Cathy O’Meara, BHA Head of Raceday Officials
When it comes to assessing the conditions at a given racecourse with a view to a potential abandonment, we always want to give racing every chance of going ahead. Decisions to abandon are never taken lightly and we understand that it can lead to frustration, especially the closer to the scheduled beginning of the meeting we find ourselves.
In the last few weeks, our racecourses have been faced with some extremely challenging conditions, which is something we often see at this time of year. It is important to keep in mind, however, that we are putting on sporting events in large outdoor spaces, often in rural areas, and so it is only natural that despite the best efforts of groundstaff across the country, we will sometimes be defeated by the elements.
Losing a significant number of meetings in succession, as we did, is always going to lead to comment and discussion but some of this has not been completely accurate in its representation of how these processes play out. Specifically, suggestions that we lack some form of codified protocol are not correct.
The BHA General Instructions (BHAGIs) cover all aspects of the delivery of a race meeting. These documents are published on our website, under the ‘Rules of Racing and Guides’ section. BHAGI 3.2 sets out an inspection and abandonment protocol, detailing responsibilities and clear instructions relating to the communication of information about the condition of a course to all concerned.
In short, up until three days prior to a fixture, responsibility for abandoning a meeting lies with the BHA before switching to the racecourse once we reach the 72-hour window. Should the racecourse have concerns about the conditions, they must notify publicly their intention to hold an inspection, specifically when that will be and, where appropriate, what the inspection will entail. This information is then available on the BHA’s website, as well as through the racecourse’s own communication channels.
Once an inspection has been completed, the racecourse must relay whether it has been passed or failed, or whether a further inspection is required. We understand that the more detailed the information provided at these stages is, the better for everybody concerned and we always encourage racecourses to provide as much detail as possible.
Should a meeting reach two hours prior to the first race, the responsibility reverts to the BHA, whose officials will be on site. From this stage onwards, any inspection will follow the BHA’s operational procedures, an industry-agreed protocol for dealing with such instances. This includes an Inspecting Group of representatives of trainers, jockeys, and racecourse personnel to provide evidence for the BHA Stewards to take into consideration along with any other evidence they may have available.
As with everything the BHA does, these processes remain under constant review to ensure that the sport is handling these matters as best as we can. We always listen to feedback and interrogate our own processes on this matter.
Richard Willoughby, ITV Racing Editor
I think the crux of it from a broadcaster’s point of view is that there needs to be more flexibility around the protocols in place when we are faced with the sort of extreme weather we had in early January.
On the back of the amazing racing we had on ITV over Christmas, the first Saturday of the new year was especially frustrating. If you remember the jumps meetings that were scheduled for Sandown and Wincanton were both abandoned on the day, leaving just two all-weather meetings, neither of which were starting until later in the afternoon. We were due on air from 1.30pm – and on ITV’s main channel too – but the first all-weather race was not until 2.47pm.
Now we can fill time when required, but we can’t really fill for an hour and a quarter, and in any case, that first race was just a three-runner novice. As we know, once races are published you can delay them, but you can’t bring them forward.
The existing rules work well in normal circumstances, but everyone recognises the value to the sport of free-to-air coverage and it would be helpful to have alternative procedures available in those situations. That was a lost opportunity, and a costly one for the sport in terms of betting revenue and so on.
One simple change, even if it’s just for those months of the year when we are susceptible to the weather, would be to have an all-weather meeting in place every Saturday afternoon. I don’t see the need for two all-weather meetings later in the day on a Saturday, but I’m guessing it’s down to Premierisation. If that’s the case we need to review how it works and possibly adopt a system which I think applies in other jurisdictions where they might protect just a specific race, rather than a meeting.
In Australia on Melbourne Cup day there might be plenty of other meetings but they all stop for half an hour before and after the Cup, allowing it to take centre stage.
Another idea for occasions when there is clear potential for the weather to intervene would be to publish the declarations at the 48-hour stage as we do now but perhaps take a pull on the actual times of those races, and the order in which they are run, until we’ve seen the bigger picture.
It’s about being able to move races around and have that flexibility to tailor things best for a broadcast audience.
Kerry Lee, trainer
This issue is a very delicate balancing act. I’m not a trainer who would ever be in a rush to criticise those performing the Clerk of the Course role. However, horses, owners, trainers and hard-working stable staff provide the product, and it can feel as though our participation is being taken for granted by the sport.
Early winter race times at far away venues can mean departing from the yard as early as 5.30am, and there have been times when we’ve hit the road in icy weather or torrential downpours, with reports of a track being partially flooded or frozen, openly doubting whether conditions will improve suitably for us to be able to race, only to subsequently see an abandonment just before racing or after just one or two races have been run.
Wasted travel means bills, disappointment and frustration for owners, wages for staff, reduction in manpower while those staff are travelling, the associated risk of travel, plus most importantly, a break in routine and possible stress for racehorses.
With that in mind, I’d like to see an industry-wide mechanism where unnecessary journeys for abandonments are compensated. Perhaps that would help bring a collective focus on this issue and prevent decision-makers in all areas of the sport gambling on the outcome.
A welcome postscript to these thoughts was that I learned that ARC sent a payment of £300 to the owner of our intended runner at Chepstow on the Sunday when racing was abandoned after the second race. It was a nice touch to at least show some goodwill and I know it was appreciated.
Jonny Allison, owner
My issue is mainly that while obviously everyone wants racing to be on, it’s a bit of a one-way bet for racecourses, in that they can leave it as late as they like, including when runners are in the paddock for the first, yet there is no guaranteed compensation for owners.
Some owners may just say ‘let’s declare ourselves a non-runner so that we don’t pay travel costs’, but I always want to run if there’s a chance, even though travel costs are expensive. I think there should be a cut off time on the day at some defined stage before the first race after which racecourses will have to give fixed compensation per horse if the meeting is subsequently abandoned.
That probably won’t help if one is travelling from Lambourn to Musselburgh, but it would help in many cases and it ought to encourage better decision making. As I understand it, at present such compensation is at the discretion of the racecourse.
Another thing about introducing a cut-off time after which compensation applies is that it will give people going to the races a better idea of whether the meeting is really going to be on or not and take their own view.
Clerks of the Course must consider a range of different interests, but there is pressure on them from racecourses to maximise attendance and so they are naturally geared to be over- optimistic in their predictions in the days leading up to a meeting. They know that if they say that it is looking doubtful then many potential attendees will say let’s not bother going, while trainers and owners might look to make other plans. We need to put more balance into the decision-making process.
As we saw [in January] when Ludlow was found to be still frozen when the first race was due off, the racecourses themselves can’t always be relied upon to act in the best interests of participants and racegoers. Coming hot on the heels of other embarrassingly late abandonments made the way that day unfolded seem all more shocking.
