Surprised that no-one's raised this thorny issue, so I will. Given the amazing stats tables printed in the RP a few days ago, showing enormous hikes in the amount of self-certs, aren't serious punting forum members a wee bit put out by these? Apart from the damage to racecourses, owners whose horses would've/could've got into races they are now denied because of the on-the-day withdrawals, etc., I'd have thought many of you, particularly those who wager regularly and fairly generously, felt that this was causing some pretty bad knock-ons with your betting with rapid changes to your SPs, for example. Maybe it isn't, though, which is why there's lethargy about the issue from the punting public? (And absolutely 'no need' for change according to the NTF!)
Self-certification, the abuse of
- Thread starter krizon
- Start date
Shadow Leader
At the Start
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 9,884
Self-certification is taking the piss quote often, however the BHA did introduce it mainly to mollify trainers when 48 hour decs were brought in.
I'd look more closely at the flaws within 48 hour decs first; after a resolution I think you'll find the numbers of SC withdrawn runners will decrease.
I'd look more closely at the flaws within 48 hour decs first; after a resolution I think you'll find the numbers of SC withdrawn runners will decrease.
Yes, that's it, Shadz - it was a trading card, but it does seem to have more than been a little bit abused. What really hacks me off is seeing the number of nags withdrawn on the basis of ground, and then seeing them run next time on the exact same call! The BHA doesn't seem to have set up a monitoring system to stop that sort of mickey-taking, either.
trudij
Senior Jockey
and the ones that are mysteriously lame or colic, but are able to run a few days later.... where oh where is the rule that there has to be a "fit to run" certificate from a vet if you dont run for a medical/health reason..... I have a feeling THAT would get rid of a fair few of them too....
Because they may be entered in an easier race later in the week or they have a bad draw, and so on.
I don't go with the bad draw scenario. If the racecourse can't be arsed to provide an unbiased track then they should be prepared to have the disadvantaged withdraw. Why use one of your precious runs on a race that you can't win through no fault of your own.
I suppose waiting for an easier race is probably worthy of a slap on the back of the hand. I'm not sure it is too high up the list for dodgy withdrawals, I'd guess the reasons are more logistic/environmental.
I suppose waiting for an easier race is probably worthy of a slap on the back of the hand. I'm not sure it is too high up the list for dodgy withdrawals, I'd guess the reasons are more logistic/environmental.
Diamond Geezer
Gone But Not Forgotten
- Joined
- May 2, 2003
- Messages
- 13,884
The views of Mark Johnston three days ago
What a load of tosh in the Racing Post today about self-certification. For a start, self-certification was not introduced ‘as a trade-off for trainers supporting 48-hour declarations and as a means of saving owners money on veterinary bills’. Trainers never supported 48-hour declarations and they were introduced, against the will of trainers, long before self-certification and self-certification was introduced for jump racing, under 24-hour declarations, at the same time. No doubt 48-hour declarations played their part in that, as always predicted, non-runners increased by more than 50% as soon as 48-hour declarations were introduced and many of those required vet certificates. This along with many other facets of 48-hour declarations increased costs for owners and, in this case, trainers (we make no charge for veterinary fees including visits and certificates from outside vets) but the principal pressure for self-certification came from vets who realised that there were serious ethical issues involved in writing certificates based on hearsay e.g. ‘it didn’t eat up’ or ‘it coughed at exercise’; and, don’t be mistaken, there are even more serious welfare issues involved in trying to force connections to run horses that they do not feel are right.
Do those that think trainers are abusing the self-certification system really think it is in trainers’ interests to have non runners? With or without veterinary certificates, non-runners cost us dearly. If they have been transported to the races, of course, the costs are vastly increased but, even when they have not, they have usually been plated for racing and entry fees have been paid.
If Sally Iggulden thinks trainers are using self-certificates to withdraw horses which have been badly drawn at Beverley then I really think she should be concerned that she is running races with such an extreme bias that trainers would prefer not to run. Should we really be running races like that?
I doubt if there is any significant abuse and I think any abuse of the system that does exist is only serious in cases where other horses are denied a run.
I have made no secret of the fact that I have had to ‘play’ the system since 48-hour declarations were introduced and many of you will have noticed that I have, on several occasions this year, declared two horses for a race and only run one. I did this, especially early in the season, when I had more than one possible horse for a race and no alternative, similar race. I did not want to run the two horses against each other but, unlike those that imposed 48-hour declarations upon us, I know that there is a very significant chance of something going wrong in the fifty odd hours between declaration and running and, as there were no alternative races, it would infuriate me to have a non-runner and a perfectly fit horse standing in the stable at home which I had not declared. I, therefore, declared two. If something went wrong with one, it was withdrawn on a vet certificate or self-certificate, whichever was appropriate, and the other horse ran. If both horses were fit to run then both travelled to the track and I made a decision based on the horse I thought to be best suited to the ground conditions running and the other was withdrawn because I deemed the ground to be unsuitable. I was prepared to run both horses if both were perfectly well and I could not, legitimately, claim that one might be unsuited by the ground but ground conditions are so variable in this country that that was rarely, if ever, the case. This is perfectly within the rules. I did not charge the owner for the horse that did not run. I had to cover the cost of plating, transport, staff etc. and, in some cases that was a very considerable sum. It is part of the price I have to pay to cope with the 48-hour declaration system.
Would Sally Iggulden or Dale Gibson consider this abuse? These were all small field races. Would they rather I risked having no runner at all? I know Dale recognises the damage done by 48-hour declarations and he should be concentrating his efforts on getting that flawed system reversed. I don’t know if Sally Iggulden, Ed Gretton, William Derby or the other Clerks of Courses who have expressed concern over self-certification really appreciate how unsuited the 48-hour declaration system is to British racing but, until they do and until they speak out and try to do something about it, we can’t have any sympathy for them over non-runners.
What a load of tosh in the Racing Post today about self-certification. For a start, self-certification was not introduced ‘as a trade-off for trainers supporting 48-hour declarations and as a means of saving owners money on veterinary bills’. Trainers never supported 48-hour declarations and they were introduced, against the will of trainers, long before self-certification and self-certification was introduced for jump racing, under 24-hour declarations, at the same time. No doubt 48-hour declarations played their part in that, as always predicted, non-runners increased by more than 50% as soon as 48-hour declarations were introduced and many of those required vet certificates. This along with many other facets of 48-hour declarations increased costs for owners and, in this case, trainers (we make no charge for veterinary fees including visits and certificates from outside vets) but the principal pressure for self-certification came from vets who realised that there were serious ethical issues involved in writing certificates based on hearsay e.g. ‘it didn’t eat up’ or ‘it coughed at exercise’; and, don’t be mistaken, there are even more serious welfare issues involved in trying to force connections to run horses that they do not feel are right.
Do those that think trainers are abusing the self-certification system really think it is in trainers’ interests to have non runners? With or without veterinary certificates, non-runners cost us dearly. If they have been transported to the races, of course, the costs are vastly increased but, even when they have not, they have usually been plated for racing and entry fees have been paid.
If Sally Iggulden thinks trainers are using self-certificates to withdraw horses which have been badly drawn at Beverley then I really think she should be concerned that she is running races with such an extreme bias that trainers would prefer not to run. Should we really be running races like that?
I doubt if there is any significant abuse and I think any abuse of the system that does exist is only serious in cases where other horses are denied a run.
I have made no secret of the fact that I have had to ‘play’ the system since 48-hour declarations were introduced and many of you will have noticed that I have, on several occasions this year, declared two horses for a race and only run one. I did this, especially early in the season, when I had more than one possible horse for a race and no alternative, similar race. I did not want to run the two horses against each other but, unlike those that imposed 48-hour declarations upon us, I know that there is a very significant chance of something going wrong in the fifty odd hours between declaration and running and, as there were no alternative races, it would infuriate me to have a non-runner and a perfectly fit horse standing in the stable at home which I had not declared. I, therefore, declared two. If something went wrong with one, it was withdrawn on a vet certificate or self-certificate, whichever was appropriate, and the other horse ran. If both horses were fit to run then both travelled to the track and I made a decision based on the horse I thought to be best suited to the ground conditions running and the other was withdrawn because I deemed the ground to be unsuitable. I was prepared to run both horses if both were perfectly well and I could not, legitimately, claim that one might be unsuited by the ground but ground conditions are so variable in this country that that was rarely, if ever, the case. This is perfectly within the rules. I did not charge the owner for the horse that did not run. I had to cover the cost of plating, transport, staff etc. and, in some cases that was a very considerable sum. It is part of the price I have to pay to cope with the 48-hour declaration system.
Would Sally Iggulden or Dale Gibson consider this abuse? These were all small field races. Would they rather I risked having no runner at all? I know Dale recognises the damage done by 48-hour declarations and he should be concentrating his efforts on getting that flawed system reversed. I don’t know if Sally Iggulden, Ed Gretton, William Derby or the other Clerks of Courses who have expressed concern over self-certification really appreciate how unsuited the 48-hour declaration system is to British racing but, until they do and until they speak out and try to do something about it, we can’t have any sympathy for them over non-runners.
mrussell
At the Start
Interesting quote from M Johnston.
There are 2 points I'd make, as an outsider:
1. You need to be 'in the game' (whatever it is) to really appreciate the difficulties people experience because of rules & regulations; the same goes for understanding how they use them to their advantage.
2. In any activity involving money, people find ways to exploit the system for gain. I'm not saying that's the case here, but I have frequently been surprised at people's ability to see & exploit dishonest advantage where money is involved.
By the way, his assertion that the owners don't have to pay for plating, certificates etc seems just disingenuous. Who does, then?
There are 2 points I'd make, as an outsider:
1. You need to be 'in the game' (whatever it is) to really appreciate the difficulties people experience because of rules & regulations; the same goes for understanding how they use them to their advantage.
2. In any activity involving money, people find ways to exploit the system for gain. I'm not saying that's the case here, but I have frequently been surprised at people's ability to see & exploit dishonest advantage where money is involved.
By the way, his assertion that the owners don't have to pay for plating, certificates etc seems just disingenuous. Who does, then?
He does, he says, that if there horse doesn't run, he won't charge them for the plates and transport as it's not their fault.
Well I think that's what he means.
I didn't need to read futher than this. So Mark J is suggesting that the system is not being abused by trainers? Any credibility he had in my eyes is gone.
MJ was a vociferous opponent (if my memory bank stands up to raiding) of the change to 48-hour decs, and didn't get his own way.
As for not charging for plates: the last set cost £65 and PTD's transport to Wolves was @ £1.25p per mile, a cost of £75, and a staff cost of just £25. Is he really saying that he'd swallow these sort of costs (and a lot more, given the transport from where his yard is) time and again? I'm amazed - I don't know how many other trainers treat their owners so gallantly!
He's having a pop back at Sally Iggulden, Beverley's r/c manager, but she has every right to complain about self-certs. The table the BHA has produced for her course alone shows that horses drawn in stalls 1-5 between March 21 and Sept 22 this year were withdrawn on self-certs 47 times. In 2008, the total was 25. No fewer than 21 of those 47 came in 5f races. Within those totals, withdrawals from stall 1 more than doubled, from 6 to 13.
At Chester, there was a 68% rise in self-cert non-runners which, according to Clerk of the Course, Ed Gretton, said revealed 'disturbing patterns'. "Among horses drawn higher in sprints there was an abnormal amount of non-runners, and while there are some valid reasons for self-cert in terms of keeping down costs for trainers, non-runners can decimate a card, even though the ground hasn't changed. I think Sally's suggestion of not allowing a horse to enter for 6 days would certainly be more of a deterrent against abusing the system."
A few more self-cert stories: an "eye-watering" 176% increase at Chepstow - 47 from 17 - represented the biggest leap of any Flat racecourse. Tom Long, Clerk of the Course, said that the figures were distorted by losing 4 fixtures in 2008. "As we're gradually moving away from the BAGS deals under which tracks would be penalised for going below 8 runners, I think you'll find the racecourses won't have such a strong commercial view on it." (Hmmm... never mind the racecourses, Tom, wot abaht the punters, eh?)
York saw a 110% increase and Clerk William Derby questioned whether a 6-day hiatus was long enough. "From a racecourse executive, racegoer and punter point of view, it's always disappointing when fields begin to cut up." (He went to say there are always some good reasons, etc. why horses are withdrawn, but 110% worth?) :blink:
A quick trawl through the analysis of self-certified non-runners for various courses for the Flat season (March 22 to September 22) between 2008 and 2009 showed the following increases:
Ascot: 3%
Ayr: 50%
Beverley: 25%
Brighton: 57%
Carlisle: 56%
Chepstow (as noted): 176%
Chester: 68%
Doncaster: 71%
(No comparison for Epsom, due to reduced fixtures in 2008)
Folkestone: 36%
Goodwood: 36%
Leicester: 18%
Lingfield (turf): 18%
Lingfield (AW): 21% (that's a few 'not eaten up', given that the going is Standard!)
Musselburgh: 23%
Newbury: 29%
Newcastle: 165%
Newmarket (Rowley): 18%
Nottingham: 34%
Pontefract: 53%
Redcar: 22%
Ripon: 40%
Salisbury: 107%
Southwell (AW): 152% (that's a helluva lot 'not eaten up'!)
Thirsk: 47%
Warwick: 12%
Windsor: 89%
Wolverhampton (AW): 29%
Yarmouth: 65%
York: 110%
Courses which reported % reductions in self-certs from last year were Bath 16%, Catterick 14%, Hamilton 18%, Haydock 7%, Kempton 2%, Newmarket (July) 13%, Sandown 8%.
That looks, to me, suspiciously like an awful lot of rebuttals to Mark Johnston's view that trainers haven't learned to work the system. As for where there is a draw bias which trainers really feel works against them, then surely the answer is - provided there's enough track, and there usually is - to push the Clerk to move the stalls into the centre of the course more, or to shove the stalls over to the least-favoured side, giving the favoured side a bit more work to do? That would address some of the difficulties, wouldn't it?
As for not charging for plates: the last set cost £65 and PTD's transport to Wolves was @ £1.25p per mile, a cost of £75, and a staff cost of just £25. Is he really saying that he'd swallow these sort of costs (and a lot more, given the transport from where his yard is) time and again? I'm amazed - I don't know how many other trainers treat their owners so gallantly!
He's having a pop back at Sally Iggulden, Beverley's r/c manager, but she has every right to complain about self-certs. The table the BHA has produced for her course alone shows that horses drawn in stalls 1-5 between March 21 and Sept 22 this year were withdrawn on self-certs 47 times. In 2008, the total was 25. No fewer than 21 of those 47 came in 5f races. Within those totals, withdrawals from stall 1 more than doubled, from 6 to 13.
At Chester, there was a 68% rise in self-cert non-runners which, according to Clerk of the Course, Ed Gretton, said revealed 'disturbing patterns'. "Among horses drawn higher in sprints there was an abnormal amount of non-runners, and while there are some valid reasons for self-cert in terms of keeping down costs for trainers, non-runners can decimate a card, even though the ground hasn't changed. I think Sally's suggestion of not allowing a horse to enter for 6 days would certainly be more of a deterrent against abusing the system."
A few more self-cert stories: an "eye-watering" 176% increase at Chepstow - 47 from 17 - represented the biggest leap of any Flat racecourse. Tom Long, Clerk of the Course, said that the figures were distorted by losing 4 fixtures in 2008. "As we're gradually moving away from the BAGS deals under which tracks would be penalised for going below 8 runners, I think you'll find the racecourses won't have such a strong commercial view on it." (Hmmm... never mind the racecourses, Tom, wot abaht the punters, eh?)
York saw a 110% increase and Clerk William Derby questioned whether a 6-day hiatus was long enough. "From a racecourse executive, racegoer and punter point of view, it's always disappointing when fields begin to cut up." (He went to say there are always some good reasons, etc. why horses are withdrawn, but 110% worth?) :blink:
A quick trawl through the analysis of self-certified non-runners for various courses for the Flat season (March 22 to September 22) between 2008 and 2009 showed the following increases:
Ascot: 3%
Ayr: 50%
Beverley: 25%
Brighton: 57%
Carlisle: 56%
Chepstow (as noted): 176%
Chester: 68%
Doncaster: 71%
(No comparison for Epsom, due to reduced fixtures in 2008)
Folkestone: 36%
Goodwood: 36%
Leicester: 18%
Lingfield (turf): 18%
Lingfield (AW): 21% (that's a few 'not eaten up', given that the going is Standard!)
Musselburgh: 23%
Newbury: 29%
Newcastle: 165%
Newmarket (Rowley): 18%
Nottingham: 34%
Pontefract: 53%
Redcar: 22%
Ripon: 40%
Salisbury: 107%
Southwell (AW): 152% (that's a helluva lot 'not eaten up'!)
Thirsk: 47%
Warwick: 12%
Windsor: 89%
Wolverhampton (AW): 29%
Yarmouth: 65%
York: 110%
Courses which reported % reductions in self-certs from last year were Bath 16%, Catterick 14%, Hamilton 18%, Haydock 7%, Kempton 2%, Newmarket (July) 13%, Sandown 8%.
That looks, to me, suspiciously like an awful lot of rebuttals to Mark Johnston's view that trainers haven't learned to work the system. As for where there is a draw bias which trainers really feel works against them, then surely the answer is - provided there's enough track, and there usually is - to push the Clerk to move the stalls into the centre of the course more, or to shove the stalls over to the least-favoured side, giving the favoured side a bit more work to do? That would address some of the difficulties, wouldn't it?
G-G
Senior Jockey
And the forecast says two days of downpour coming/sunny spells with drying breezes and it doesn't happen.
montyracing2
At the Start
Linking the self-certification issue with the 48 hr declaration mandate leads to an interesting argument.
The 49 mandate was meant to broaden racing's popularity worldwide as well as assisting national press deadlines. Surely all of this would be to the benefit of the larger bookmakers, many of whom have jumped ship for less taxable climates.
Maybe this is the opportunity for racing to take control of its own future and roll-back the 48hr mandate. This would send a strong signal to the bookmaking organisations to treat racing in their best interests.
I feel the racing authorities don't understand their true value to the bookmaking industry, there is no other professional sport with its vast background of resources (facilities, horse, jockeys, spectacle, ......) that can put on a betting ‘show’ for six hours plus everyday, 360 days of the year.
Surely this is what brings punters in (shops, internet etc) and I suspect that if the bookies don’t pay the price of ‘a levy’ then their business will go the same way as others who have not invested for the future.
A few thoughts in racing's best interest - MR2
The 49 mandate was meant to broaden racing's popularity worldwide as well as assisting national press deadlines. Surely all of this would be to the benefit of the larger bookmakers, many of whom have jumped ship for less taxable climates.
Maybe this is the opportunity for racing to take control of its own future and roll-back the 48hr mandate. This would send a strong signal to the bookmaking organisations to treat racing in their best interests.
I feel the racing authorities don't understand their true value to the bookmaking industry, there is no other professional sport with its vast background of resources (facilities, horse, jockeys, spectacle, ......) that can put on a betting ‘show’ for six hours plus everyday, 360 days of the year.
Surely this is what brings punters in (shops, internet etc) and I suspect that if the bookies don’t pay the price of ‘a levy’ then their business will go the same way as others who have not invested for the future.
A few thoughts in racing's best interest - MR2