JIM BEST has claimed he will be forced to deceive the betting public by saddling horses he does not want to run after being excluded by the BHA, along with Gay Kelleway, from the self-certification process for the rest of the year. Best, who was embroiled in controversy this month when Saint Helena landed a gamble at Southwell under Tony McCoy - whose original mount Into The Wind was withdrawn after a ground change - was among 14 trainers warned in May they risked losing the ability to self-certify unless their percentage of non-runners fell across the three months to the end of August. The East Sussex trainer was indignant on Tuesday after being informed by BHA director of racing Ruth Quinn that if he wants to withdraw a horse on veterinary grounds he will now have to get the form signed by a vet and that failure to do so will result in a fine. Best, who argues the majority of his self-certificates are for horses he feels would not do themselves justice after failing to eat their overnight feed, says he is not prepared to pay the vet fees. He said: "By stopping me and my brother Tom self-certifying the only people to suffer will be the public and punters, because you'll basically be deceiving them. Ruth Quinn says I should call a vet out, but you can't do that at 4.30am or 5am when it would cost £200, and also our owners wouldn't allow it when we're professionals and know the horses best. "We're only a small operation and can't afford a fine, so if we had an odds-on favourite we'd have to run it without punters knowing it hadn't eaten up overnight and without us having any confidence it could perform to its ability." He added: "To us, this has come very close to the Saint Helena incident, but we feel they're two different issues because when we take a horse out because of ground, as with Into The Wind, that's not a self-certification, and we could do the same thing again next week. "All I want to do is let the public understand that the only ones to lose out on this are some horses, because they probably shouldn't be running, and the betting public. If we have an odds-on favourite due to leave the yard at 5am and it has not eaten up, we wouldn't want to run it, but as we haven't got the ability to self-certify we'll be forced to run. That will be deceiving the public." Saint Helena is the subject of a BHA investigation in the wake of her victory at Southwell after being backed from 6-1 to 11-10. The mare was making her handicap debut over hurdles, having failed to make the frame in seven previous starts since joining Best, and was originally due to be partnered by Rhys Flint, who at that point had not had a ride this season. Quinn said: "Jim Best and Gay Kelleway were two of a small handful of trainers who had been operating with non-runner rates above the thresholds throughout 2013, and who were written to in May to inform them that, should their ratio of non-runners not drop below the threshold, their right to self-certify may be withdrawn for the remainder of 2014. "Having reviewed their non-runner rates after the further three-month period, it has been determined they both continue to operate above the threshold levels. As such it is the BHA's view they are continuing to abuse the self-certification system and they should have this privilege withdrawn for the remainder of 2014. "The thresholds have been set significantly higher than the average non-runner rate, and the vast majority of trainers are able to operate well below these thresholds, so in the view of the BHA there is no excuse to be producing non-runners at this rate." She added: "The action taken is the result of an initiative by the BHA to regulate rules regarding non-runners on a more robust basis, as part of a wider focus on safeguarding field sizes and to protect the interests of the punter. "The consequence for the trainers is that they must now operate in the same manner as all trainers would have done before the privilege of self-certification was introduced."
Maybe UK should do as they do in France (ie you bet on the stable, not the horse). Then if a trainer or owner thinks a horse shouldn't run they just withdraw it and the entrance fees are forfeited so no need to introduce a fine. No betting affected on the stable's horses and Rule 4 takes care of the rest. Entry fees could be refunded if a vet declares the horse unfit to run.
So when you read the words "vets certificate" its a load of bollocks. Any trainer in the country could get his vet to write a certificate. Are you telling me Nicky Hemdersons vet wouldn't sign one up? Joke, and victimisation of a couple of smaller trainers who are no worse than the big boys with their antics!
Looks like they gave him every chance to comply. The bit where he complains about having to deceive punters did make me laugh.
The statistics don't show that do they? Either he has a bunch of sickly horses or he does use the rules to his advantage. What is a couple of hundred quid to get a horse signed off anyway? If its not eaten up, that is surely better than running it wrong?
Presumably it's not that he withdrew too many horses that's the real problem. As I see it, the real problem is that he cheated the bookies and the punters by entering a horse with AP on top that was odds on, slapping a load of money on the 6/1 stable mate that had a complete novice aboard then withdrawing the fav and switching jockeys. Stunk of a real fiddle. Having stable mates priced up as one would have avoided that as all punters of the withdrawn horse would have been on the winner. There should be no rules that restricts a trainer/owner from withdrawing a horse if it's in the interests of the horse's welfare. They have paid the entry fee which they will forfeit. Maybe some of these other trainers are not withdrawing them when they should.
Quinn said: "Jim Best and Gay Kelleway were two of a small handful of trainers who had been operating with non-runner rates above the thresholds throughout 2013, and who were written to in May to inform them that, should their ratio of non-runners not drop below the threshold, their right to self-certify may be withdrawn for the remainder of 2014. "Having reviewed their non-runner rates after the further three-month period, it has been determined they both continue to operate above the threshold levels. As such it is the BHA's view they are continuing to abuse the self-certification system and they should have this privilege withdrawn for the remainder of 2014. "The thresholds have been set significantly higher than the average non-runner rate, and the vast majority of trainers are able to operate well below these thresholds, so in the view of the BHA there is no excuse to be producing non-runners at this rate."
So they set a threshold. What is all this self certification about? If it's anything to do with obtaining a refund then all certifications should be by a vet. The owner pays the entry fees and should have every right to withdraw and forfeit the entry fees whenever they want. Any idea why there needs to be a threshold Nass, or anyone? As for betting public, they should be irrelevant in deciding whether a horse runs or not. Fiddling/cheating is another subject and should be dealt with accordingly. As far as I'm concerned, paying an entry fee is buying the right to run; not committing to run. I can't understand why BHA have to be involved in non runners.
I guess that the BHA threshold is to show where trainers are misusing the self certificate method of withdrawing a horse. As mentioned in other locations, they could withdraw because of the ground and the like or get a vet to sign the certificate. I struggle with this one because they are treating certain yards with contempt, but it is because of the yards way of working that it occurs. Racing is always going to have people working around the system, after all it is about money. BHA hold the integrity of the sport, and thus they have to be involved with non runners.
I don't understand what integrity has to do with non runners. If the owner decides to pull his horse I don't see why it should be questioned. The only problem I can see is cheating on the betting front but that should be a separate watch with penalties imposed as that can happen with NRs under the threshold. I've just had a look at the rules and some comments on the rules. Three major points cropped up. 1. Riders lose their riding fees if their mount becomes a NR. Well they shouldn't, as in Australia. 2. There was a large instance of withdrawals of badly drawn horses on tracks with a clear draw bias. That's a difficult one as it is clearly indicating that horses are being withdrawn because their chance of winning has been diminished. If it is that clear then maybe such tracks should have the number of runners limited so as to give all horses an equal chance, or (joking of course) those favoured by the draw should carry extra weight to nullify the draw advantage. Maybe trainers should avoid entering at tracks where there is such a bias, if their intention is to win. My take on such tracks, if my horse was "ready to win", would be to enter at two meetings and run in the race with the best chance. If I wanted to improve the handicap mark (downwards) a bad draw could be quite handy. 3. Non runners have a negative effect on off course betting which, in turn, reduces the levy revenue. What, is there conclusive evidence of this? Surely this is peanuts compared to what they lose from tax avoidance. Sort that out, I say. In summary I think the BHA have come up with a stupid rule to prevent horses being withdrawn when they should be looking at why they invented the rule and come up with a more appropriate method of dealing with whatever the problems are.
Jim Best has clearly done the worng thing - he should have run horses who were not fit and then when soemthing dreadful happeene shrug his shoulders and say "well at least I havenlt cheated the public"... It wonlt surprise anyopne on here to know i wholheartedly endorse stick's comment about Nicky henderson.
"6.3 The Authority may reject any certificate signed by a Veterinary Surgeon who is 6.3.1 the Owner of the horse, 6.3.2 the Trainer of the horse, or 6.3.3 a Person shown in the Register of Stable Employee Names as being employed by the Trainer. " What a feeble attempt. As if a vet in the trainer's pocket is likely to be employed by the trainer
