• REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do much without having been registered!

    At the moment you have limited access to view all discussions - and most importantly, you haven't joined our community. What are you waiting for? Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Join Talking Horses here!

Limit on runners in major handicap

Grand National reduced to 34 runners now

Some owners will be infuriated though, and may move their horses to other trainers to get in the race

Don't think it will affect the UK based trainers, maybe Fahey and O'Meara will sometimes have more than 4 in a big handicap but i can't think of many others
 
Last edited:
Racing is supposed to be a competition between horses not trainers. Potentially really unfair on owners who may have one horse with a trainer who has mutiple horses with another owner who are more highly rated. And if they're going to do it over jumps surely have to apply to the flat as well?
 
Good idea.
Not many years ago Martin Pipe had ten Grand National runners.
Gigginstown claim they have no interest in handicaps but they take the money every time, they just don't show up to collect the prize and have given plenty decent trainers their P45s for winning "only handicaps " , even if that handicap is the Aintree or Irish Grand National.
 
Yes, it isn't hard to view it as such but the likes of Mullins and Elliott have such huge numbers in their ranks they could have a dozen entries highly enough rated to take up every place in, say, a 16-runner handicap.

But it might also affect the likes of the Skeltons who often have several entries in a big handicap. Martin Pipe used to have large numbers of entries too but I do think we have to focus on the current situation.

Personally I'm in favour of the restrictions. If I owned one good enough to maybe creep into the bottom of a big handicap I'd be a bit miffed if my horse didn't get in because Mullins or Elliott (or Skelton or Nicholls) had five or six (or more) in the race. It might even be enough to make me think about giving up ownership altogether and if many other owners felt the same it would be detrimental to the sport altogether.

It's not too unlike the situation a couple of years back when they changed the declaration rules because Mullins wasn't finalising his Cheltenham runners until the very last minute and punters didn't know what was running in which race. In that regard, I can see how some people might argue that these trainers are bringing these restrictions upon themselves by exploiting - as they may indeed feel entitled to - existing rules and requirements to the max.

It's a difficult one but I'm not sure the status quo was an option.
 
If I owned one good enough to maybe creep into the bottom of a big handicap and was trained by Mullins or Elliot I'd be a bit miffed if my horse didn't get in because they were restricted.
 
Just looking at the last 10 Grand Nationals only once has Willie had more than 4 runners in it and that was last year

Elliot has had more than 4 runners 3 times in the same period, 2019-11, 2022-7, 2023-5

Going by these stats it won't have much effect on Mullins, Elliot will have to downsize though:D
 
an capall said:
If I owned one good enough to maybe creep into the bottom of a big handicap and was trained by Mullins or Elliot I'd be a bit miffed if my horse didn't get in because they were restricted.
Click to expand...

And if I owned a horse trained by Mullins or Elliot I’m not sure I’d be convinced he was finding the best place for it to win if it was opposed by half a dozen others from the same stable. Unless, of course, the fix was in which will always be the suspicion.
 
wilsonl said:
https://www.racingpost.com/news/britain/bombshell-for-biggest-yards-as-bha-proposes-limiting-trainers-to-four-runners-in-major-handicaps-aApUx5Y7RusR/

This posted before I’d finished the thread title and can’t add the ?

But it is presumably to protect a Grand National Elliot invasion
Click to expand...

So if you have 6 horses owned by 6 people you have to tell 2 of them your's can't run.

Only people that could possible affect are Gordon Elliot and WPM......they really are so stupid these people.

Messing with a trainers livelyhood.
 
It's saying to big owners to spread their horses around, and to bigger stables to downsize their numbers of handicappers.

Meanwhile, Coolmore, please continue to pump up the Derby and St Leger prize money with mass entries. And WPM, we don't care about bumpers over here, so you can send as many runners as you like for the Champion Bumper.
 
barjon said:
And if I owned a horse trained by Mullins or Elliot I’m not sure I’d be convinced he was finding the best place for it to win if it was opposed by half a dozen others from the same stable. Unless, of course, the fix was in which will always be the suspicion.
Click to expand...


Mullins and Elliott are reasonably Good at placing their horses.
 
an capall said:
If I owned one good enough to maybe creep into the bottom of a big handicap and was trained by Mullins or Elliot I'd be a bit miffed if my horse didn't get in because they were restricted.
Click to expand...

Maybe it should depend, then, on when the restriction should kick in?

If it gets to the final decs and only four are allowed, Mullins or Elliott might decide ours is one of the four they want to run.
 
The cap was labelled “ridiculous” by trainer Gordon Elliott, who has frequently run more than four horses in top-tier British handicaps. However, Grand National-winning trainer Richard Newland, who has lobbied the BHA for restrictions on larger stables to maintain the competitiveness of jump racing, said the proposal was “music to my ears”.

Any limit would not be enforceable in practice, according to O'Leary, who said: "I can't understand why they feel the need to do this and, if they do, and let's say Gigginstown want to have eight runners, then we'll end up transferring four from Gordon into Colin Bowe's stable for the day – they will run regardless.”

Courtesy of RP
 
Last edited:
wilsonl said:
Any limit would not be enforceable in practice, according to O'Leary, who said: "I can't understand why they feel the need to do this and, if they do, and let's say Gigginstown want to have eight runners, then we'll end up transferring four from Gordon into Colin Bowe's stable for the day – they will run regardless.”

Courtesy of RP
Click to expand...

That's just going to make them extend the rule to owners.
 
Desert Orchid said:
That's just going to make them extend the rule to owners.
Click to expand...

....or maybe they should just extend the rule to limit the total number of Irish runners -that would please Newland and the bang average brigade.The Grand National is no longer the race it was -it isn't that far away from being just another big Saturday handicap.
 
I think we all want to see the best handicaps contested by the best horses regardless of where they're trained.

If it's just the case that Irish races are more competitive therefore the Irish horses are better handicapped when they come over then the answer might just be to increase the differential between the two countries to, say, 12lbs,so an Irish horse racing off 135 in Ireland would be on 147 here. Clearly the 6lbs differential isn't working.
 
Lovey O’Leary and Ride ‘Em Elliott do have a point when they say no one was making a fuss when Martin Pipe was doing the same sort of thing in races like the Pertemps and the County Hurdle.
 
Last edited:
Grey said:
Lovey O’Leary and Ride ‘Em Elliott do have a point when they say no one was making a fuss when Martin Pipe was doing the same sort of thing in races like the Pertemps and the County Hurdle.
Click to expand...

Agree 100 Per cent.An unintended consequence of this could be less Irish runners at Aintree.
 
Grey said:
Lovey O’Leary and Ride ‘Em Elliott do have a point when they say no one was making a fuss when Martin Pipe was doing the same sort of thing in races like the Pertemps and the County Hurdle.
Click to expand...

My memory is maybe playing tricks but I think plenty of people were voicing concerns at the time about the Pipe scattergun approach to handicaps.

Perhaps not to the same extent, Michael Dickinson did likewise with his handicap chasers.

It might be no coincidence that these two trainers were a few steps ahead of the rest when it came to conditioning their horses but it's hard to imagine that Mullins and Elliott (et al) have methods that far ahead of their contemporaries so they're either getting better types of horse to start with and better at hiding their ability in the horses' younger days or the quality of Irish racing is far better than generally assessed.

The BHA initiative could, with some justification, be regarded as an admission of failure by the respective assessors.
 
For me it’s both protecting the integrity of the sport in the eye of the beholder and encouraging a wider distribution of good horse.

For the first, the big trainers who swamp races like this might be as honest as the day is long, but the suspicion is always there that they have set out who of their number is to win with the others there as back up or to facilitate their chosen one. Even when a trainer runs just two horses, how often is it that the unfancied one comes in despite the trainer talking the other one up, or the winner down, beforehand. Maybe I’m too cynical, maybe not.

So far as the wider distribution is concerned it might be a little unfair on the big trainers, but a monopoly in any field rarely turns out to be a good thing.
 
To be honest, I'm much more suspicious of the likes of JP McManus when he runs five and more in the big Irish handicaps. You genuinely never know which is 'the one'.

I get the impression with Elliott/Gigginstown that most are genuinely there to run their race and the trainer/owners aren't sure themselves which will win ('cos one usually does) so the scattergun approach can be seen as justified.

I'm far less trusting of the Mullinses.
 
barjon said:
For me it’s both protecting the integrity of the sport in the eye of the beholder and encouraging a wider distribution of good horse.

For the first, the big trainers who swamp races like this might be as honest as the day is long, but the suspicion is always there that they have set out who of their number is to win with the others there as back up or to facilitate their chosen one. Even when a trainer runs just two horses, how often is it that the unfancied one comes in despite the trainer talking the other one up, or the winner down, beforehand. Maybe I’m too cynical, maybe not.

So far as the wider distribution is concerned it might be a little unfair on the big trainers, but a monopoly in any field rarely turns out to be a good thing.
Click to expand...


What business is it of the BHA how Irish owners distribute their horses.
 

Recent Blog Posts

Back
Top