Aidan O’Brien extended his Epsom Derby record to 12 wins as Christmas Day landed the colts’ classic. However, a decision to rule favourite Benvenuto Cellini a non-runner has caused uproar. Benvenuto Cellini was slowly away from the stall, with nothing immediately appearing untoward. He failed to adopt a prominent position, and the writing was on the wall for his backers.
On closer inspection, Benvenuto Cellin had his hind leg raised on the stalls, and the on-course stewards deemed him a non-runner. Chaos descended immediately, as while punters were refunded, those on the winner were subject to a 25p Rule 4. The decision was made 20 minutes after the race, thus some punters who’d already made withdrawals on the winner subsequently had their accounts in minus.
This further wreaked havoc for on-course bookmakers and punters, who experienced a logistical nightmare in refunds and payments.
Many of the sports governing body’s, bookmakers and punters have clashed in their response to the decision. Chair of the Horse Racing Bettors Forum Sean Trivass said, via the Racing Post: “The majority view of the HBF is that we do not feel the horse was inconvenienced enough to be deemed a non-runner. We’re amazed at the decision on the day by the on-course stewards. And look forward to seeing if any further action is taken by the BHA shortly.
“We’re wary of where this may lead in the future, potentially opening a can of worms. With punters wondering if a horse who missed the break after rearing in the stalls – will then be declared a non-runner.
“This is an extraordinary act of self-sabotage on one of the biggest days” – Simon Clare
Ladbrokes and Coral’s Simon Clare was furious regarding the decision. “This was a shocking decision, shockingly bad. The impact was huge. This is the biggest betting Flat race of the year, this was the best backed horse in the race. Over a third of the stakes were placed on it. This was surprising, out of kilter with everything that’s gone before.
“We’re talking an impact of multi-million pounds reputationally and financially. And nobody expected it to happen; this is an extraordinary act of self-sabotage on one of the biggest days. And done in the name of the betting public, which is the most concerning thing. Actually, it was quite the opposite.”
Brett Dunshea defends rule use
BHA’s Brett Dunshea acknowledged the severity of the situation, but defended the stewards decision: “This rule change came about as a consequence of the leading nations coming together. Agreeing on the preferred method for dealing with horses whose chances are impeded at the start.
“What we have to do is protect the punter. We can’t protect everybody, but the principle that underlies having a bet on a race is that they must be entitled to a fair chance for their investment.”
The latter sentiment raised an eyebrow of concern, as a ‘fair’ chance is merely subjective. If a horse breaks slowly, or rears, has the punter had a fair chance for their investment? The fall out from the incident has certainly opened up a costly can of worms, and will continue to be discussed in the coming weeks.