the paddock portal

---

Horse racing has long been targeted by animal rights protesters. No race more so than the Grand National. But this has been taken to the next level recently with the advent of Animal Rising, a British activist movement formed in 2019 and initially called Animal Rebellion, an offshoot of Extinction Rebellion. The movement has been grabbing the headlines recently with its protests against horse racing. Basically, they want it stopped and the Grand National, a horse race that attracts five to six hundred million viewers worldwide, has been their prime target. This year (2023) one hundred and twenty protestors were detained before the race having attempted to disrupt the race. They did manage to delay the race by fifteen minutes causing some horses to ‘boil over’ at the start.  Ultimately this led to some horses charging down to the first fence far too fast. Hill Sixteen, a horse that had never fallen having jumped 398 obstacles over twenty seven races, including the Aintree fences themselves, sadly did fall and broke his neck. The trainer firmly believes that the delay caused by the Animal Rising protestors led to the death of his horse. Their actions had actually caused the kind of fatality that they were protesting about.
They subsequently attempted to disrupt the Scottish Grand National and the Epsom Derby. An injunction was granted to The Jockey Club by the High Court beforehand ruling that protestors causing disruption to the race would be liable for fines, damages, or imprisonment. Amen to that. Long overdue. As it happens, at least one person managed to get onto the racecourse whilst the race was on. He was swiftly removed.
At recent visits to Hexham and Newton Abbot racecourses, we’ve encountered either increased security or protestors with their ‘Cruelty is not Sport’ placards outside the racecourses encouraging passers-by to toot their horns if they want horse racing banned. I’ve also witnessed this outside Worcester racecourse. How provocative is that? Obviously, people attending these meetings are pro-horse racing so, to stand there and effectively rub their noses in it by saying “We’re trying to ban your sport” is, to me, a recipe for conflict. Personally, whilst I agree with the right to protest peacefully, it should be away from the racecourse not where there’s the potential to incite. 

So what do they want? They claim that a horse dies on a racetrack every other day (actually it’s every two and a half days. This equates to just 0.2% of all runners) and so want to stop horse racing altogether. They believe it to be cruel and say that the horses are being exploited. They say that they care about the horses, want to protect them from harm, and want them to live long and happy lives. Don’t we all? They want all racehorses to be retired and to be 'rewilded'. I agree that they probably do have an argument with the exploitation claim. At the end of the day, they are raced to win races, money and to entertain us. We can't deny that. A certain Irish National Hunt trainer has not helped the sport in this area recently either by having a photo taken posing and smiling whilst sitting on the deceased Morgan on the gallops, by showing no emotion or sadness whatsoever when interviewed over the sad fatality of his promising Mighty Potter at Fairyhouse racecourse earlier this year, or by his alleged 'involvement' in some of his horses, including the classy Vyta Du Roc, ending up at a backstreet slaughterhouse near Swindon as documented in the 2021 BBC Panorama 'The dark side of horse racing' program. Thankfully he is not representative of the huge majority of horse racing trainers, or we really would be up shit creek! Whilst nobody can doubt his brilliance as a trainer, his horses really do seem, to me, like a commodity to him. Animal Rising is wrong when they play the ‘cruelty’ card. The thoroughbred horse is not like your normal domestic horse, it’s a breed that has been bred over hundreds of years to run and jump. That’s what they do. They are extremely high maintenance and take a LOT of looking after. They're treated like kings/queens whilst in training by their yards. 

Animal Rising has no credible plan for what would happen to the 50,000 horses in the UK currently in training or at stud farms. One suggestion of theirs is that they should be rehomed in sanctuaries. There are only a handful of sanctuaries in this country as it is, nowhere near enough to accommodate that many. Also, most thoroughbreds are younger horses. Considering that they may live well into their twenties, who will pay for this? I actually used to help out at an ex-racehorse rehabilitation centre but that had to close due to lack of funding, so that is definitely an area that needs to be looked at by the industry.
Another idea of theirs is to ‘rewild’ 70% of all agricultural land in the UK and Ireland and release animals onto this land. I presume they also mean thoroughbred racehorses by this. The Dutch have already tried this with catastrophic results. As the herbivore population soared (due to mild winters and a lack of natural predators) trees died resulting in a decline in the wild bird population. Deer, horses, and cattle had to be slaughtered as they were starving to death. Basically, there wasn’t enough food to sustain them. Protesters over the experiment ended up throwing bales of hay at them. So there's the proof. Utter madness.

Kevin Blake, an ambassador for our sport and founder of StandUpForRacing, points out that you cannot just stop horse racing without having a structured plan in place as to what would happen to the many thoroughbred horses in the UK. They could not just be put out in a field and forgotten about. The Colts would kill each other. He says that it would be the greatest equine tragedy in history. By banning horse racing Animal Rising would actually cause the extinction of a species, the thoroughbred horse. Surely this completely goes against their whole ethos? The fact is a horse living its life in a field has exactly the same mortality rate as a horse in training. This has been researched and proven. Horse racing is constantly working to make the sport safer for the horses. Fence modifications, withdrawing horses on veterinary advice, abandoning races and meetings based on ground/weather conditions, and amendments to the whip rule are just a few of those areas that have been addressed in recent years to improve their welfare but the risk cannot be completely eliminated. And that goes for anything in life. Even crossing the road. It's not an answer that will appease Animal Rising though. No racing, no deaths would be their answer. They're not bothered how well the horses are treated whilst in training and they're not too fussed about visiting racing yards either, so we can't use those as a retort. Sometimes you just can't change the uneducated view of fanatics. Nobody in horse racing wants to see these lovely animals harmed, even Animal Rising accepts that. We just need to make sure that our house is in order so that the opinions and views of this minority group do not gain momentum and sweep through the masses - most of whom have no interest in racing and would jump on the 'ban racing' bandwagon based on the misinformation fed by organisations such as Animal Rising.

We do need to look at what happens to racehorses once their racing days are over. I've always said this. At the moment it's obviously a massive grey area and open to abuse. Rehoming and retraining of racehorses is at an all-time high but there’s still not enough data to know exactly how many. Unfortunately, due to physical and mental issues, not all racehorses are able to be retrained though. These should not just be passed on to someone else as their problem, ultimately ending up neglected or abandoned…..or in a seedy abattoir. Kevin Blake suggests that, even though it’s not a pleasant subject to address, they should be humanely euthanised, but only when there is no other option. Horse passports need to be more detailed too.  Although they show dates of birth and death, owners, and any medication, I’m not sure that it lists all movements, causes of death, or the reason why a horse has ended up at an abattoir. It should have. Transparency is paramount. One of the claims of Animal Rising is that 50% of horses found in slaughterhouses had a racing passport. If that’s true it’s pretty damning and needs serious investigation.

We need to stand up and unite against this Animal Rising movement. Nodding our heads and doing nothing could result in the end of the sport we love. I urge you to join Kevin Blake, Nick Luck, Tom Scudamore, Patrick Mullins, and others by following StandUpForRacing on Twitter/X, Facebook, Instagram (or whatever platform you can find it on) in standing up for the horse racing and breeding industry in Europe and correcting misinformation. Or you can contact them at standupforracing@gmail.com.

The BHA actually has a great set of short films highlighting horse welfare. Check them out on this link: https://www.britishhorseracing.com/regulation/horse-welfare-british-racing/find-out-why/

and they have also launched a campaign on the eve of the 2024 Grand National to build public trust around horse welfare via their HORSEPWR digital hub primarily aimed at the 'floating voters' - those who haven't made up their minds about the race and would like to be better informed before they do. The anti's be anti's no matter what is done. However, at the time of writing (a week before the event), Animal Rising has issued a statement saying that they do not intend to protest at this year's Grand National.

There's been much conversation, both on television and in the racing press, about low attendances, especially at larger horse racing meetings such as Chester, York, and Newmarket. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see why that is.

Racecourse Entrance prices: Some racecourses do offer exceptional value but some are ridiculously expensive, particularly larger fixtures such as the Cheltenham Festival. And there's no correlation as to who owns the racecourse either. Some are Jockey Club racecourses, some are ARC-owned, and some are independently owned.

Racecourse Food / Drink: A huge factor. At nearly every racecourse we've visited, the food has been massively overpriced. Going to a posh restaurant would be cheaper! The food isn't even that good either. For example, we paid nearly fifteen quid for fish and chips at Warwick racecourse at the end of 2023...and that was from a mobile food vendor. The chips were oven chips and the fish was small and overcooked. In short, too many racecourses palm us off with poor-quality food at hefty prices. Thankfully, there are exceptions to this.

We're not big drinkers so are not as affected by the ridiculous prices of alcoholic drinks as other racegoers might be. Jockey Club racecourses seem to be the biggest culprits here with a pint of lager or Guinness at their racecourses now costing just a few pence shy of eight quid. That's disgraceful and is fleecing their customers. They point their finger at inflation for the high prices. However, at the time of writing, inflation is back down to 2%, so will they drop their prices accordingly? Yeh, we all know the answer to that.

Cashless Policy: Another factor is the non-acceptance of cash at most race meetings. You can't even pay cash for a coffee for God's sake! A huge number of racegoers, especially at midweek meetings, are likely to be older, possibly retired racegoers and many of them prefer to pay by cash, not by card. There was a switch over to card-only payments during the height of Covid but things are back to normal now so that can't be used as an excuse. Bring back cash. Give us a choice. ARC and Jockey Club racecourses are the biggest wrong-doers here.

The 'no socks and skinny trousers brigade': As keen racegoers and lovers of our great sport for many years, one thing that neither of us likes is the growing number of groups of lads walking around with pints of beer in their hands. These usually (but not always) tend to be loud and foul-mouthed. They have little interest in the races themselves and, in our opinion, are driving away the true racegoers who are the bread and butter for most racecourses. Yet racecourses seem to encourage them with discounted entry prices for younger customers. Yes, short term it will fill the coffers but long term it's a road to disaster. These people will not be going racing on a wet Wednesday in winter.

The Cost of Living: it goes without saying. Huge hikes in petrol/diesel/food costs have surely had a major effect. You practically have to be stinking rich to afford a full tank of fuel these days. With less disposable income, 'luxury' items such as a day at the races have naturally had to be put on the back burner.

Number of Horse Racing Meetings: There are far too many race meetings. We're all about choice but, taking a quick look at the racing calendar, at this time of year (autumn/winter) there are, on average, five meetings in the UK every day. That has surely got to have an effect. And that figure increases during the summer months. We say there should be fewer meetings but those meetings should have a minimum of eight races giving us racegoers better value for money. What income racecourses might lose hosting fewer meetings, they'll recoup with higher attendances at the meetings that they do host (it's the law of supply and demand), and they'll save money on staffing, energy, and other associated costs of hosting those lost meetings. 

Poor Number of Runners:

Time and time again on our visits to racecourses there are races where, due to the poor number of horses entered in that race, it just isn't an attractive betting proposition - especially when one of the runners is an odds-on favourite. Is it any wonder that racegoers aren't flooding through the turnstiles? This happens too often and can be blamed on the high number of fixtures that we have in this country.

Six-race Meetings:

The BHA has reduced the number of races per year but not the number of fixtures. Due to the smaller number of races, racecourses cannot stage more than six races per meeting during the months of July and August, unless the total prize money exceeds £200K. This affects small racecourses more than the larger, richer racecourses but more importantly, for us racegoers, it represents abysmal value for money, especially when you see that racecourses in Europe and America provide their visitors with eight or nine races per meeting.

We all want to be entertained, but not at any price. Racecourses, and the BHA, need to realise that racegoers want value for money, not to feel as though they're being fleeced. As we keep on saying...a happy customer is a repeat customer.

There are so many different types of bets offered by bookmakers so we’ve tried to list them. Most of them probably won’t be available from your independent on-course bookie - it’s more than likely going to be High Street bookmakers such as William Hill and Ladbrokes, and they’re likely to have dedicated slips for some of them. Even online bookmakers such as BET365 won’t offer most of the bets listed below, and some are unique to the Tote too. 

Many of these betting options are extremely complicated, with many permutations. If you wish to calculate your winnings, there are numerous free online bet calculators to aid you with it. We recommend this one: Free Bet Calculator.
 

Single
A bet to win only. No return if the selection fails to win

Place
A bet that produces a return on your original stake if the selection wins or is placed (to a pre-determined number of positions). The return depends on a fixed proportion of the ‘win’ odds of the selection (usually 1/5th - see separate article on each-way betting).

Each Way
Each-way bets can be placed on a single event, or several events/races (see separate Each-way betting article for a more detailed explanation)

Betting Without Favourite
This bet is offered when the odds of the favourite for the event/race are so short that the event/race is not an attractive proposition to place a bet on. So bookmakers offer odds on all other participants in the event/race to ‘win’ if the favourite were not there…in effect, finishing second to the favourite. As long as the selection beats the rest, then you’ll get a return - even if the selection beats the favourite, so you get two bites of the cherry. However, the odds reflect this - they’re shorter.

Not to Win
As it suggests, a selection is backed NOT to win. If the selection is a fancied horse i.e. near the top of the betting, then the odds will be more enticing, to reflect this. Likewise, outsiders are likely to have shorter odds as they have a better chance of not winning.

Double
A bet on two selections in two separate events/races. Both selections must win to get a return on the unit staked.

Treble
A bet on three selections in three separate events/races. All three selections must win to gain a return on the original unit stake.

Straight Forecast / Exacta (Tote)
A bet on selections in the same event/race to finish first and second in the correct order
For example, Selection A to finish first, Selection B to finish second.

Reverse Forecast
A bet of two selections in the same event/race to finish first and second in any order. It's the same as an each-way bet insomuch that there are two unit stakes required.

Combination Forecast
A bet of three or more selections in the same event/race to finish first and second in the correct order. It’s the same as the same number of individual Straight Forecasts (i.e. a three-selection Combination Bet is the same as three Straight Forecast bets and so requires 3 x the unit stake, and so on).

Tricast / Trifecta (Tote)
A bet of three selections to finish first, second, and third in the correct order in horse races where eight or more runners have been declared to run, and at least six of them do run. This bet requires only a single unit stake.

Combination Tricast
As with the Combination Forecast bet, however, this is a bet of three or more selections to finish first, second, and third in the correct order. This bet requires multiple unit stakes (depending on the number of selections).

Placepot (Tote)
A bet of one selection from each of the first six races at a specific race meeting, in a single day. If each selection finishes ‘placed’ then a share of the total ‘pool’ is won. The size of the pool depends on how many people have done the same Placepot.

Quadpot (Tote)
Much the same as a Placepot bet but, instead of picking a selection to ‘place’ in the first six races, selections must be made to ‘place’ in only four of the races at a specific race meeting, in a single day. These are races 3, 4, 5, and 6.

Jackpot (Tote)
Much the same as a Placepot bet but all six selections must finish first to win a share of the total pool.

Straight Superfecta
This bet requires four selections to finish first, second, third, and fourth in the correct order in any race.

Accumulator (Acca)
A bet of at least four selections (otherwise known as a four-fold) in four separate events/races. All must win to get a return. A five-fold accumulator is a bet of five selections in five separate events, and so on.

Yankee
This is a bet of four selections to win in four events/races and consists of eleven separate bets: 6 x doubles, 4 x trebles, and a 4-fold accumulator. At least two of the selections must win to get a return on the unit staked. You can also back your selections each-way, but that's an outlay of twice your unit stake.

Trixie
A bet of three selections to win in three different events/races consisting of four separate bets: 3 x doubles and a treble). At least two of the selections must win to get a return.

Patent
A bet of three selections to win in three events/races, consisting of seven separate bets: 3 x singles, 3 x doubles, and a treble. It’s similar to a Trixie but with the additional three single bets. At least one of the selections must win to get anything back on your original stake.

Canadian/Super Yankee
A bet of five selections to win in five events/races. It consists of twenty-six separate bets: 10 x doubles, 10 x trebles, 5 x 4-folds, and a 5-fold accumulator. At least two of the selections must win to get a return on your stake. You can also back your selections each way, but that's an outlay of twice your unit stake.

Heinz
A bet of six selections to win in six different events/races which consists of fifty-seven separate bets: 15 x doubles, 20 x trebles, 15 x 4-folds, 6 x 5-folds, and a 6-fold accumulator. Two selections must win to get a return on the unit stake. You can also back your selections each way, but that's an outlay of twice your unit stake.
It’s so-called after the Heinz Company slogan ‘57 varieties’.

Super Heinz
A seven-selection 'to win' bet on seven different events/races consisting of a total of one hundred and twenty separate bets: 21 x doubles, 35 x trebles, 35 x 4-folds, 21 x 5-folds, 7 x 6-folds, and a 7-fold accumulator. At least two of the selections must win to get any return back. You can also back your selections each way, but that's an outlay of twice your unit stake.

Goliath
A bet of 8 selections to win in eight events/races which consists of two hundred and forty-seven separate bets: 28 x doubles, 56 x trebles, 70 x 4-folds, 56 x 5-folds, 28 x 6-folds, 8 x 7-folds, and an 8-fold accumulator. A minimum of two selections must win to obtain a return on your unit stake. If you place a Goliath bet and, in the unlikely event that all eight selections win, treat yourself to a holiday in Bora Bora or, better still, buy me a Porsche. You can also back your selections each-way, but that's an outlay of twice your unit stake.

Lucky 15
A bet of four selections to win in four different events/races making fifteen separate bets (hence the Lucky ‘15’): 4 x single bets, 6 x doubles, 4 x trebles, and a 4-folds accumulator. At least one of the selections must win to get anything back from the original stake. You can also back your selections each-way, but that's an outlay of twice your unit stake.

Lucky 31
Pretty much the same as a Lucky 15 but this is a five-selection bet to win on five different events/races giving a total of thirty-one bets: 5 x singles, 10 x doubles, 10 x trebles, 5 x 4-folds, and a 5-fold accumulator. It’s similar to a Canadian/Super Yankee but with an additional five single bets. At least one of the selections must win to get a return on your stake. You can also back your selections each-way, but that's an outlay of twice your unit stake.

Lucky 63
A six selection bet to win, those six bets over six events/races, giving a total number of sixty-three separate bets: 6 x singles, 15 x doubles, 20 x trebles, 15 x 4-folds, 6 x 5-folds, and a 6-fold accumulator. At least one of those selections must win to guarantee a return. You can also back your selections each-way, but that's an outlay of twice your unit stake.

Alphabet
A bet of six selections to win in six different events/races - selections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. This bet is usually only found in horse racing and greyhound racing. Selections 1, 2, and 3 form a Patent. Selections 4, 5, and 6 form a second Patent. Selections 2, 3, 4, and 5 form a Yankee, and selections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 form a 6-fold accumulator making a total number of twenty-six bets (2 x Patents at seven bets each, a Yankee at eleven bets, plus the accumulator). At least one selection has to win to get a return.

Up and Down
A bet of two selections to win in two events/races - consisting of two single bets. If the first selection wins, then the original stake is then placed as an additional single bet on the second selection. If that selection also wins, then the original stake is also placed on the first selection resulting in twice the winnings for just two stake units. However, if only one of the selections wins then you lose your stake.

Round Robin
A bet of three selections to win in three events/races giving ten separate bets: 3 x doubles, one treble, and 3 x ‘Up & Down’ bets (each consisting of two separate bets). It’s another bet that’s similar to a Trixie but with the three additional ‘Up & Down’ bets. A least one selection must win if you’re to get anything back at all.

Flag
A bet of four selections to win in four events/races giving twenty-three separate bets: 6 x doubles, 4 x trebles, 1 x 4-fold, and 6 x ‘Up & Down’ bets. It’s similar to a Yankee but with the additional six ‘Up & Down’ bets. At least one of the selections must win if you’re to get anything back.

Super Flag
A bet of five selections to win over five events/races totalling forty-six separate bets: 10 x doubles, 10 x trebles, 5 x 4-folds, a 5-fold, and ten ‘Up & Down’ bets. It’s a Canadian bet but with the additional ten ‘Up & Down’ bets. At least one selection has to win to obtain a return.

Super Heinz Flag
A bet of seven selections to win in seven events/races making one hundred and forty-one separate bets: 21 x doubles, 35 x trebles, 35 x 4-folds, 21 x 5-folds, 7 x 6-folds, a 7-fold accumulator, and twenty-one ‘Up & Down’ bets.

Goliath Flag
A bet of eight selections to win in eight different events/ races, consisting of two hundred and seventy-five separate bets: 28 x doubles, 56 x trebles, 70 x 4-folds, 56 x 5-folds, 28 x 6-folds, 8 x 7-folds, and an 8-fold accumulator, plus twenty-eight ‘Up & Down’ bets.

Rounder
A three-selection 'to win' bet on the outcome in three different events/races (i.e. A, B, and C). It consists of three single bets and three ‘Any To Come’ (ATC) double bets to the original stake.
For example:
£1 to win on A, ATC double on B and C
£1 to win on B, ATC double on A and C
£1 to win on C, ATC double on A and B

Roundabout
The same as the Rounder bet but the ATC doubles are to twice the original stake
For example:
£1 to win on A, £2 ATC double on B & C, etc etc

Union Jack
This is more of a novelty bet where a betting slip with a 3 x 3 grid is used for nine selections, consisting of eight trebles. All three selections in any line (vertically, horizontally, or diagonally) have to win to get a return. You can also back your selections each-way, but that's an outlay of twice your unit stake.

Single Stakes About
A bet on two different events/races which are combined to create two single bets, for a single stake. The first selection must return a minimum of the original stake to fund the second bet.

Double Stakes About
This bet comprises two selections and two bets. It’s similar to the Single Stakes About bet in that the first selection must win to fund the second bet.

Each-Way betting. It’s a nightmare so, if like us, you haven’t a clue what terms are offered and when, then hopefully this will clear it up for you.
 

• Fewer than 3 runners: No each-way offered. Win only

• 3 or 4 runners: Again win only (although some bookies may choose to offer 1/5th of the odds for 1st and 2nd places)

• 5 to 7 runners: 1/4 of the odds for 1st and 2nd places

• 8 or more runners: 1/5th of the odds for finishing 1st, 2nd or 3rd

• Handicap races with 12 to 15 runners: 1/4 of the odds for finishing 1st, 2nd, or 3rd (if more than three places are offered it's likely to be at 1/5th of the odds)

• Handicap races with more than 15 runners: 1/4 of the odds for finishing 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th (but if more than four places are offered it's likely to be at 1/5th of the odds)

Some bookies, in handicaps with large numbers of runners such as the Grand National or the Cambridgeshire, offer to pay out up to six places (and sometimes even more). These are online bookies in the main, so it’s always best to look around for the best offer.

Love them or hate them, on-course independent bookies are having a tough time of late. Online betting has taken off massively and now accounts for a huge slice of the betting cake leaving on-course bookies scratching around for the crumbs. Let's face it though, in the face of huge competition they're not exactly helping themselves, are they? I recently read that an independent bookie at Ffos Las was complaining that he'd only taken £1500 on a race day when he needs at least £4000 to break even. If things carried on like that he'd have to pack it in.

The thing is, we've all been to the races and walked along the many bookie pitches looking for the best odds, and they're nearly always the same...rubbish. There's no real incentive to place a bet with any particular one of them. And since the implementation of 1/5th of the odds, each-way betting is not as attractive an option as it once was. This surely has had an effect. And the ridiculous cashless policy that a lot of racecourses have now adopted is bound to have had an effect too. They're encouraging, or should I say, forcing racegoers to pay for literally everything by card so, naturally, racegoers are going to take less cash, yet most independent bookies only take cash! And even if that ever changes, who on earth is going to want to place a bet with an on-course bookie using a bloody debit card? Doing so online is completely different as you can transfer a lump sum to your account so that you're not having to use the debit card for every single bet. And credit card use for placing a bet is already a no-no.

But placing a bet online is so much more attractive (affordability checks aside). For a start, you can get the best odds guaranteed on bets placed after 8 am on the day of the race. And the odds are better in the first place. And there are other incentives like free bets and games to play for free where you can win cash. On-course bookies just can't compete with that. Also, when we were at Stratford-On-Avon races recently, my horse won but was later deemed to have interfered and was relegated to second place. On-course backers had to hold on to their bets during the stewards' inquiry, and after the result was decided, lost their bet. But the online betting company that I use (Bet365) still paid out. Myself and Cheg nearly always use our mobile phones to place bets (usually the day before) and rarely use an on-course bookie for those very reasons. Having said that, some racecourses, at larger meetings where the crowds are particularly large, have an intermittent internet connection. 

On-course bookies face an uncertain future, and we think there are too many at most of the racecourses that we've visited, but we wouldn't want to see none at all. What we would like to see the back of though, is this unpopular cashless policy. Nobody we've spoken to is in favour of it and shelving it would surely help on course bookies, but they really do need to find other ways of attracting racegoers to place a bet with them otherwise it's 'goodnight' to them.

In recent years, many British racecourses have adopted card payment-only policies, reflecting a broader trend toward cashless transactions. While this shift aims to streamline operations and enhance the customer experience, it brings both advantages and challenges for customers and the racecourses alike.

1. Enhanced Convenience: Card payments eliminate the need to carry cash, making it easier for customers to make purchases quickly. This convenience can lead to a more enjoyable experience, as attendees can focus on the racing without worrying about handling cash.
2. Increased Safety: A cashless environment reduces the risk of theft and loss associated with carrying cash. For racecourses, it minimizes the need for secure cash handling and reduces the risk of theft for staff.
3. Faster Transactions: Card payments often lead to quicker transaction times, reducing queues at the entry points, and food and beverage outlets. This efficiency can enhance the overall atmosphere and customer satisfaction.
4. Better Financial Tracking: Card transactions allow both customers and racecourses to track spending more effectively. This can help customers to manage their budgets while enabling racecourses to analyse sales data and improve services.
5. Hygiene and Health Considerations: In light of recent health concerns (i.e. Covid), cashless payments are seen as more hygienic. Reducing physical cash exchanges can help minimise the spread of germs.

1. Exclusion of Cash-Dependent Customers: Not all customers have access to credit or debit cards, or want them, which can exclude certain demographics, including those who prefer cash or may not have bank accounts. This can lead to a loss of potential customers for racecourses.
2. Transaction Fees: Both customers and racecourses may face fees associated with card transactions. For customers, some credit card companies may charge interest on balances, while debit card users might incur overdraft fees if they spend beyond their limits. For racecourses, processing fees can range from 1.5% to 3% per transaction, which may eat into profits.
3. Technical Issues: A reliance on technology means that any issues with card processing systems—such as outages or slow networks—can disrupt service. This can frustrate customers and lead to lost sales for the racecourse.
4. Potential for Overspending: The ease of card payments can lead some customers to spend more than they intended, as the psychological barrier of parting with cash is removed. This can result in financial strain for individuals who may not manage their budgets effectively.
5. Privacy Concerns: With card payments, there is often a digital trail that can raise privacy concerns for some customers. Customers may prefer cash transactions to keep their spending habits confidential.
6. Cyber Crime: Whilst abandoning cash helps to reduce theft (as cash is largely untraceable), data and cybersecurity issues are justifiably a worry with cyber-criminals frequently finding new ways to breach established security systems.

Is it legal to implement a Card Payment Only policy?

Yes, it is legal for British racecourses to implement a card-only payment policy. Businesses, including racecourses, have the right to determine their payment methods as long as they comply with consumer protection laws. While cash is still recognised as legal tender in the UK, businesses can choose to refuse it. To ensure compliance and avoid potential backlash, racecourses should communicate their policies clearly to customers, providing alternative options or assistance for those who may be affected by the cashless approach (like cash-to-card services where cash can be exchanged for a prepaid card). Whilst the latter is not a legal requirement, such measures can enhance customer satisfaction and inclusivity, helping to avoid alienating those who prefer to, or need to, use cash. It's often viewed as a part of good customer service.

While card-only payment policies at British racecourses offer numerous benefits, including convenience, safety, and efficiency, but they also come with significant drawbacks. Exclusion of cash-dependent customers and potential transaction fees are important considerations for both racecourses and their customers. Ultimately, racecourses must weigh these pros and cons carefully to create an inclusive environment that enhances the overall racing experience while accommodating the needs of all of their visitors.

We say: We make no secret of the fact that we're vehemently against the cashless policy employed at some British Racecourses - those belonging to The Jockey Club and Arena Racing Company (ARC) predominantly. Perhaps in ten or fifteen years time, when the demographic will have changed, card-only payment might be more acceptable, or normal, but not at the moment. We have witnessed, on several occasions, fellow racegoers' disgust when their cash payment at the turnstiles, coffee counter, or bar has been refused. And who, in their right mind, wants to buy a cup of coffee costing a few quid, using their card anyway? We have also heard stories of overcharging. Indeed, it's happened to us on more than one occasion. And it doesn't help that you're rarely offered a receipt to check your purchase or, when you ask for one, you're told that they're unable to supply one. However, it also works the other way round. We've managed to dodge paying for food altogether a couple of times and also to purchase it at a greatly reduced price due to the cashier either assuming that we'd already paid, or by keying in the wrong amount. That's money that the racecourse has lost as a result. And, if it's happened to us, it's happened to others too. We've also been in situations twice where we have had to wait with other racegoers at the entrance to a racecourse that uses the cashless policy (Hereford, and Nottingham Racecourses), because the card machines have all been down! The ironic thing about these cashless racecourses is that, on leaving them at the end of a meeting, there are frequently people stood at the exits with charity buckets asking for your cash!

It's a sad fact that we are definitely moving further away from cash though. The closure of Banks and Post Offices makes it harder to withdraw cash from them (less ATMs) or to pay your bills at them, thus almost forcing us to use card and digital payments. Myself and Cheg are now both of a certain age, and we do actually pay at racecourses using our cards more often than not but, in our opinion, customers should be given a choice. There are already enough reasons for people to stay away from going racing (prices, poor number of runners, transport costs, etc), so racecourses really should not be adding another. And do any of us really want to see the Banks get even richer? Cash payments mean that the seller gets 100% of the payment and the Banks get nothing. Doesn't that in itself make you feel better? 

Sadly, it looks like the days of bunging Timmy from next door a few quid for cleaning your car will soon be gone - the little bugger will soon be shoving a card transaction device in your face instead.

If you're a fan of National Hunt horse racing you'll surely have heard "all roads lead to Cheltenham" being bandied about by all and sundry throughout the jumps calendar. All roads do, albeit sometimes to the detriment of other races and meetings. The Cheltenham Festival is the pinnacle of jump racing. It's the World Cup, Ashes, Ryder Cup, and Super Bowl all rolled into one where the equine elite take on each other from these shores and across the Irish Sea. Or, it should be. Unfortunately, since the Festival was increased to four days, this is happening less frequently. Even before the roar went up on the opening day of this year's Festival (2024), questions were being raised about its future. High admission, food/drink, and accommodation prices, uncompetitive/diluted racing, and Irish/Willie Mullins domination (Irish trainers had the favourite in twenty-two of the twenty-seven races at the 2024 Cheltenham Festival) all led to social media comments such as "the Festival is not for the ordinary punter, only for the rich", "the racecourse, the pubs in town, the taxi's, and the hotels are all trying to fleece every penny out of you", "I think the Festival programme needs an overhaul to make it more competitive", "too many races allowing the top horses to avoid each other", and "I've been going for thirty years but have now stopped going. For the two days I'd have had at the Festival I can get seven days in Tenerife and watch it in the sun with a cold beer". That last comment is one that I've heard several times. 

Whilst the racecourse can't be blamed for the cost of accommodation (although they will be meeting with local hoteliers for precisely this reason - see the Racecourse Response at the end of our Cheltenham Festival review), or the price that pubs in town and taxi's charge, they are  (along with the Jockey Club) responsible for the on-course prices. Some of the latter has been addressed by the Managing Director of Cheltenham Racecourse, Ian Renton, in our Cheltenham Festival review. Other areas of disgruntlement are the cashless policy (something we've been campaigning against in our reviews since Day One), the wet weather, the atmosphere, drug users in the toilets, and the small field sizes. 

It appears that the two primary areas of concern though are: pricing and the race programme. As a former CIPS-qualified buyer, I refuse to accept that the Jockey Club does not hold the purchasing power, and prestige, to drive down the prices of its suppliers. I was even told that the Jockey Club is tied into a ten-year contract with their drinks suppliers. Whoever negotiated that contract, if it's true, needs a serious talking-to. It's terrible...and damaging to the Jockey Club. 

A  further six percent decrease in ticket sales for 2024, after a fourteen percent drop in 2023, is a clear enough indicator that the admission prices are too high. What's the point in charging high prices when sales figures have been nowhere near the 68,500 per day capacity (Gold Cup Day excluded)? Why not drop the admission prices? They'll then fill all four days again - meaning a maximum of 274,000 visitors instead of the 228,000 that attended this year (2024). That's another 46000 people buying food and drink...if those prices were reduced too, that is. 

Did you notice that I said four days there? That's the other problem, in our opinion - a four-day Festival is clearly not working. Thank god that the ludicrous idea of increasing the Festival to five days has been poo-pooed (although, again, we heard a rumour that it's not completely been ruled out). Since the number of races was increased to twenty-eight in 2016, the number of odds-on favourites has dramatically risen. For example: in the six years of 1998 to 2003, there were just two odds-on favourites across the twenty races. In the six years of 2018 to 2023, there were twenty-nine! With another six odds-on favourites in 2024. Three of those in 2024 were favourites in races with seven or fewer runners. No wonder punters are up in arms, and these three races, surprise surprise, were all in the top ten of least betted-on races at the Festival. Trainers now have more options to avoid other strongly fancied horses in pursuit of the easiest winning opportunity at the Festival. Great for them but rubbish for the spectator, and for betting markets - don't forget that reduced betting has a negative effect on the levy (and consequently the money that goes back into horse racing). In effect, they're shooting themselves in the foot. 

We're not too concerned about the Irish (or should we say, Willie Mullins) domination. It's not so long ago that Paul Nichols and Nicky Henderson were saddling the majority of the winners. Just like football, it's cyclical. And who can blame rich British owners for taking their horses to be trained in Ireland? At least they race them over there, unlike here where they appear to be molly-coddled and are taken out of a race for the slightest reason. And they're clearly damn good trainers over there. At the end of the day, whoever trains the best horses, they're still going to end up running at the Cheltenham Festival. However, racing expert Kevin Blake, a guy who knows what he's talking about, says that "a cycle relies on the dominant players getting complacent and the hungry people innovating and driving on to keep the wheel turning. I don't know if the chasing pack are hungry enough to catch them". Hmm, he's got a point. Kevin asked his fanbase if they would support significant changes to the Cheltenham Festival race programme with the objective of increasing the depth/competitiveness of the graded races thus reducing the ducking, diving, and uncertainty of targets. Ten thousand people responded with a resounding ninety-two percent of them saying 'yes they would'. 

We believe that the Festival should revert back to three days - and just twenty-one races. We'd get rid of the Cross Country race. It's never the best race for betting purposes and the centre of the course is historically at the mercy of the gods, as it proved this year. It's just not a championship race. Next would be the 2m5f Novice Hurdle (named the Gallagher / Baring Bingham this year). Go back to the option of just two or three miles for novice hurdlers. We'd also get rid of the Mare's Chase run over 2m4f. We think that the best mares should run in the Ryanair Chase, with a weight allowance. Next to go would be the 2m3f Turners Novices' Chase. As with the novice hurdlers, we don't need an 'intermediate' race for novices - stick to either two miles (the Arkle) or three miles (the Brown Advisory - the RSA as was). That leaves three more to cull. The National Hunt Chase has been a failure. In its short life, it's already been reduced from 4m to 3m5f. Regular small fields and constantly one of the least betted-on races at the Festival, even Corals PR and Broadcast Director, Simon Clare, thinks it should go. Imagine, were this race and the Turners not run at this year's Festival then Corbetts Cross and Grey Dawning would have taken on Fact to File. Now that would have been a race to watch! The Mare's Novice Hurdle would be next - for the same reasons as the Mare's Chase. Run over the same distance as the Supreme and Triumph Hurdles, why do we need another race solely for mares? The best mares would run in one of those aforementioned races, with a weight allowance. Less talented mares could run in one of the handicaps. Controversially, or maybe not as we've already got rid of the other two mares races, the Mare's Hurdle can also 'do one'. This year it deprived us of seeing the exciting Lossiemouth (with a weight allowance) take on State Man in the Champion Hurdle - a race that had been denied its initial excitement with the withdrawal of Constitution Hill. Maybe five-year-olds, who haven't got a great record in the race, should be given a pound or two off as well. And who wouldn't have loved to see six times Mare's Hurdle winner Quevega take on four times Stayers Hurdle winner Big Buck's going back a few years? The Mare's Hurdle denied us of this. Definitely one for the bin. And last for the chop is the Juvenile Handicap Hurdle (this year sponsored by Boodles). Rarely, if ever, does it throw up a horse that goes on to great things. For us, it has no place at the Festival. Run it somewhere else - Sandown Park, for instance. And again, it's not a race that punters flood to place a bet on - it was the third-worst betted-on race at the 2024 Festival. Getting rid of these seven races would greatly reduce trainers waiting until the last moment to decide which race to run their horses in. It would also increase race competitiveness and public interest, making races more of a betting proposition, and ensure that the best horses run against each other - they're the championship races after all. Sponsors would be falling over themselves to get involved if they were the races they should be and we all want them to be. 

Obviously, there's going to be resistance to this, not least from the trainers, but they'll still send their best horses over despite their protestations. You've all heard the saying "You can't keep doing the same thing and expect a different result"? Well, that applies to the Cheltenham Festival. Something has to change. 

UPDATE

On 26th September 2024, The Jockey Club announced that they have made changes to the race programme and Festival experience for the 2025 Festival. Ian Renton, the Managing Director of Cheltenham Racecourse, says that the changes come after they analysed data and extensive feedback (including our own review of the Festival experience), surveys, one-to-one meetings and focus group sessions. The changes are as follows: 

Race Programme

• The 2m 4f Turners (Golden Miller) Novices’ Chase will be replaced by a Grade 2 Limited Novice Handicap Chase over the same distance.
• The National Hunt Chase will become a Class 2 Novice Handicap Chase (0-145), with amateur rider restrictions for jockeys removed to allow professionals to take part.
• The Glenfarclas Cross Country Chase will be changed from a conditions race to a Limited Handicap.
• The race conditions for the Ryanair Mares’ Novices Hurdle will be changed to remove the penalty structure, resulting in a level weights contest.
• As from 2023, any horse that finished in the first four of a qualifying race for the Pertemps Network Final Handicap Hurdle has been eligible for the race at the Festival. From 2025 the race conditions will be altered to provide a guaranteed run in the Pertemps Final at the Festival for all winners of series qualifiers (provided they are within the weights at declaration stage).
• Currently horses must have run at least three times (in chases) or four times (in hurdles races) to be eligible to run in non-novice handicaps at the Festival. From 2025, this will be increased to four chase and five hurdle runs.
• In addition to these changes The Jockey Club will be increasing prize money over the four days by £115K, taking the total on offer at the Cheltenham Festival to £4.93M in 2025. 

We say - In our opinion, these changes do not go far enough. The novice hurdle and Mares races have largely been left untouched. There will still be too many races at the Festival in these divisions meaning that trainers will still be able to dodge each other with their best horses, and there'll still be too many odds-on favourites in these races. The Jockey Club really did miss a trick there.

The Festival Experience

• More hard-standing ‘trackway’ will be laid in Cheltenham Racecourse’s grass car parks than ever before. Covering an area the size of seventeen football pitches this will aid the arrival and departure of racegoers, especially in the kind of adverse weather conditions experienced in 2024.
• A new park and ride system will be launched within easy access of Cheltenham. In addition, The Jockey Club has partnered with National Express to offer coach travel direct to Cheltenham Racecourse from more than twenty pick-up locations, doubling the number of coaches running to the venue.
• Racegoers will have more course-facing areas to enjoy a drink, easing queues and reducing the need to rush between races. Bar facilities are also being upgraded to give more choice and indoor seating.
• Hot and cold meal deals will be offered, giving racegoers the opportunity to save money when buying any hot and soft drinks with food throughout the day and at multiple outlets on course.  

We say - All good. Thumbs-up to those, but "save money"? How?

The Jockey Club are also implementing the following changes to increase 'value':

• All ticket prices for the 2025 Cheltenham Festival will be frozen at 2024 levels.
• Racegoers purchasing a ticket for any day of The Festival will be given a twenty per cent discount on any tickets purchased for other days of the event. Discounts will not be applied to Gold Cup day tickets.
• Groups of six people can save 10 per cent on ticket prices when booking together. Previously this discount was offered to groups of 15 or more.
• As announced earlier this month, The Jockey Club and Cheltenham Racecourse have entered into an exciting new partnership with leading sports tour operator Venatour Racing, which will give racegoers the opportunity to purchase discounted packages including tickets, hotels, travel and more in a one-stop shop initiative known as ‘Room To Race’.

We say - It's not enough, in our opinion. The extortionate accommodation and travel issues definitely needed addressing, so that side of it is much needed (if it actually happens). And, although it's good to see that admission prices for the 2025 Festival won't be increased, they are way too high in the first place. These should have been reduced, not just frozen. Apparently, food and drink prices will remain as they were, apart from Guinness which will rise by 30p a pint to £7.80. It's just not good enough. Food and drink prices are horrendous at the Festival (as they are at many of the Jockey Club's other marquee racecourses). Even Willie Mullins, when asked about the changes to the races, answered that it wasn't the races that were the problem, but the prices at the Festival were, going on to say that they're just not affordable for the ordinary punter anymore. Well said Willie, but it's a combination of both in our opinion.

If you're a regular reader of our blogs you'll know that we're not the biggest fans of the whole 'premier' or 'standard' ticket issue. For us, there should be just one reasonably priced entrance fee that allows racegoers access to all areas of the racecourse. In some cases 'premier' can be an additional £10 from the standard ticket price (i.e. Sandown Park) and all that it buys you is access to some extra snazzy bars and restaurants. It's not as though the food and drink in them is any cheaper! Ok, sometimes there's a racecard thrown in, and sometimes it gives you exclusive access to parts of the racecourse that a standard ticket doesn't. For instance, Sandown Park and Goodwood Racecourses restrict standard ticket holders from accessing all of the parade ring areas. It also prevents them from getting near the finish line. That, in particular, is one of our major gripes. Most 'regular' racegoers are there for the racing. They're not there to mix with the 'beer-swigging, tight trousers, no socks brigade' in the bars of the premier enclosure, they go to watch the races and see the horses. Yet they are being penalised in favour of those who have no real interest in the horses, or the races, and very rarely leave the bar! How is that fair? If a racegoer does want to get all togged up in smart clothes and spend the entire meeting in the fancy bars then that's fine, they pay their entrance fee and can spend the time there how they like but true racing enthusiasts should also have access to all areas of the racecourse...in particular up by the finish line. They should also be able to choose, unhindered, where they watch a race. There are, of course, racecourses that have premier / standard enclosures where the regular, standard ticket-buying racegoer is not penalised and can still watch the race on the rails at the finish line (i.e Beverley and Uttoxeter Racecourses) and that's absolutely fine. There's obviously a market for premier enclosures as they always seem to be busy. We just think it's a way for racecourses to charge a bit more money on the admission price, for not a lot more value-wise to the customer. Perhaps it's also to deter people who turn up dressed scruffily, or in a tracksuit (we actually saw somebody in a shell-suit at Aintree), from entering these areas. Sounds logical, but surely if you turned up dressed like that you wouldn't seriously believe that you'd be allowed entry into the more salubrious areas? 

Male jockeys have long dominated the landscape of British horse racing, yet the emergence and triumph of female jockeys over recent years has marked a significant turning point in the sport. From the first female competitors in the Grand National to the current talented crop, female jockeys have made their mark on both Flat and National Hunt racing, breaking barriers and redefining perceptions. 

The Grand National saw its first female competitor, Charlotte Brew, in 1977. Brew, riding Barony Fort, may not have finished the race, but her participation was pivotal and opened the door for future female riders. The real breakthrough came in 1984 when Geraldine Rees became the first woman to complete the Grand National, finishing eleventh on her mount Cheers. Her success inspired a new generation of female jockeys, leading to increased female participation in the sport. Since then, there have been numerous female jockeys tackling the race: Venetia Williams, Nina Carberry, Kate Walsh, Lizzy Kelly, and Bryony Frost to name but a few. However, it was Rachel Blackmore, winning the race on Minella Times in 2021, who really raised the bar. Blackmore is now the most successful female National Hunt jockey having also won the Cheltenham Gold Cup, the Champion Hurdle, and the Queen Mother Champion Chase. Only the Stayers Hurdle of the Cheltenham Festival 'big four' has eluded her thus far, but that's only a matter of time. Bryony Frost has also enjoyed major National Hunt success, aboard the Paul Nicholl's-trained Frodon, in the Ryanair Chase, the Tingle Creek Chase, and the King George VI Chase.

Female Flat-racing jockeys have also enjoyed success in some of Britain's most prestigious races. Hayley Turner, who has recently surpassed 1000 winners, and Holly Doyle perhaps the most well-known of them. Turner has had victories in the July Cup, and the Nunthorpe Stakes, both in 2011. The following year she became only the second woman to ride in the Epsom Derby (the first being Gaye Kelleway some twenty-five years earlier). She was also the first female jockey to ride one hundred winners in a season back in 2008. Holly Doyle is very much the leading female Flatracing jockey at the time of writing and has amassed major race success in races both at home and abroad. These include the Champions Sprint (2020), the Long Distance Cup (2020, 2021, the Princess of Wales's Stakes (2020), the Goodwood Cup (2021), the Prix de Diane (2022), the Nassau Stakes (2022), the Prix du Cadran (2023), the Prix de l’Abbaye de Longchamp (2022), the King's Stand Stakes (2023), the Falmouth Stakes (2023), and the Nunthorpe Stakes (2024). Again, it's only a matter of time before female jockeys win the 'top' Flat races such as the Derby, 2000 Guineas, and the St.Leger.

Horse Racing is one of the few sports where men and women compete on equal terms. There are no weight allowances just because the jockey happens to be female, so how does this impact on the races? Tactically, female jockeys often display a keen sense of race strategy. The perception that physicality is paramount in racing can overshadow the skill, finesse, and tactical intelligence required to navigate a race. Female jockeys, while generally lighter, focus on technique and strategy, often relying on their understanding of horse psychology and race dynamics. They frequently demonstrate exceptional patience and timing, which are crucial attributes for success. For me, Rachel Blackmore is the master tactician and has used her skill and timing to win at least two races at the Cheltenham Festival that I can remember, completely out-witting Paul Townend on his much more fancied horse. Physically, while male jockeys may dominate in terms of sheer muscle mass, women often have an advantage in terms of flexibility and balance, which are essential for maintaining control over powerful racehorses. This has been a point of contention in discussions about the physical requirements of the sport, but many female jockeys have proven that success is not solely dependent on physical strength.

The journey for female jockeys has not been without its challenges. Instances of sexism and discrimination persist within the racing community, with female riders sometimes facing skepticism regarding their abilities. Additionally, the scrutiny surrounding weight management can be particularly harsh for women, adding pressure to maintain the extreme weights required for competitive racing. Perhaps the most high-profile case is that of Robbie Dunne's misogynistic and bully-boy treatment of Bryony Frost which led to Dunne being banned from the sport for ten months. Dunne has now served his ban and is back riding, at the time of writing, whereas Frost is now riding over in France. This change of scenery may well have been appealing to her but the fact is that she was largely shunned by jockeys and trainers alike after the case, getting only sporadic rides from Paul Nicholls as third choice jockey, and only trainer Lucy Wadham providing her with regular rides. That's a shame in our opinion, as she's a talented jockey. There have been more recent stories in the Racing Post of a female Flat-racing jockey who experienced sexist comments, verbal abuse, ridicule and even groping by male jockeys, trainers, and stable staff back in the 70s. She kept it quiet as she believed that it would affect her career and that she'd be overlooked for rides, were she to speak up. It appears that nothing has changed in the years since then.

Thoroughbred horses come in varying abilities. To accommodate this, races are split into grades so that every horse has the chance to compete against horses of a similar ability. Flat racing and National Hunt racing are slightly different. Here we try to explain the difference between each grade of race, and which horses can run in them:

Flat Races

In Flat racing, there are ten classes of race. These are:

Class One

These are also known as Pattern Races for horses rated 96 to 110 plus. They are all black-type races, meaning that winning one (or being placed) increases the attractiveness of that horse were it to have a career in breeding after its racing days are over.

• Group 1 – the crème de la crème of Flat racing horses. Races include the 1000 Guineas, the 2000 Guineas, the Oaks, the Derby, and the St. Leger.
• Group 2 – a slightly lower grade than Group 1 but still races of high significance (the Yorkshire Oaks, for example).
• Group 3 – important domestic races such as the Jersey Stakes at Royal Ascot.
• Listed Race – high-quality races and still a black-type race. These include races such as the King George V Stakes at Royal Ascot. 

Class Two to Seven

These are mainly, but not always, handicap races where the horse with the highest rating carries the most weight:

• Class 2 – races for horses with a handicap rating in the bands of 86 to 100, 91 to 105, and 96 to 110. Some races that fall into this ratings bracket, such as the Ebor, the Stewards Cup, the Epsom Dash, the Cambridgeshire, or the Northumberland Plate are now known as Heritage Handicaps and are held in high regard despite being a grade below Pattern races.
• Class 3 – for horses with a handicap rating within the bands of 76 to 90, and 81 to 95.
• Class 4 – for horses with a handicap rating within the bands of 66 to 80, and 71 to 85.
• Class 5 – for horses with a handicap rating within the bands of 56 to 70, and 61 to 75.
• Class 6 – for horses with a handicap rating within the bands of 46 to 60, and 51 to 65.
• Class 7 – for horses with a handicap rating within the bands of 46 to 50 only.

Horses generally compete in handicaps until they are rated in the 90s or early 100s, but if their handicap mark gets higher than that they'll have to start competing in Listed, or Group 3 races, or even higher, depending on their ability.

Horses at that level carry the same weight, regardless of their official rating. 

However, there are exceptions. For instance, if a horse is running in a Group 2 race but has already won a Group 1 race, it'll have to give weight away to its opponents.

Jumps Races

In National Hunt racing, there are nine classes of race and the classification is slightly different in terms of handicap ratings. Whereas in Flat racing, the Class One races are divided into Group races, Class One jumps races are called Grade races. These are:

Class One

These are all Pattern races:

• Grade 1 – These are championship races involving the highest-rated horses, such as the Cheltenham Gold Cup.
• Grade 2 – Races still of major importance, but slightly less so than Grade 1 races. These include races such as the Brown Advisory Novices' Chase (the old RSA Chase), or the Dipper Novices' Chase 
• Grade 3 – Usually premier handicaps such as the Grand National.
• Listed Race – not as important as the graded races, but still of high importance (the Cleeve Hurdle, for example).

Class Two to Six

The categories are the same whether the race is a hurdles race or a chase.

• Class 2 – Open handicaps (a handicap race where horses of different ages, sexes, and abilities can compete against each other), and handicaps for horses with an official rating of 0 to 140 and above. The Betfair Hurdle is a race that is open to horses in this category.
• Class 3 – for horses with a handicap rating within the bands of 0 to 120, and 0 to 135.
• Class 4 – for horses with a handicap rating within the bands of 0 to 100, and 0 to 115.
• Class 5 – for horses with a handicap rating within the bands of 0- to 85,  and 0 to 95.
• Class 6 – National Hunt Flat races (also known as Bumpers).

To learn more about the handicapping system, read the Handicaps Explained section.

The Grand National - arguably the most famous horse race in the world, and the reason for my lifelong love of horse racing. I remember listening to the race on the radio as a very young boy back in 1968 - I have no idea why I didn’t watch it on the television, we did have one, but I was captivated by the radio commentary on Red Alligator's victory, and that had me hooked. So in awe of the race was I, that I used to make ‘fences’ out of freshly cut grass on the green in front of our house and pretend to be Red Alligator, Highland Wedding, or Gay Trip, running around the circuit I’d made and jumping over these huge mounds of grass. It wasn’t until 1972 that I vaguely remember watching the race for the first time on television - Well To Do’s victory, but what a decade for the race that was! And what a spectacle it used to be! Huge fences and a marathon distance but, ironically, not always a huge number of runners: twenty-eight in 1970, thirty-one in 1975, thirty-two in 1976, and thirty-four in 1979. In other years during the 1970s there had been forty-two runners though. There were also only thirty runners in 1980 so, despite my disapproval at the reduction in the number of runners to thirty-four from 2024 onwards, I haven’t really got an argument. In 1984, the maximum number of runners had been set at forty, but there have been many times since then when there haven’t been that many runners on the day itself. Indeed, there were only twenty-seven runners in Rough Quest’s 1996 Grand National win. Sadly, with the Grand National being the most-watched race in the world, the race also comes in for more scrutiny than any other race, and the increasing criticism from a vocal minority really has changed the race from what it once was. There have been many changes to the race over the years to try and appease these vocal few, but they can’t be appeased, as they want the race banned (and horse racing in general - that's why there are even protesters at the Derby). In my opinion, these changes have spoiled the race - it’s become ‘just another race’ and not the race I fell in love with. The changes have not prevented fatalities in the race either. Since 1990, the start has been shortened, the timber core of the fences has been replaced by a more forgiving plastic birch, fences have been reduced in size, fence bypasses have been implemented, the brooks at Becher's and Valentines have been filled in / covered with plastic mats, the landing sides at Becher's and the first fence have been levelled off, the minimum ratings of horses allowed to enter has been raised, there are now vets inspections of all runners on the morning of the race, fence take-off boards have increased in size (and have been painted white), the race preliminaries have been shortened, the minimum age of runners has been raised to seven years old, and there is now an enlarged wash-down area with cooling fans - what more can they do? Well, this:
Going forward from 2024, there will be a maximum number of thirty-four runners (with no reserves), a standing start, a shorter run to the first fence (with the first fence being moved sixty yards closer to the start), an earlier start in the meeting, grooms won't be permitted to lead their horses for the parade in front of the stands, horses will no longer be required to parade in number order, the walkways to/from the track will be made wider, fences eleven and twenty-seven will be reduced in size to 4’10” on the take-off side and levelled off on the landing side, all fences will have foam/rubber toe-boards, there will be alterations to the alignment of the inside running rail allowing loose horses to run out, a pop-up irrigation system will be installed, the minimum rating of horses allowed to enter will be raised again to 130, and entries history of ‘jumping errors’ will be scrutinized. No doubt, even after all of this, there’ll still be protesters.

In the main, I do agree with these latest changes, apart from the reduction of fence size, that is. Run-outs, safer landing sides, a standing start (let's face it, the start has been farcical over the years anyway), a shorter run to the first fence, cool-down fans, softer fence cores, and even the reduction in the number of runners - all changes to greatly improve the safety of the horses. However, a consequence of shorter fences is increased speed and less respect for the fences. So there will inevitably still be fatalities - and this has proved to be the case. Unsurprisingly then, there's an argument (one that I agree with) to revert the fence sizes to what they used to be - this will slow down the horses. And with runners, these days being, in general, of a better calibre than they were back in the 70s and 80s, together with the other changes to the course/race, there should be, in theory, fewer fatalities.

As a lover of horses, I certainly do not want to see horses lose their lives in the name of entertainment. Indeed, I can still vividly remember the pictures of Beau Bob on the back pages of the News of the World coming to grief in the 1975 Grand National. And I do not want to see the end of this great race so, very begrudgingly, I do accept that changes do need to be made.

Race Fatalities:

Since 1970, forty-one horses have lost their lives in the race - that's far too many. Twenty-six of these have been from falls, four have been from being brought down, six were pulled up having sustained an injury and were euthanised, four horses collapsed after, or during, the race, and one horse sustained injuries after colliding with a barrier when running riderless. Historically, Becher's (fences six and twenty-two) has claimed the most fatalities since 1970, with eight horses having died after falling at the fence and another after being brought down, so the changes to the landing side are warranted. Fences one (and seventeen), four (and twenty) - both of them being plain fences, and the Canal Turn (fence number eight/twenty-four) come next with four fatalities each, followed by fences three (and nineteen) and The Chair (fence number fifteen) both with three fatalities. Fences five, Valentines (fence number nine/twenty-five), and fourteen, have all claimed one victim. Fence eleven (and twenty-seven), incidentally the latest fence to be shortened, has claimed no horses to date. That's not to say that there haven't been several fallers at this fence over the years though. It's noticeable that the first six fences, whether they be on the first circuit or the second, are responsible for twenty-one of the thirty deaths by falls or being brought down. Interestingly, twenty-five percent of fatalities have started at prices of 100/1 or more, with another sixteen percent at odds of between 50/1 and 80/1 - that's a total of forty-one percent of fatalities coming from runners starting at odds of 50/1 or greater.

Most noticeable fatalities since 1970 have been Rag Trade, winner of the 1976 race, who pulled up lame before the twenty-first fence in the 1978 running of the race and had to be euthanised, and Synchronised - the Cheltenham Gold Cup winner that year, who fell at Becher's in the 2012 renewal but continued running riderless when he incurred tibia and fibula injuries and also has to be euthanised.

For all things Grand National, I can recommend the Grand National Anorak. Click on the links below:

https://www.grandnationalanorak.com

https://www.grandnationalanorak2.com

So, as the dust settles after the 2024 running of the 'new look' Grand National, what are my thoughts? If I'm perfectly honest, it was all a bit 'meh'. It's no longer the immense challenge to horse and jockey that it used to be, nor the spectacle that got me so enthralled back in my youth. As some have said, it's now just a long steeplechase - nothing special. It's completely lost its 'uniqueness'.

Myself and Cheg walked the course on our recent visit to Aintree Racecourse and got up close to the fences. I was shocked at just how small they are. I remember pictures of years gone by, with people standing next to them, and they were dwarfed by the fences. That would not be the case now - some of them (Fence One and Foinavon could even be described as tiny). And Becher's is now so unimposing - it's no wonder there are no fallers at that fence these days. The only large fences, having now seen them all, are Fence Three (an open ditch), Valentines, and the Chair. And even those fences can be 'ploughed through' as the spruce is just placed on top and is easily pushed off. This was demonstrated when there were no fallers in the 2024 race whatsoever. In fact, of the three races over those fences at the three-day meeting, there were only two fallers from the seventy-eight horses that tackled them. More evidence that the race has now become too easy and has changed beyond all recognition from that of years ago, is that twenty-one of the thirty-two runners in the Grand National finished the race.- and the first four home all carried over eleven stone! I can't remember that happening before, or that many horses having finished the race. There were numerous horses still in with a chance of winning too as they approached the final fence - some might find that more to their liking. And yes, the cream rose to the top with the 'better' horses filling the frame. However, it may be controversial to say so, but I preferred the race as it was. Would this version of the Grand National have so captivated me as a young boy? No, not a chance. Some people have asked, "So would you prefer we didn't have the race at all then?" - meaning that, if it stayed as it was, the vocal minority would have ensured that the race was lost to us. Well, surprise surprise, that's kind of already happened because the race I watched on Saturday was not a Grand National that I recognise. There was certainly nothing 'grand' about it. It's slowly, over the last thirty years, been eroded...bit by bit. It's probably a generational thing though - if you were brought up watching the race in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and even 90s you're probably going to prefer the Grand National of yesteryear, and if you started watching the Grand National from 2000 onwards you're probably going to be more receptive to the new look Grand National. I do understand that the race had to change, and there were no fatalities during the race, so that has to be a good thing. It'll just take me time to get used to this new kind of 'Grand' National. I do fear, though, for the smaller trainers who will find it increasingly difficult to get a runner in the race.

ITV reported that viewing figures for the 2024 running of the Grand National were down by 1.4 million viewers from 2023, blaming it on the 4 pm start. Really?? So it's nothing to do with the race having lost its attraction then? 🙄. Nevin Truesdale, Jockey Club Chief Executive at the time of writing, said that the changes to the race had met with a mixed reception. He went on to say that the changes had been "balanced, judicious, and definitely needed for the protection and evolution of this race". More concerning is that he added that there could be further modifications. He also said that polling had shown a worsening public perception of the race, with half of those asked saying that they felt the race was either cruel or fairly cruel. 

We say: who took part in this poll exactly? If it was just the general public then that is completely wrong. Most of them would have no vested interest in horse racing at all, and the Grand National is probably the only horse race that they watch all year. You could even argue that they would not even watch that if they really did think that it was cruel, would they? So why then, have they even been given a voice? If somebody asked me if fishing was cruel, knowing naff all about it myself, I'd probably say yes - it's the same for the Grand National, and horse racing in general. A more accurate poll, and one that should be respected, would be to conduct a poll at Jumps meetings at British racecourses - basically, the people who know about horse racing and who put the money into the sport. Fat Alice, sitting on the sofa all day watching Corrie on catch-up, and who doesn't know the front end of a horse from the back, should have absolutely no influence on the future of this great race. The Jockey Club really do need to grow a pair and get a grip.

Around 60% of all horse races in the UK are handicap races. But what is a handicap race, and what is a handicap mark? A handicap race is one in which all runners have been allocated a racing weight depending on their Official Rating (OR). The OR is calculated according to a horse's ability by a panel of British Horse Racing (BHA) officials, based on historical performances, in an attempt to equalise every horse's chance of winning. The higher the handicap rating, the more weight the horse will carry. The idea of a handicap mark is to make the race a level playing field for all horses in the race based on the assumption that the weight a horse carries affects the speed at which it can gallop. One pound of weight equates to one length of distance at the end of a race. So the handicapper aims to try to enable the horses to finish in a straight line (a dead heat). This never happens in reality but, without the handicapping system, there would be no point in owning a horse unless it's a top horse, as it would never have a realistic chance of winning when running at level weights. A handicap is the best way of providing a winning opportunity to all horses in the race.

A handicap mark is only allocated once the horse has run three times unless it wins its first two races, and all handicap marks are updated each week (on a Tuesday). The handicap mark not only determines how much weight that horse should carry in a race, but also which races it's qualified to run in (i.e. a horse with an OR/handicap mark of 85 would not be qualified to run in a 0-75 handicap race). 

The BHA claims that every horse is treated fairly and with the highest level of integrity at all times, and states that its Handicappers are available to provide logical and reasonable explanations for their decisions via the appropriate times and the appropriate channels - so a trainer can appeal against a handicap mark if they believe it to be unjust.

Handicap races are run on both the flat and over jumps. In reality, the best flat horses don't tend to run in handicap races, but the best jumps horses sometimes do - the Grand National being a prime example, the most famous handicap race in the world.

Flat horses and jumps horses are also rated differently. Flat horses are allocated a handicap mark of 0 - 140 (based on ten stone as being the top weight, so 10 x 14lbs = 140), whereas jumps horses are allocated a handicap mark of 0 - 175 (based on twelve stone and seven pounds being the top weight, so 12.5 x 14lbs = 175). However, occasionally a horse comes along that 'breaks' these handicap scales. This was the case with Sprinter Sacre and Kauto Star, jumps horses who both had handicap marks in the 180s.

The weight a horse carries is a combination of the weight of the jockey with his saddle plus extra lead weights that are placed into pads/pockets in the saddle. All jockeys must 'weigh in' with their saddle, pre-race, and post-race to check that the weight has not been altered.

Of course, the skill for the betting punter is to try to work out which horse is 'ahead of the handicapper' - i.e. better than it's shown in its previous performances. This can happen when a trainer might try to 'manipulate' the system by running the horses over an incorrect trip, or on unsuitable ground, to try and get its handicap mark down. Once this has been achieved the trainer will then run the horse over its ideal trip and on its preferred ground. The trainer will then attempt to win with it several times over the week until the handicapper catches up with it again.

Another tactic trainers sometimes use is to run a two-year-old horse several times over a short distance in flat races before the end of a season, to get a handicap mark below what the trainer believes it should be. The trainer will then run it over its ideal distance the first time back, winning the race. Unless you're very shrewd you're not likely to know this though.

With all the talk of possible affordability checks coming into gambling, you may well have heard the 'levy' mentioned when betting on horse racing is discussed. So what exactly is the levy?

Well, it's a tax that the Horserace Betting Levy Board (commonly abbreviated to 'The Levy Board', a statutory body established by the Betting Levy Act 1961 - the same year that High Street bookmaking was allowed in the UK), is required by the Betting, Gaming, and Lotteries Act 1963, to collect from the horse racing business of bookmakers which it then distributes for the improvement of horse racing.

But why? With the arrival of High Street bookmakers back in 1961, there was a fear that customers would move away from placing bets at racecourses - the convenience of placing their bets on the High Street resulting in fewer of them attending race meetings. This fear was confirmed when attendance at racecourses did drop meaning that on-course bookmakers made less money. The money generated from racecourse admission ticket sales was also down, resulting in less money coming into the sport. The levy was implemented to cover some of the downturns that the sport would see. High Street bookmakers would have to pay a percentage back into the sport. This was a fairly low percentage to start with, but it kept money coming into horse racing and, as High Street betting continued to increase, the money proved to be a lifeline for the sport. 

The Levy is charged at the rate of 10% of a horse racing bookmaker's profits over £500K (calculated under Section 27A of the Act) within a period of 1st  April to 31st March in any given year. This won't apply to your average on-course bookmaker, and only operators (bookmakers) who carry out a business that includes betting transactions on horse races have to pay the levy - operators who do not accept bets on horse races are classified as exempt. Until April 2017, the levy did not include overseas betting operators, costing the industry over £20 million annually in lost levy receipts. To rectify this, the Horserace Betting Levy Regulations 2017 came into force on 25 April 2017 and extended the levy to all gambling operators offering bets on horseracing in Great Britain. 

In a normal year, the largest share of the levy is spent on race prize money. Still, it also provides funding for regulation and integrity services, racing and breeding industry training and education, projects for the benefit of the thoroughbred horse, loans to racecourses for capital projects, and resources for various other activities according to the organisation's statutory objectives. The Levy Board receives no central Government grant-in-aid or National Lottery funding. 

In the year to 31st  March 2022, the yield from the levy was £97.5M, an increase on the £82M in the previous year of 2020/2021 which was below average due to the temporary suspension of racing during the COVID-19 outbreak. Between 2020 and 2023, the Levy Board agreed to make contributions to racing significantly above normal, drawing on its reserves, meeting additional regulatory costs incurred with staging race fixtures, issuing loans, and increasing its grants to race prize money. The latter made up partially for the reduced contributions from racecourses arising from the absence of paying crowds at race meetings for most of 2020 and some of 2021. The Levy Board also took a £21.5m loan from the Government's Sport Survival Package in 2021 to help support the sport through the post-COVID period, with sums to be repaid by The Levy Board annually until 2030. Just under £100M of levy was taken in the year to 31st March 2023 - money much needed in horse racing. The economic impact of horseracing in the UK is considerable with revenues over £1.47 billion - making a total annual contribution to the UK economy of £4.1 billion.

However, industry stakeholders have called for changes to the levy framework and the publication of The Gambling White Paper in April 2023 has led to a broader discussion around the possible impact of these changes on the horse racing industry. In a statement to the House of Commons, Lucy Frazer, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, observed that smartphones had transformed gambling and that the temptation to gamble was everywhere. Online betting now accounts for seventy percent of all bets placed in the UK. The Minister said the White Paper would update gambling rules and regulations to “protect the most vulnerable whilst also allowing everyone else to enjoy gambling without harm”. One of the proposals in the White Paper is for operators (bookmakers) to perform financial risk checks on customers to determine whether their gambling is likely to be unaffordable or harmful. The document stated that this would target three types of risk: binge gambling, significant unaffordable losses over time, and financially vulnerable customers. The financial risk checks will be primarily undertaken via credit reference data, and restrictions applied where a customer's losses are greater than £1,000 within a rolling 24 hours, or £2,000 within 90 days. Triggers for financial assessments will be set lower for those aged 18 to 24. The BHA has warned against 'sweeping blanket' affordability checks, stating that any new measures should be proportionate, and targeted. They argue that skill, knowledge, study, and judgment are required when betting on a horse race whereas betting on something like roulette is pure chance. The two, therefore, are completely different and should not be put under the same umbrella. They fear, and rightly so in our opinion, that affordability checks would greatly impact betting on horse racing - customers just don't want it, meaning a drop in levy taken, and less money going back into the sport. After all, the money that they make each year depends on how well the bookmakers have done.

The Government estimates that its online financial risk protections would reduce online horseracing betting gross gambling yields by 6% to 11% - an estimated reduction of between 0.5% and 1% of total horseracing industry income (equating to a reduction of £5-8 million in the Horserace Betting Levy). They also say that they are keen to ensure that measures such as financial risk checks do not adversely affect the sector. It will. I have heard from the horse's mouth (no pun intended) that income on gambling machines in Heineken-owned pubs rose considerably when the restrictions on betting on horse racing were proposed. People are just finding other things to bet on.

The proposed financial risk checks are not the only threat to online betting on horse racing. Punters are increasingly disgruntled about the lack of competitive racing - small field sizes, and short-priced favourites. There is also less price variation between bookmakers than there used to be, and the change to 'best price guaranteed' from 8 am on the morning of the race is now less appealing than it used to be, and another kick in the teeth for punters. You can add to this the paltry 1/5th odds offered by bookmakers on each-way betting. Placing a bet on the gee-gee's just isn't as attractive as it used to be - bookmakers are making it increasingly difficult for people who do like a bet to make any kind of a profit. And even if they do, their accounts are either restricted or closed altogether! Is it any wonder that more and more people are turning to the black market to place their bets??

The BHA, in their infinite wisdom, have decided that the best of British horse racing, in the face of increased competition from overseas, and other sports here at home, needs to be marketed better to assist customers in identifying racing's premier events. So there will be more focus on certain races, and certain race meetings - a premier racing tier, or as the BHA puts it 'premierisation', enhancing the quality, prestige, and experience of certain dates in the racing calendar giving racing fans the chance to see top quality horses and increased prize money. So where is this increased prize money coming from? Well, prize money has been redistributed from other racing fixtures (there's been a reduction of three hundred jumps races), and the Horseracing Betting Levy Board (HBLB) has also agreed to provide an extra £3.8M in funding.

There will also be a two-hour window between 2 and 4 pm on Saturdays to showcase up to three premier fixtures in a 'protected' slot giving them the 'space to breathe'. Other fixtures will be moved forward to an earlier time, back to a later time, or even to another day. 

Some flat racing will be moved from the summer to the autumn / early winter and there will also be better quality racing on Sunday afternoons, including some 'premier' fixtures.

One hundred and seventy premier race days were scheduled for 2024 (162 for 2025), fifty-nine percent of them Flat racing, and forty-one percent of them National Hunt. Eighty-nine of the premier race days would be on a Saturday. Any racecourse can apply to stage a premier fixture but they must meet the criteria. These include: quality of racing, prize money, TV coverage, and attendance.

There was also an initial six-meeting Sunday evening All-Weather 'trial' between January and March 2024, as the BHA wanted to address the gap in racing in the UK on a Sunday evening. They believed that it was an opportunity missed as punters typically bet on other sports, or overseas horse racing, at this time. This met with resistance from trainers, stable staff, racecourse staff, and even some jockeys (a third of all those questioned said that they would not support a continuation of Sunday evening racing). Social media posts, after the first of these meetings at Wolverhampton Racecourse where you could count the number of racegoers on two hands, were scathing. It wasn't long before this trial was dropped.

When it was put to the BHA that ITV Racing already does show the best races from two or three meetings at that time on a Saturday afternoon, the BHA said that they'd identified that more people are watching horse racing via other platforms. In these cases, the race is streamed live just before the race starts and ends almost immediately after it's finished. This doesn't help to 'sell' racing to the wider public, in their opinion, so they proposed that the stream start earlier to include pre-race previews, and the transmission end later, after some post-race analysis / reflection / replays.

Some smaller independent racecourses have already expressed concern, predicting that they'll lose money as a result of premierisation. We just hope it's not a case of the rich getting richer. Time will tell.

You may have noticed that in some of our racecourse reviews, we've advised on how BET365 ‘price-boosted’ horses fared at that meeting, and I'll tell you why. Over the years, I’d fallen victim to this clever price-boosting marketing ploy. Initially with Paddy Power on their Cheltenham Festival ‘specials’ where they’d boost the odds of horses deemed as dead certs (although we all know that there is no such thing as a dead cert at the Festival). The point is that they were always very low-priced horses that had a very strong chance of winning. A lot of them short-priced favourites. But they never did win. Naturally, I was pretty peeved at this.
Since BET365, my online betting site of choice started price-boosting, I’d fallen into the same trap. It’s blumin’ tempting after all. Especially if you think that the horse is going to win anyway. Again, the horse rarely did win. So I decided to observe their price-boosted horses over the 2023 Cheltenham Festival and Aintree Grand National meetings. I found that the horses that they’d price-boosted, bearing in mind that they were nearly always horses around the top of the betting market, did not win, on average, 86% of the time. More recently, at meetings that we've attended, that's been 100% of the time. Maybe they have a panel of experts or some kind of algorithm that throws out a fancied horse with a questionable chance of winning, but the horse that they price-boost does seem to lose (or not win) rather a lot. Whether other online betting sites offer the same service and have a similar strike rate I do not know, but before lining their coffers even more with your hard-earned money, it’s best to do a little research yourself first. Let’s face it, it wouldn’t make great business sense for online betting sites to present their customers with a better chance of winning more money off them (introductory offers excluded) would it? They also price-boost horses 'to be placed' but I'm concentrating only on those price-boosted to win.

I took a look at all British horse racing meetings over a one-week period to see if they reaped similar results. This equated to 178 races over 30 meetings (although only four of those meetings were jumps). Of the 178 price-boosted horses in these races (at an average Starting Price of 7/2), only 34 of them won. That’s just 19.1%, meaning that the horses price-boosted by BET365 did not win 80.9% of the time. Food for thought eh?

Since becoming aware of the poor record of price-boosted horses, I have, at times, ignored the fact that the horse I'd backed has been price-boosted, and it's proved to be the right call (Auguste Rodin in the Derby for instance) but I’ve also cashed out when I saw that my selection has been price-boosted (Shaquille in the 2023 July Cup and Paddington in the 2023 Eclipse, for instance) which both proved to be a mistake. I’ve also cashed out on seeing that my selection has been price-boosted and backed a different horse in a race, only to see my original selection go on to win, so there's no hard and fast answer to this. You pay your money, you take your chance. But the fact is that a price-boosted horse has a slightly less than one in five chance of winning based on our experiment. So be careful.

There are so many different types of horse races, each with their own set of qualifying criteria, that we thought we'd better explain just what they are:

Amateur Races

A race for jockeys who are not yet licensed professionals.

Apprentice/Conditional Races

A race for licensed jockeys who are not yet fully qualified. Apprentice jockeys = Flat racing / Conditional jockeys = National Hunt (Jumps) racing. These races can also be limited to jockeys who have yet to win a set number of races.

Auction Races

A race for 'bargain basement' two-year-old horses that have been bought or sold at a qualifying public auction/sales after 1st July of the previous year, as a yearling or a two-year-old.

Median Auction Races

As with Auction races, Median Auction races are for horses at the lower end of the value spectrum. For a horse to qualify to run in a Median Auction race, the median (average) price of their sire's offspring when sold at the sales must not exceed the amount specified in the race conditions.

Beginners Chase Races

A steeplechase race for horses that have never won a steeplechase race.

Bumper Races

A National Hunt (Jumps) Flat race for jumps-bred horses that have not run in any other type of race (except for point-to-point races) - usually run over a distance of two miles.

Claiming Races

A race where each horse that is entered is given a purchase price by its connections for which it can be bought (or claimed) after the race. The weight that it carries during the race is determined by the purchase price allocated to it pre-race. The lower the price allotted, the lower the weight it has to carry (increasing its chance of winning).

Classified Stakes

A Flat race where eligibility is determined by a horse's Official Rating / Handicap Mark but, unlike Handicap races, the weight that it must carry is not determined by its Official Rating/Handicap mark. For instance, in a Classified Stakes race for horses rated 0-70, all horses must carry the same weight regardless of whether they're rated 58, 65, or 70.

Conditions Races

Unlike Handicap races, a Conditions race is a race where horses are allotted weights based not on their Official Rating / Handicap mark, but on certain conditions such as age, gender, and whether they have won a race of a certain value.

Graduation Chase Races

A steeplechase race for horses that have not won more than two steeplechases.

Group / Graded Races

Races that involve the best/highest-rated horses. The higher the Group/Grade, the better (and usually the more valuable in terms of prize money) the race. Group races = Flat racing / Grade races = National Hunt (Jumps). The Derby is a Group One race and The Cheltenham Gold Cup is a Grade One race.

Handicap Races

A Flat or National Hunt race where each horse is allotted a weight to carry during the race depending on its Official Rating/Handicap mark (see Handicaps Explained).

Hunter Chase Races

A steeplechase race for amateur riders and horses with certification to show that they have been taking part in hunting. Once a horse competes in a Hunter Chase, if the horse is in training with a licensed trainer, it may not run in any other race apart from Hunter Chases in that same season.

Restricted Handicap Races

As with Handicaps but restrictions are applied to the race. Criteria such as age, races won (if any), and races won above a certain value (if any) are applied.

Introductory Hurdle Races

A hurdle race for juvenile horses that have not run in more than one hurdle race.

Junior Hurdle Races

A hurdle race for National Hunt-bred horses (so not Flat-bred) that have not won a race outside of this type of race, enabling them to run against their own kind. 

Juvenile Races

A race on the Flat for two-year-old horses, or a race over hurdles for horses that are aged three at the beginning of the current Jumps season in the case of National Hunt races. Horses that have previously run on the Flat are eligible to run in Juvenile Hurdle races. They are open to horses that are aged three if the race is run from October to December, or aged four if the race is run from January to April during the National Hunt season.

Listed Races

A class of race just below the hierarchy of Group/Grade One, Group Two, and Group Three, but above Handicap races. 

Maiden Races

A race for horses who have yet to win a race in that code of race. On occasion, a horse might win after the entry date for the race has elapsed but before the date of the actual race. In such circumstances, that horse must carry a penalty (extra weight) during the race.

Maiden Handicap Races

For horses aged 3+ that have raced at least four times and have an Official Rating (OR) / Handicap Mark of no higher than 70, but are yet to win a race. The weight they carry in the race is determined by their OR.

Novice Hurdle / Chase Races

A horse that has not won a hurdle race (other than a Junior Hurdle race) before the start of the current Jumps season. Or a horse that has not won a steeplechase race before the start of the current Jumps season.

Novice Stakes Races

A Flat race for two or three-year-old horses that have not won more than two races. Horses that have previously won usually have to carry an extra weight penalty.

Nursery Races

A Flat Handicap race for two-year-old horses.

Sales Races

A race limited to horses from a particular sales (i.e. Goffs or Tattersalls), usually as yearlings. The higher the price tag they fetched at the sales, the more weight they must carry.

Selling Race / Selling Plate Races 

A race, it can be a Handicap or not, for low-class/ability horses where the winner is auctioned off after the race. All other horses are available to 'claim' via the same methods for those in Claiming races.

If you’ve wondered why most summer meetings now only host six races, this is why:

In their infinite wisdom, British racing’s Industry Strategy Group has cut around 170 races from the 2023 summer programme. The reason is to improve the competitiveness of races in Britain and, hopefully, increase the number of entries per race. There are even more changes planned from 2024 onwards.

So what’s changed?
On the Flat, the number of races per meeting during July and August has been reduced to six, from an average of 6.5, at all meetings where the total prize money does not exceed £200,000. This equates to the removal of around 120 races.
National Hunt meetings have also been reduced to six races per meeting (from seven) during this period. Meetings in September have been cut to six races too, from 6.5 previously. This means that there are around 50 National Hunt races less per year. During October and November, National Hunt meetings will revert to seven races per meeting as field sizes are generally larger and more competitive at that time of year anyway.
 

All-Weather meetings are permitted to host eight races in October and November, with the option to divide into nine, this is to “mitigate the financial impact of this development”.
 

Other changes will include the removal of the worst performing Conditions Races - these are races with ‘conditions’ attached that determine how much weight a horse will carry (i.e. age, sex, and whether they’ve already won a race). These are different from handicap races where weight is allocated according the the official rating (OR) of the horse. Nursery Flat races in July and August will also be reduced (Flat handicap races for two-year-olds only) by 10 - 12% subject to a review of juvenile numbers early in the year.
National Hunt weight-for-age novice chases from May to August will be replaced by a programme of Class 3 novice handicap chases, but even these will be reduced by 10 to 15% from the existing number. The number of Class 3 and Class 4 Handicap Chases will be adjusted to better fit the horse population, meaning a reduction of around 10%.
 

So has it worked? Our opinion:
It’s still too early to say but it certainly has not improved the number of runners over this last summer period, in either code. We’ve lost count of how many times we’ve not bothered doing a Placepot, or have done just the one instead of our usual two because the number of horses running has been so low and meant that bookies would only pay out on two places, sometimes only one! In our experience, there have been fewer races per meeting but no visible increase in the number of runners yet racecourse admission prices have not been reduced to reflect this. This means that racegoers like you and us are paying the same as last year, or in most cases even more, for even less entertainment. In the US and on the continent they get eight or nine races at their race meetings - that's value for money. Six races are not. And it’s the smaller racecourses, and smaller meetings, that are being affected most - the bread and butter meetings. As regular racegoers, this infuriates us. Racegoers are already being fleeced with high food, drinks, and admission prices. Meetings where the total prize money does exceed £200,000 are, in the main, larger meetings at larger racecourses where the admission prices are going to be even higher. This is yet another kick in the teeth for true racing fans, and they wonder why attendance is falling?
 

There’s been a lot of coverage on the new whip rules in the Racing Press of late. At the time of writing, this was amplified when Jim Crowley was adjudged to have struck his horse, Hukum, nine times in the 2023 running of the King George VI and Queen Elizabeth Stakes at Ascot - that’s three times above the permitted level. He was consequently banned for 20 days and fined £10,000. Hukum only just prevailed after a last furlong battle with Westover, ridden by Rob Hornby. Hornby was seen to have whipped his horse seven times - one time more than the permitted level. He was only given a four-day ban. His ban was only four days because he’d not had a whipping penalty in 200 rides in Britain. He would have previously incurred an eight-day ban but the BHA had eased penalties literally just days before the incident. Both jockeys were unaware that they’d exceeded the permitted amount of whip use claiming that, although this whip rule is always in their mind, it’s hard to keep count of how many times they’ve used the whip when they’re in the heat of battle, and in the zone, with head down, driving the horse forward and trying to keep control of its momentum. Crowley said that a million things are going on in their heads in close finishes like that, unlike when they are a length clear when it’s far easier to keep count. However, a spokesman for the BHA disagreed with this, saying that there was “very little justification for it” and that "the rules are there to safeguard the perception of the sport and to maintain fairness in close finishes". Crowley believed that his punishment did not fit the crime and said that he had the support of his colleagues who had themselves previously expressed ‘discontent’ over the new rules. He said that he could guarantee that not a single jockey in the weighing room agreed with the new rules. Crowley's ban meant that he missed the 2023 Ebor Festival at York. Had he used the whip one time more, so four times over the permitted number, both horse and rider would have been disqualified from the race*.

Data provided by the BHA showed that 0.96% of all rides in Britain had breached the new whip rules, in the first six months of them having been implemented. Whip overuse accounted for 61% of all suspensions handed out for breaches of the new rules, with a higher percentage being given to less experienced jockeys. However professional jockeys accounted for 77% of breached rides (and 57% of penalties given).

* Latest (15th October 2024): following the 2024 running of the Cesarewitch Handicap on 12th October at Newmarket's Rowley Mile course, Jamie Powell, the jockey of the 33/1 winner Alphonse Le Grande, was adjudged to have struck his mount a total of ten times. For this, the horse was disqualified and the jockey banned from racing for 28 days. The second-placed horse, Manxman, was promoted to first place.
 

So what are the new whip rules?
 

BHA Whip Rule (F)45:
Flat racing maximum permitted level of whip use: 6 times
Jumps racing maximum permitted level of whip use: 7 times
 

In addition, any use of the whip must be appropriate, proportionate, and professional, and take account of the Rules of Racing and guidelines laid down by the BHA. The whip may be used to encourage a horse - to have the horse focused and concentrated - to perform at its best but the stimulus provided by the use of the whip must be limited so as not to compromise the welfare of the horse.
As well as the number of times the whip is used The Whip Committee will also look at the force with which it is used, whether it was used from above shoulder height, whether the horse has been given time to respond, the purpose for which the whip was used, whether the horse was in contention or clearly winning at the time the whip was used, and whether the whip has been used in the correct place (on the horse’s hindquarters).
 

To minimise a breach of the whip rule jockeys are encouraged to:
- Urge the horse to lengthen its stride and increase its pace by first using hand and heels before picking up the whip
- Consider how much of the race is still left to run before starting to use the whip
- Show the horse the whip and give it time to respond before using it
- Give the horse a chance to respond, having used it, before using it again
- Keep both hands on the reins when using the whip down the shoulder in the backhand position
- Use the whip in rhythm with the horse’s stride
 

Penalties for overuse of the whip differ depending on how many times over the permitted maximum it has been used, the number of rides the jockey has had since a previous breach of the whip rules, the Class and value of the race, and the number of times a jockey has been found guilty of whip overuse in an allotted period. 

Why use a whip?
The loud noise made by the whip is designed to move the horse forward. We’ve all seen those old Western films where a whip is lashed into the air to get stationary horses to move or to create a stampede. It’s the same principle (but thankfully not the same type of whip) and it’s designed to get a horse’s attention, to encourage them to concentrate, to keep them in a straight line, or to steer them away from danger - so jockeys say that it’s a vital implement to keep both the horse and rider safe.
 

Some people believe that horses are inherently lazy but research shows that lazy horses are made, not born. They may have developed an aversion to exercise, perhaps because the training program may have exceeded their capabilities at one point. Just like us humans, they may prefer to take the easy option. Who wouldn’t? Or, as we hear so many times when professional pundits talk about horses after they've under-performed in a race, they may just have fallen out of love with racing. It happens. It doesn't mean they're lazy. Constantly having to go to the limit and give your all is not for everyone. Or every horse. From time immemorial they’ve been man’s hardest working animal companion so that certainly doesn't suggest an inherent lazy animal. Therefore, when a horse does become 'lazy' for whatever reason, it needs ‘encouragement’ - the whip.
 

The Whip itself
Animal rights groups such as Animal Aid have been calling for a ban on the whip for many years claiming that it’s cruel, painful, and intimidatory. And back in the day, that may well have been true. That is not the case today though. The BHA has strict rules regarding the construction and dimensions of the whip permitted. Jockeys can only carry a specifically designed and approved energy-absorbing whip, developed in conjunction with the RSPCA. This whip is intended to create a loud noise thus encouraging the horse to move forward, without creating either discomfort or injury to it. The whip consists of a composite backbone surrounded by either polymer or plastic and encased in a thick high-density foam padding. All whips are checked by the Clerk of the Scales when the jockeys weigh out before each race to ensure that they conform to the required standards and remain fit for purpose. ProCush, who make whips by hand to custom specifications, are the preferred whip manufacturer for most jockeys in Britain.
 

Specifications:
For a flat race, the whip must be a maximum of 70 cm in length (including the flap) and there must be no binding within 17 cm of the end of the flap.
For a jumps race the whip must be a maximum of 68 cm in length (including the flap) and there must be no binding within 23 cm of the end of the flap.
The minimum diameter of the whip must be 1 cm, the maximum weight must not exceed 160g, and the contact area must be smooth with no protrusions or raised surface. The whip must be covered by shock-absorbing material throughout its circumference such that it gives a compression factor of at least 6mm.
The only additional feature that may be attached to the whip is a flap, and even that must comply with a strict set of standards. All of the horse-racing whips that I looked at online already had these flaps.

While Animal Rights groups such as World Horse Welfare do recognise the use of the whip for safety reasons, they believe that its primary use in horse racing is to make the horse run faster and to ‘advance its position in the race’. And they point to a growing amount of scientific research that questions whether the use of the whip for ‘encouragement’ purposes is actually effective. There is, apparently, no proof that the use of a whip actually does make a horse run faster, or stop them from slowing down. They say its use is coercive, and this undermines the concept of partnership between horse and human, which is, in their opinion, the foundation of ethical horse sport. I suppose the fact that there are actually ‘hands and heels only’ races, which are now widely accepted in the sport, and seem to pass without incident, does help their suggestion that a whip is not really needed.

On the other side of the table are racing professionals such as Kevin Blake who, in our opinion, talks a lot of sense on all things horse racing. He feels that use of the whip is not as big an issue as it's made out to be and that the surveys carried out regarding whip use were "based on blatantly loaded questions and a sporadic volley from the mainstream press" and that there is no evidence, beyond isolated pockets of the public, of an anti-whip clamour. But he also points to the distinct lack of effort by the authorities to educate on the realities of the modern whip. He asked followers of his X (Twitter) account if they'd ever had the opportunity to hold and examine a modern whip. Only 22% had...and they were racing focused people. Members of the wider general public who have no interest in horse racing are even less likely to have, so why are their opinions valid? He's got a point. One thing is for sure, it’s an emotive subject. And one that’s not going away any time soon. 

If you've watched the racing on TV and heard them talk about the World Pool but, like me, you have no idea what they're talking about, fear not, as I've done a bit of research and am going to try to explain it to you. 

In simple terms, it's the Tote, but global. It's a collaboration between worldwide Totes and the Hong Kong Jockey Club. And it works in the same way as the Tote that you see at all of our racecourses here in Britain insomuch as all bets go into a pot...or 'pool', and the number of bets, and the size of the stakes wagered on those bets, determines the size of that pot/pool. With the World Pool, it's the same, but as certain races (or meetings) are open to global World Pool betting, the size of the pot is much bigger. Think Lotto compared to the EuroMillions - the EuroMillions jackpot is always likely to be bigger because it's open to a much bigger audience.

Because the number of bets, and the total value of those bets wagered in the World Pool are much larger, a significantly sized bet that might be placed on a World Pool race is less likely to affect the odds in the way that it would do with the normal Tote in a nondescript race at a smaller racecourse. And the good thing about the World Pool is that, by having a number of different countries betting into the same overall pool, it means that racing fans can pit their wits against bettors from all around the globe. For example, UK horses could be underestimated by the international pools, or foreign raiders could be overlooked by the UK Tote customers - this difference of opinion could result in a bigger SP than one might expect on the day. 

What benefit is the World Pool for British racing? In short, the increased media rights payments to racecourses, and more revenue generated via pool betting, mean bigger financial returns. 

World Pool races are Flat races only, there are no World Pool National Hunt races. And World Pool betting is not available at bog standard meetings at smaller racecourses either. It's only available for certain big races, or meetings, with a global appeal (such as Royal Ascot, the Derby, or the Dubai World Cup). In 2024, there were forty-seven World Pool days worldwide, eighteen of them British, and another four of them Irish. 

Just how big is the 'pot' with the World Pool likely to be? Well, in 2023, Royal Ascot pulled in a World Pool of over £154M in bets, with the Group One Queen Elizabeth II Stakes setting the highest amount ever bet on a single World Pool race when it drew in £6.6M in bets. That's a sizeable pot!

There are seven types of World Pool bets, and they work pretty much the same as the Tote:

• Win: You'll get a return on your stake if your horse finishes first. 
• Place: In races with 4-6 starters, you'll get a return if your selection finishes in the top two. In races with 7-20 starters, you'll get a return if your selection finishes in the top three. In races of 21 or more starters, you'll get a return on your stake if your horse finishes in the top four (Hong Kong place terms apply). 
• Quinella: Pick the top two finishers in either order. 
• Quinella Place (Swinger): Pick two of the top three finishers in any order.
• Forecast (Exacta): Pick the top two finishers in the exact order. 
• Tricast (Trifecta): Pick the top three finishers in the exact order. Also known as a Tierce.
• Treble (Pick 3): Pick the winners of three races.

Note that there is no World Pool Placepot.

How do I place a bet using the World Pool? Bets on the World Pool can be placed at Tote.co.uk, or tote.ie for Irish customers. Also via the Tote App, in Tote betting shops, and at Tote betting facilities at our racecourses. 

The forty-seven global World Pool days (in 2024) were as follows:

27/01/2024 Cape Town Met Day South Africa

24/02/2024 Blue Diamond Stakes Day Australia

24/02/2024 Saudi Cup Day Saudi Arabia

30/03/2024 Australian Cup Day Australia

30/03/2024 Tancred Stakes Day Australia

30/03/2024 Dubai World Cup Day UAE

06/04/2024 Doncaster Mile Day Australia

06/04/2024 SA Derby Day South Africa

13/04/2024 Queen Elizabeth Stakes Day Australia

04/05/2024 2000 Guineas Day UK

05/05/2024 1000 Guineas UK

18/05/2024 Lockinge Stakes Day UK

26/05/2024 Irish 1000 Guineas Day Ireland

01/06/2024 Queensland Derby Day Australia

01/06/2024 Derby Stakes Day UK

8/06/2024 Gold Challenge South Africa

15/06/2024 Stradbroke Handicap Day Australia

18/06/2024 Queen Anne Stakes Day UK 

19/06/2024 Prince of Wales's Stakes Day UK

20/06/2024 Gold Cup Day UK

21/06/2024 Commonwealth Cup Day UK

22/06/2024 Queen Elizabeth II Jubilee Stakes Day UK

30/06/2024 Irish Derby Day Ireland

06/07/2024 Durban July Day South Africa

06/07/2024 Eclipse Stakes UK

07/07/2024 Deutsches Derby Day Germany

27/07/2024 King George VI & Queen Elizabeth Stakes Day UK

28/07/2024 Champions Cup Day South Africa

28/07/2024 Grosser Preis Bayerisches Zuchtrennen Day Germany

30/07/2024 Goodwood Cup Day UK

31/07/2024 Sussex Stakes Day UK

01/08/2024 Nassau Stakes Day UK

04/08/2024 Preis der Diana - German Oaks Day Germany

11/08/2024 Grosser Preis von Berlin Day Germany

21/08/2024 International Stakes Day UK

22/08/2024Yorkshire Oaks Day UK

23/08/2024 Nunthorpe Stakes Day UK

01/09/2024 Grosser Preis von Baden Day Germany

14/09/2024 Makybe Diva Stakes Day Australia

14/09/2024 Irish Champion Stakes Day Ireland

15/09/2024 Irish St. Leger Day Ireland

19/10/2024 King Charles III Stakes Day Australia

19/10/2024 Caulfield Cup Day Australia

19/10/2024 British Champions Day UK

02/11/2024 Victoria Derby Day Australia

10/11/2024 Grosser Preis von Bayern Day Germany

15/12/2024 Gran Premio Carlos Pellegrini Argentina

Note that not all of the races on the card at these meetings are World Pool races.