The Young Master

Maruco said:
My view on this is it is up to the BHA to manage/police entries before the event not afterwards. Imagine if this was a National or a Gold Cup. The mistake is more the responsibility of the BHA than it is Neil Mulholland and the result should stand.
Click to expand...

Weatherbys handle all entries on behalf of the BHA. It is Weatherbys' processes and/or systems at fault here, although the primary responsibility lies with the trainer. The conditions of all races are published and it's the trainer's job to find a suitable race for which his or her horse is eligible to run. The Weatherbys system should be a safety net for the inevitable occasional human error, or in the case of early-closing entries where the intention is that the horse will become qualified in the interim but circumstances prevent it.

The existing Weatherbys computer system is pretty antiquated and running on a back-end application which is so old it is no longer supported. There are actually very few qualification checks built in - I think age and sex might be the only ones. They are in the middle of a multi-million pound rewrite to update the racing administration computer system so I'd expect some improvements to be made, but I don't know the timescales for release or the scope of any additional qualification checks that may or may not be included.
 
Last edited:
Cruella said:
Weatherbys handle all entries on behalf of the BHA. It is Weatherbys' processes and/or systems at fault here, although the primary responsibility lies with the trainer. The conditions of all races are published and it's the trainer's job to find a suitable race for which his or her horse is eligible to run. The Weatherbys system should be a safety net for the inevitable occasional human error, or in the case of early-closing entries where the intention is that the horse will become qualified in the interim but circumstances prevent it.

The existing Weatherbys computer system is pretty antiquated and running on a back-end application which is so old it is no longer supported. There are actually very few qualification checks built in - I think age and sex might be the only ones. They are in the middle of a multi-million pound rewrite to update the racing administration computer system so I'd expect some improvements to be made, but I don't know the timescales for release or the scope of any additional qualification checks that may or may not be included.
Click to expand...

Thanks for clarifying that, Cruella.

It really doesn't reflect well on the Weatherbys, does it?

I suspected there would ultimately be blame apportioned to the trainer in much the same way as in the case of the administering of a prohibited substance.
 
Most of your what you said I'd go along with BH, and like your other contributions to this forum is very rational.
Viking posed an 'if' I'd back the second' question....well I did actually back the second.!
The only slight disagreement I have with you is the below.

Bachelors Hall said:
The scenario you raise wasn't necessarily one I was responding to but is covered in my fourth "if", the opportunistic one. Whether or not one believes rank opportunism is allowed to comfortably permeate within one's personal moral or ethical alignment is strictly down to the individual.
Click to expand...

As fair as I'm concerned, I'm not banging down the BHA or Weatherby's door asking to be paid out.
I'd view it more as curiosity by those who backed the second than any 'rank opportunism'.
The principle that is at play and how they deal with it is the most interesting thing.
I've taken my pay out and won't be going back in any event regardless.
I respect what Emma Lavelle said, I respect the point that you can't change the pay out after the race, but I still reserve the right to ask whether there'll be some turn around in the current status quo on pay-out (mainly for curiosity's sake!).
I don't think that is opportunistic, hypocritical or unethical (for me personally) in any way shape or form.
 
Last edited:
The logical step would be for Weatherbys to pay the differential in prize money to the placed horses as if they had finished one place higher.The Young Master shouldn't be penalized after winning on merit.
 
Last edited:
If you owned the 2nd place horse you should 100% object. The rule was broken, the winner is out. We are talking an extra 20k - thats a years+ training. The idea from some people on twitter etc that is would be bad patter to claim the win is utter poppycock.

Its a mistake from the trainer, then a mistake from wetherby to allow the full dec.
 
Digger said:
If you owned the 2nd place horse you should 100% object. The rule was broken, the winner is out. We are talking an extra 20k - thats a years+ training. The idea from some people on twitter etc that is would be bad patter to claim the win is utter poppycock.

Its a mistake from the trainer, then a mistake from wetherby to allow the full dec.
Click to expand...

No need for the owners of the placed horses to lodge an objection. The winner will be disqualified, that is inevitable.

BHA Rule 37.1 states: "A Trainer must ensure that he does not declare a horse to run in any race for which it is not qualified under the conditions of the race, or under any provision of these Rules."

So it's clearly the Trainer's responsibility. The Trainer broke the rule, he will be fined and the horse disqualified. Any subsequent failure on the part of Weatherbys is in a sense irrelevant.
 
Do many handicaps have the three race stipulation ?
Is it not normal that once a horse has a handicap rating it can run once it is within the race ratings.
I feel sorry for all concerned though the trainer is at fault.
 
Can anyone remember the name of the really good flat horse who was disqualified from the Washington Singer because his sire hadn't won over 12 furlongs.
 
LUKE said:
Can anyone remember the name of the really good flat horse who was disqualified from the Washington Singer because his sire hadn't won over 12 furlongs.
Click to expand...
Prince Of Dance I.
 
Last edited:
michael_o said:
No need for the owners of the placed horses to lodge an objection. The winner will be disqualified, that is inevitable.

BHA Rule 37.1 states: "A Trainer must ensure that he does not declare a horse to run in any race for which it is not qualified under the conditions of the race, or under any provision of these Rules."

So it's clearly the Trainer's responsibility. The Trainer broke the rule, he will be fined and the horse disqualified. Any subsequent failure on the part of Weatherbys is in a sense irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Thanks Michael. I don't agree with the Weatherby's part though. It must be there responsibility to police in advance, otherwise racing could turn into a farce. There should be rule change that reflects this. I find it incredible that the horse can get to final dec stage let alone run. This is is 2014 not 1914.

I'd also suggest common sense should prevail here. Nobody believes Mulholland set out to deceive, and therefore if the race is taken away a fine would seem harsh.
 
Entered in the first at Cheltenham on Friday, found this article on the racecourse website


An objection has been lodged by the British Horseracing Authority against The Young Master following his controversial success in the Badger Ales Trophy at Wincanton on Saturday.

It emerged in the aftermath of what was a seven-length win for the Neil Mulholland-trained five-year-old that the gelding was in fact ineligible to run under the conditions of the race, having only had two previous runs over fences when three were required.

The matter will be considered by the disciplinary panel of the BHA, possibly on Thursday this week.

The horse holds an engagement at Cheltenham on Friday, and the BHA said it was "aware that clarity needs to be provided regarding the horse's handicap mark, and also whether the horse will be required to carry a penalty should it take up its entry on Friday."

It is expected the BHA will confirm both issues following the objection hearing, and that in the meantime the horse's rating will be reassessed.

A statement from the BHA read: "BHA, in conjunction with Weatherbys, investigated how this error occurred, and can confirm that a computer systems failure is the reason that the entries system did not flag the horse as being not qualified to run. Further assessment of the systems is being undertaken, and if necessary, system changes will be made to ensure this does not happen again.

"The BHA/Weatherbys entries system is designed as an aid to trainers but is not designed to override the requirements of Rule (C)37. It remains the trainer's responsibility to ensure a horse is not declared for a race for which it is not qualified."

The Young Master was ridden by Barry Geraghty, who wrote in his blog for At The Races: "The win of The Young Master in the Badger Ales Trophy should have announced him as a very smart chaser for Neil Mulholland.

"But it transpired after his easy win over a competitive field that he wasn't qualified to run because it was a Class 1 handicap and under the rules he had to have run in three chases to qualify and not two as was the case.

"Now the owners face losing the prize money and getting a big hike in the horse's rating which will make further success tricky.

"That's a real double whammy and doesn't seem fair to me."
 
Last edited:
Maruco said:
Thanks Michael. I don't agree with the Weatherby's part though. It must be there responsibility to police in advance, otherwise racing could turn into a farce. There should be rule change that reflects this. I find it incredible that the horse can get to final dec stage let alone run. This is is 2014 not 1914.

I'd also suggest common sense should prevail here. Nobody believes Mulholland set out to deceive, and therefore if the race is taken away a fine would seem harsh.
Click to expand...

No, but when you're paying your trainer 20K a year to keep your horse, at the very least you expect him to be able to read. Surely every trainer in the land knows that 3 runs over fences are required before entry in a Class 1 handicap. If I was the owner I'd feel very aggrieved (to put it mildly). Mulholland played fast and loose with the owner's money by entering in the first place, then compounded that by declaring. He deserves to be fined, and fined heavily.
 
michael_o said:
No, but when you're paying your trainer 20K a year to keep your horse, at the very least you expect him to be able to read. Surely every trainer in the land knows that 3 runs over fences are required before entry in a Class 1 handicap. If I was the owner I'd feel very aggrieved (to put it mildly). Mulholland played fast and loose with the owner's money by entering in the first place, then compounded that by declaring. He deserves to be fined, and fined heavily.
Click to expand...

Something also missed by Weatherby's, The BHA, the racecourse administration, the stewards, the pundits, the so called shrewdies, the jockeys, and the entire racing public.

I get your point Michael, but this was nothing more than a genuine mistake, and I feel your position is a little over the top. It also makes me wonder if it's happened before with nobody realising.

I've also been an owner, and whilst I'd feel aggrieved I'm also a realist. I suspect I'd do a deal on training fees or something, which in this instance I suspect Mulholland would agree to. I certainly wouldn't expect my trainer to cop for a large fine, and if he did I'd consider pulling out of racing altogether making as much noise as possible about all the things I see that are wrong with racing.
 
Maruco said:
Thanks Michael. I don't agree with the Weatherby's part though. It must be there responsibility to police in advance, otherwise racing could turn into a farce. There should be rule change that reflects this. I find it incredible that the horse can get to final dec stage let alone run. This is is 2014 not 1914.

I'd also suggest common sense should prevail here. Nobody believes Mulholland set out to deceive, and therefore if the race is taken away a fine would seem harsh.
Click to expand...

The electronic entry system is as out of date as the thinking of the BHA. It should allow the entry but it should be marked as NQ (Not Qualified) - now that could change if the horse had ran again prior to the race taking place...but it should not have allowed a full Declaration. Its really not that hard. Far too much money spent of statues and not enough spent on bringing the sport forward into the 21st c.
 
Digger said:
The electronic entry system is as out of date as the thinking of the BHA. It should allow the entry but it should be marked as NQ (Not Qualified) - now that could change if the horse had ran again prior to the race taking place...but it should not have allowed a full Declaration. Its really not that hard. Far too much money spent of statues and not enough spent on bringing the sport forward into the 21st c.
Click to expand...

They've spent £5m-plus on the new racing admin computer system to date.
 
I agree with all that, of course it should have been flagged up by Weatherbys and OK, maybe I'm judging NM too harshly. But ultimately it's the trainer's responsibility to be aware of the conditions of a race before he makes an entry. For a Class 1 the owner will have had to stump up two sets of fees, one for entry and a second fee for declaration. Then there's the jockey's fee, travelling expenses, no prize-money and possibly a large hike in the weights. Not a happy scenario.
 
Back
Top