Is racing being ruined by ‘super-trainers’?

Back in November, 20 horses went to post in the Troytown Chase at Navan. Fourteen were trained in Co. Meath by Gordon Elliott, who provided the winner Coko Beach and four of the first five home. He broke no rules. To those who objected to his mass entry, Elliott retorted that he hadn’t stopped any horse running in the race by running the number he did. It had not filled to its capacity and his entrants had a range of owners.

Not long after that event, amid growing concerns about the domination of racing by a small band of ‘super-trainers’ whose yards contain an ever-growing proportion of the best horses, the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) announced that it would be ‘discussing with interested parties’ the idea of limiting trainers to declaring no more than four runners in any Class 1 or 2 handicap. In the interests of fairness and of a lively betting market outside the Classics and ‘conditions’ races, in which entrants compete on equal terms after allowances for age and sex, we have long handicapped horses to create a notional equality. Never before though have the authorities sought to handicap the people who own or train them by restricting how many they may run in a particular race.

Interfere with the market at your peril, say some. Why should limits be imposed on trainers who have earned the patronage of owners with pockets deep enough to buy the most expensive horses by demonstrating their supreme ability? But the excellent can drive out the good. My fear is that if we don’t interfere then slowly but surely British jump racing will die. When trainers like Fulke Walwyn, Fred Winter and Michael Dickinson (trainer extraordinarily of the first five home in the 1983 Gold Cup) were the big names they only had around 50 horses in their yards.