Putting aside whether Hannah jumped or was pushed ( and why most of her owners declined to let their horses go to the new yard), there remains a serious question regarding the now farcical situation over point to point trainers (keepers).
A quick scan through the entries so far this season confirms that over 50% of pointers are now being sent out from licensed yards.
Some are dual operations such as Ellis or Rowley.
Others are run under the name of a staff member.
And some are leased to staff as part of their remuneration.
For example I know of one trainer who spent most of the season running horses under the name of a staff member who was no longer employed and was actually living over 100 miles away.
Most of us would agree that in order to have sufficient horses and jockeys the sport is now dependent upon licensed yards and whilst the romantic ideal of the genuine amateur is appealing, that horse has already bolted..... despite the well publicised gate!
The main losers here are the general public that like to have a bet especially when the racecard is providing misleading stats. You might be forgiven for dismissing a runner whose trainer has only had a handful of runners with no winners but if you knew that the yard had sent out 3 winners under rules in the past week you might look more closely.
Some might say that the sport has never really bothered about the paying public and they should just enjoy their picnic and stick to £2 ew on the one with pretty colours.
Currently anyone can be a ptp keeper and there isn't even any need to provide any proof of identity or existence. Bloke down the pub called Barry who has never touched a horse can put name on hunters cert with no checks in place.
Seems blindingly obvious that there needs to be at the very least a licensing and registration process which doesn't have to be costly or require a great deal of administration. Just a simple application form that includes declaration of relevant information such as any formal relationship with licensed trainers and details of keepers business.
Key elements of this information could then be put in the public domain and provide some welcome transparency.
Yes there will always be loopholes but I can't imagine that any genuine ptp trainer would object, in fact I suspect that they would welcome a levelling of the playing field.
In the past the objection to formalising ptp trainer status is that it might discourage the small keeper/owner trainer. Seems that there are now very few of these with many having been driven away by pro participants.
Not so long ago the rules were changed to make the keeper accountable to the stewards wereas previously it had been the owner. Surely this can only work if there is some form of licensing in place.
My own view is that a blind eye will continue to be turned, until something goes amiss then we will be hit with draconian measures requring substantial licensing fees that no doubt get passed on immediately to owners....
So this Mr Glass.......who do you think owns it ? Paul Nicholls or John Gane ?? If you get where I am going with this..............................
Fantastic achievement by Ellen Wylie yesterday......
Only ever had 2 runners previously but trained a double including Lord Ashton of Hyde Gold Cup and now on a 75% strike rate.
Now transpires that Ms Wylie is the secretary at Max Comley racing ( who are now taking the credit for the 2 winners yesterday)
FFS can't the PPA et al see that this systematic name changing is misleading the the public and almost certainly against the rules of racing. Makes a mockery of the whole trainer\keeper thing, not to mention the fact that we are expected to pay £100 + per annum for access to information that is obviously fictitious.
Not having a go at Max Comley just the system. Although no doubt someone will claim that the secretary keeps the horses in her garden shed and look after them in her lunch break.
Its great to see them supporting P2P, but stick to pointing guys and leave the Hunter Chasing to proper amateur yards I say!
Seems relevant to the discussion.
Makes sense to me - there's no difference in the actual cost of training a pointer or a rules horse, but none of the same protections like you say. I think we've come to the same conclusion, i.e that Rules trainers just need to be visible, because we're too far down the road to properly prohibit them taking part...
Ben,
By my calculations the dual yards Ellis, Rowley Sheppard, Hills etc account for the biggest single segment of the total pool of pointers. Bearing in mind that we are only talking about circa 1500 certs and a percentage of those will only run in hunterchases.
I've no doubt that in many cases the BHA guidelines are being met, but those are hardly challenging to meet.
Training is a team effort and backroom staff play a big role as do facilities and being able to work horses against a variety of rated stablemates.
Does anyone really think that Nicky Henderson is personally supervising the 110 rated novice hurdler that is never going to be more than a moderate handicapper?
At one time I was firmly opposed to licensed trainers being involved in pointing but we are now too far down the track. The only option is imo to acknowledge what is really happening and put some simple measures in place that will provide a degree of transparency.
Looking at it from a totally different perspective.... a pointer in training is now costing more than £10k per season. There is nothing in place to ensure that professional standards are adhered to or arbitrate in event of a dispute other than civil law. If there was a simple licensing scheme in place then that could be backed by a code of conduct and a trade federation that could have positive influence on the sport.
It's a really good point (in my opinion) HJ and one that troubles me greatly!
Does that 50% include the Ellis yard and Newman yards? I'm by no means asking you to get the calculator out, but it would really interesting to isolate the yards that are genuinely just training them and sending them out in the name of the cousin of the feed man, and see what % they account for.
Having been to and had an involvement in the Newman and Ellis yards, for example - I can say with confidence that the guidelines from the BHA are being met and they are treated as separate. Gina and Josh factually are training the horses, but it would be silly to suggest that training on any yard isn't a team effort, or a partnership at the very least. That was my argument for dual trainer names previously. The reason that can't happen escapes my poor memory.
I think the key point is that we need better transparency full stop. I would have 20% of the historic knowledge of most on this forum, but I am a) not actually thick despite what Sam says b) fairly well caught up with what's going on across the country. I am hesitant before having a bet for this very reason, amongst others - so what chance does the more casual follower of the sport have?
I take the points in the comments thus far that the processes are in place to try and stop the obvious occurring, but given that everyone knows that it is, is it simply just time for a rule change? It seems that the options in extreme binary form are basically 1. Clamp down 2. Accept and make visible? Option 1, would leave us short of a lot of horses - but how many?! 🤔
There is a (badly worded) section of the hunter certificate where owners have to declare a familial connection if their horse’s keeper is a licensed trainer. (Attached below).
It seems to me (as ‘keepers’ are now an accepted part of the equation) that it would not be difficult for keepers to have to declare a familial or professional connection with licensed trainer if there is one. An easily accessible directory of keepers should include the name of the licensed trainer if there is such a connection. Of course there may be those who try to be covert about the connection but what point would there be and a nice fat fine for anyone accidentally (or not) failing to declare the connection will probably deter most.
The BHA spends a lot of time talking about integrity and openness and really needs to step up on this one because it is as much on their patch as it is on the PPA’s.
Not a case of bravery Dom HJ has raised some very valid points that need addressing and if anyone has got comments please make them here the “Forum” that’s what we are here for !!
great headliner, who's brave enough to comment ?
What a great post that should encourage much discussion