

So I went to the relevant stewards’ report sections of the BHA site to see what they told us.

There was not even an entry for the Gordon Stakes withdrawal on August 1.

And they included the following explanation on why the horse ran on August 3. It said:

“Charlie Johnston was asked to explain why he was running ALIGN THE STARS (IRE) here at Goodwood on going described as Good to Firm, having declared the colt a non-runner at Goodwood on 1 August 2024 on ground with the same official description. Johnston stated that ALIGN THE STARS (IRE) had travelled to Goodwood to run on 1 August 2024 and with ALIGN THE STARS (IRE) at Goodwood, he felt that the extended 1m 6f on the Good to Firm ground would be more in the colt’s scope so he elected to take his chance today.”

You could say that at least they asked the question – though presumably thumbscrews were not necessary, given this seemingly tick-box exercise – but do you think that is in any way satisfactory?

Everyone knows the horse ran, and won, on Saturday because he had a much better chance of winning off 99 in a 1m6f handicap than he did as the [14/1] outsider of five in a Group 3 over 1m4f two days previously.

So let’s not insult us by saying the ground is the reason. In fact, he had a further 2f to travel on that unsuitable ground on the Saturday, no? (though, I accept running him over 1m6f was the right call).

Now, no-one should criticise Johnston as such, because the system, and the regulator, allowed him to do all this.

And he has to do his best for himself, and his owner. And he did.

But, come on, let’s not have “unsuitable ground” staring at us in the formbook every time Align The Stars next runs on good to firm. The Tote returns farce is bad enough.

Let’s simply allow trainers to be honest with the regulator and simply state “another race preferred”, or some such.

And pull them up if they do it en-masse through the season and take the absolute piss. Just like they did with self-certs.

I am sure raceday stewards’ reports used to be full of questions to connections about previous going-related withdrawals but they seemed to have binned those now.

We will all remember the example of this horse, but we won’t recall the unpublicised ones and punters will be given the impression that certain horses don’t like certain types of ground when the opposite may be true.

That has big betting implications. And it isn’t on.

And that includes supposed bad draws, as well as ground

Which brings us to another sheet of the same used bog roll, and that is non-runners due to bad draws.

Chester has obviously become a standing joke in this area, but Goodwood last week probably wasn’t far behind.

Just allow the trainers to say “wide draw” for god’s sake, instead of using a minor going change to pull them out and, again, give a misleading impression as to the reality.

Industry veteran Mike Quigley is a great draw-based judge on X. He rightly said the Golden Mile was one of the most important draw-based races of the calendar, but this year 21 beat 20, and he duly pointed out that stalls 17, 18 and 19 were left empty.

So I got in touch with Mike to see if he had any beef with draw-related non-runners being disguised as ground withdrawals.

And I think it is fair to say I got more than I bargained for.

Quigley said:

“A few points on the draw situation. The Golden Mile had been one of the key races in the calendar for me.

“However, I had people telling me after the result, the course had been trying to negate the low draw factor “for many years.

“Well, they’d not been very successful until Johan (from 18) broke the sequence last year. I have this suspicion, though, that tracks have been coordinating efforts to eliminate track biases.

“I’d been making a few £k a year for 20+ years using draw bias as the cornerstone of my punting. But over the last couple of seasons, my advantage has gone.

“Some examples: Sandown 5f, far rail, very few now win going that route.

“More obviously, Beverley 5f used to be a strong bias for runner on the far rail. Now, the winner always races down the middle, avoiding the far rail.

“Most obvious of all Chester. 5f,6f and 7f races all had strong low bias, but not any more. It’s most evident over 7f & 7f+: look at the last dozen runnings, and high numbers (closers) have the upper hand, often at double-figure prices.

“But trainers are still withdrawing their horses if they are drawn 10+ in sprints. Extraordinary!

“I’m almost done with punting – it’s been fun while it lasted. I’m losing this year for the first time in 14 years, a combination of lost edge and account restrictions.”

That went off an unexpected tangent, but it was all the more interesting for it. And Mike didn’t even mention selective watering.

I’ll just end with a simple request, then.

The BHA have to stop facilitating and helping trainers – indeed, you could argue encouraging – to treat punters like mugs, using ground loopholes. Just let them state the true reason.

Like most people, punters can handle the truth – and, more importantly, they deserve it.