When placing a bet on horse racing, most punters are happy to accept their fate. Most will be delighted if they win, disappointed if they lose, but such is life, and we move on to the next race. However, what all punters expect and hope for, is to receive a fair roll of the dice. When laying down our hard-earned cash on the latest noble beast to win our betting vote, as a bare minimum, we assume that the horse in question will be trying to win the race. Of course, in this regard, the responsibility lies not with the horse but rather those in control of dictating its level of performance – the trainer and jockey and possibly the owner too in certain circumstances.
Sadly, whilst it may be safe to trust a horse, humans are rather less reliable. Each year, a – thankfully small – number of runners arrive at the racecourse with no intention of attempting to come home in front. In racing jargon, such runners are referred to as “non-triers”. This issue has the potential to cast a large shadow over the sport at a time when it can least afford for its reputation to be tarnished, given the vast competition in the sports and entertainment industry in the 21st century. However, it is worth pointing out that underhand sporting activity isn’t restricted to horse racing, with cycling, football, tennis, athletics, and more all suffering from the stain of corruption over the years.
Why Do It?
Whilst rare, non-triers crop up frequently enough that rules exist within the Official Rules of Racing to deal with the issue. Designed to discourage the practice and punish offenders, these rules and their breaches have hit the headlines more often than would be hoped for in recent times. Here we take a closer look at this unethical practice, examining the rules and punishments that are in place, and picking out a few headline-grabbing examples.
The first question is, why would any owner, trainer, or jockey go to the trouble of taking part in a race they had no intention of trying to win? After all, winners receive the bulk of the prize money on offer – of which the owner, trainer, and jockey all receive a percentage. Then, of course, there is the issue of maintaining the integrity of the sport, which provides them with a living, not to mention the responsibility to the legions of punters who place their bets in good faith.
Nevertheless, the combination of all of the above is not enough to prevent unscrupulous individuals from attempting to cheat the system. And, in general, when they do so, it will usually be for one of the following two reasons.
To Protect or Lower a Handicap Rating
All horses are given a handicap rating by the Official Handicapper, designed to reflect their ability. In handicap races, this rating determines how much weight each horse will carry in relation to the competition – the higher the rating, the more weight they will carry, and vice versa. Rather than being set in stone, these handicap ratings are continually adjusted throughout the season, going up following a good performance and down following one or more sub-par efforts.
Now, consider an owner or trainer who plans to target a runner at a valuable handicap to be run later in the season, but believes that the horse’s handicap rating may be too high to enable it to win. The easiest way to lower a rating to a more advantageous level is to ensure that the horse puts in one or more poor performances at the track. In such a situation, the temptation is there for some trainers to sacrifice the chance of winning a small prize for a better chance at landing a big pot down the line.
Whilst ethically dubious, the above practice is far from unknown in the sport. Craftier trainers may run their horses over the wrong trip or on unsuitable ground in an effort to mask their true ability. Others may stick to ideal conditions but issue instructions to the rider that prevent the horse from winning.
Betting-Related Financial Gain
Whereas the process of protecting a handicap mark is generally reluctantly accepted as being part of the mystique of racing, the second reason for a non-trier is universally condemned. Whilst it is possible to win a decent sum by winning a race, individuals connected with some runners – owners, trainers, jockeys, or corrupting outside influences – may decide that it is far easier to benefit financially by ensuring that the horse doesn’t win.
The advent of the betting exchanges brought many positives to racing and betting in general, but they also cracked open a window to possible corruption. Unlike at a traditional bookmaker, where you may only back a horse to win or place, betting exchanges allow customers to act as the bookmaker and lay the horse.
This can obviously be a lucrative pursuit if you know for sure that the horse will be falling firmly into the “non-trier” category. What’s more, in low-level events where prize money is meagre, it would be very easy for potential betting winnings to far outweigh the cash on offer for the horse winning. In fairness to the leading exchanges, they do make strong efforts to police this area through customer tracking. Nevertheless, whenever a non-trier is suspected, reports of suspicious betting patterns on the betting exchanges are rarely too far away.
The Rules
Well aware that non-triers exist within the sport and of the possible reasons behind such runners, it falls to the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) to police this issue. The rules surrounding non-triers were updated in the year 2000 and divided the offence into two levels of severity. The aim of this was to differentiate between non-triers arising due to negligence and those resulting from a more deliberate act.
Rule 156
Turning first to the negligence end of the spectrum, Rule 156 reads, “Where, in the opinion of the Stewards or the Stewards of the Jockey Club, a horse has not achieved its best possible placing because one of the circumstances detailed below arose by reason of an error of judgement on the part of its Rider, the Rider shall be deemed in breach of this Rule and guilty of an offence.” The referred-to circumstances are:
- Failing to ride out approaching the finish by dropping hands, such as seen in this example from Chelmsford in 2023.
- Mistaking the race distance and either riding a finish too early or failing to ride a finish, as demonstrated by Neil Callan at Kempton in 2022.
- Taking the wrong course. Over to you Brendan Powell.
Whilst disappointing to all involved, the situations outlined in Rule 156 reside within the realm of human error, which exists in all areas of life. More deliberate motives fall under the remit of Rule 157 – “Where, in the opinion of the Stewards or the Stewards of the Jockey Club, a Rider has failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures throughout the race to ensure that his horse is given a full opportunity to win or of obtaining the best possible placing with the intention of concealing the true ability of the horse or affecting the result of the race the Rider shall be deemed in breach of this Rule and guilty of an offence.”
How to Uncover a Non-Trier
When attempting to differentiate between wilful and negligent non-triers, the stewards will interview all concerned in an effort to answer questions such as:
- Was the horse asked to produce a substantial effort?
- Was the horse ridden to obtain the best finishing position throughout the race?
- Did the rider take all reasonable measures to ensure the horse achieved the best finishing position?
- If the answer to any of the above questions is “No”, has the jockey or trainer been able to provide an acceptable reason?
Despite the best efforts of the racing authorities, it may not always be possible to come down on one side of the deliberate/negligent fence. An additional rule (Rule 158) has, therefore, been included in the rule book to cover those incidents where the stewards cannot decide whether a non-trier came about due to human error or was a deliberate act.
Trainers Not Off the Hook
Considering that many jockeys are given riding instructions by the trainer, it would seem unfair to lay all of the blame for non-trier incidents at the feet of the rider. It is, therefore, only right that a trainer’s conduct is covered under rule 155 of the non-trier’s section – the gist of which states that all trainers:
- Must provide instructions which give the horse the best chance of winning.
- Must not give instructions detrimental to a horse’s chance.
- Must not attempt to prevent a horse from winning a race by any means.
If it is decided that a jockey has breached either rule 157 or 158, the horse’s trainer will also be found guilty, unless able to satisfy the stewards that the instructions they gave did not contravene the rules.
Punishments
Whether negligent, deliberate, or somewhere in between, any jockey or trainer found to be in breach of the non-trier rule can expect a punishment, usually in the form of a fine or ban. The magnitude of the sanction will be determined by the severity of the offence.
Trainers tend to be hit with a fine if found guilty. Fines begin at an entry level of £5,000 but may be reduced to £3,000 under mitigating circumstances or raised if deemed appropriate. The biggest names in the game have not been immune to falling foul of the non-trier rule, with 10-time British Champion Sir Michael Stoute slapped with an £8,500 fine for his part in the Floribund incident in 2006.
For guilty riders, a ban is usually deemed the most suitable punishment. The length of the ban can range from 10 days, such as that handed to Liam Heard for his ride aboard Little Rory Mac in 2019, to the massive 10-year suspension given to Adam Carter for his 2017 performance aboard Blazeofenchantment and related links to the suspicious betting activity surrounding the race.
Betting Implications of Non-Triers
Whilst the knowledge that non-trier offenders will be held accountable is reassuring for punters, it does nothing to compensate those unfortunate enough to have backed such a runner.
Many punters reasonably claim that they should have their stake refunded on any runner subsequently found in breach of the non-trier rule, as having placed their bet, they never had any chance of winning. However, other than as a gesture of goodwill, bookmakers are not obliged to (and almost always don’t) return stakes as a result of such incidents.
Non-Trier Hits the Headlines in 2023
Whether or not a horse failed to achieve the best winning position due to negligence or a more deliberate motive will always be open to interpretation. However, some cases clearly lean towards the deliberate end of the spectrum. Falling firmly into that category is the incident which hogged the racing headlines in early July 2023.
Worcester 5th July 2023 – Dylan Kitts & Hillsin
When the betting opened ahead of the “Wacky Weekender Festival Pitchcroft 21st-23rd July Conditional Jockeys’ Handicap Hurdle”, the Chris Honour-trained Hillsin was initially supported into 2/1 favouritism but soon began to drift in the market. By the time the race started, Hillsin was out to the relatively huge price of 11/1. To see a horse shorten and then drift is by no means unheard of in the racing world, but alarm bells soon begin to ring when the runner in question puts in a performance like this.
Apparently instructed to “drop out early” and “take his time before mounting a late challenge”, it appears that young rider, Dylan Kitts, was waiting until after the finish line to become vigorous with his smooth travelling mount! Following a lengthy investigation, the BHA were unconvinced by the explanations put forward, taking the severe step of suspending Kitts’s licence until further notice and banning the rider from attending all British racecourses.
The fact that Kitts had already served a 14-day suspension for a similar offence likely contributed towards his extreme punishment. Honour emerged unscathed, but Hillsin received a 40-day ban and was removed from the trainer’s care by owner, Alan Clegg, who had allegedly insisted that Kitts take the ride for the race in question.