'It's annoyed me a bit' - Richard Hughes defends 'preposterous' reason for declaring two-year-old a non-runner

Richard Hughes has defended the decision to declare a two-year-old a non-runner after it became apparent his owner would not be able to get to Kempton to see him run.

The Hughes-trained two-year-old Ballarat Bertie was officially withdrawn from the 4.55 at Kempton on Monday on a self certificate, with the reason given as "owner unable to attend", prompting some stinging criticism on social media, with one critic describing the "loophole" as "totally preposterous".

Others on social media took a more humorous approach. Bookmaker David Johnson wrote: "Fancy Invincible Crown, 2.10 Beverley today, does anyone know if the owners have set off yet?"

On Wednesday, the BHA confirmed 'owner unable to attend' was a legitimate reason for a non-runner. Under the rules of racing connections can self-certify a horse from a race for any reason, other than prize-money, with the horse suspended from running for seven days.

'Enough was enough'

Speaking to the Racing Post on Wednesday, Hughes defended the decision made with owner Robbie Rexton. He said: "People suggested what we did was underhand. Robbie Rexton is a very good owner of mine, he sponsors the yard, he always watches his horses and always loves going racing.

"He rang me and said 'Richard, I'm stuck on the M40 and can't get there' so he didn't want to run. I've since entered the horse at Wolverhampton on Monday but Robbie can't get there either so we won't run him.

"It's annoyed me a bit, you've all the trolls on Twitter. But that man pays £30,000 a year to keep that horse in training and enough was enough, it was a bit uncalled for in the end.

"Others said we shouldn't have used that reason, but any owner's allowed to take out their horse whenever they want. If two horses got injured in the first race and an owner said 'I don't want to run' then I won't run his horse, and there's no difference I don't think.

"Owners shouldn't have to worry about taking a horse out because they don't want to run, because they don't want to get slated on social media. If they don't want to run there shouldn't be any pressure. With no horses you'd have no races."

The BHA moved to explain the situation on Wednesday.

A spokesperson for the governing body said: "Ballarat Bertie was declared a self-certification non-runner from the 4.55pm at Kempton on Monday. As a result, the horse was suspended from running in Britain for seven days.

"Self-certification is an allowable reason to make a horse a non-runner for any reason except when it is related to the race’s prize-money. However, while permitted within the rules, we recognise that late withdrawals can be a source of frustration for those seeking to engage with our sport.

"For this reason, a series of additional measures were introduced in 2018 with the aim of decreasing non-runner rates and particularly tackling potential misuse. This approach seeks to balance the needs of connections who may have valid or unavoidable reasons for withdrawing their horse, with consideration for those who attend, watch and bet on racing."

Two similar instances, one big difference

At Glorious Goodwood last month, Charlie Johnston was handed a £140 fine after the stewards found his explanation to be unacceptable when asked to provide further details surrounding withdrawing Zabeel Road from the nursery. The reason given was: "owner does not want horse to run".

The Racing Post understands the circumstances differed as instead of using self-certification, veterinary certification or the going when filing the non-runner notice, Johnston declared the horse a non-runner under the 'other' category, which has different rules to self-certification.

Paragraph 51 of the race entry code states: "A trainer may use any other reason for submitting a non-runner notice. If they do, disciplinary action shall be taken unless the BHA is satisfied that the horse's failure to run was caused by circumstances outside of the trainer or owner's control."

The owner not wanting to run his horse was deemed to not be outside the trainer or owner's control, and therefore disciplinary action was taken. Had Johnston self-certified and used the same reason he would not have been fined, but the horse would have been unable to run for seven days.

Read these next:

Bookmakers set to refund ante-post bets on Turners Novices' Chase in wake of Cheltenham Festival changes 

Gazing at the supermoon - Edward Whitaker captures astronomical phenomenon in all its glory on the gallops 

Prix de l'Opera next for Fallen Angel after 'phenomenal' Matron run - plus possible Champions Day return for Wathnan star 

Looking for free bets? Racing Post have got the best offers, all in one place. Visit racingpost.com/freebets to find out more.