Should Shishkin have been deemed a runner after refusing to race in the 1965 Chase at Ascot?

The Front Runner is our morning email exclusively for Members' Club Ultimate subscribers, written today by Peter Scargill and available here as a free sample.

Subscribers can get more great insight, tips and racing chat from The Front Runner every Monday to Friday. Those who aren't yet signed up for The Front Runner should click here to sign up and start receiving emails immediately!

Not a Members' Club Ultimate subscriber? Click here to join today and also receive our Ultimate Daily emails plus our full range of fantastic website and newspaper content.

A simple question to begin your week with: should Shishkin have been deemed a runner in the Nirvana Spa 1965 Chase at Ascot?

In case you missed it, the much-anticipated clash between Shishkin and Pic D’Orhy in the Grade 2 never materialised after Shishkin, the 8-13 favourite, dug in his heels as the tapes went up to start the race and refused to budge.

Quite aside from the remarkable sight of seeing the once unbeatable star not even being prepared to race – for reasons as yet undeciphered by connections – Shishkin’s non-participation brought up an old bugbear for many involved in betting on racing.

This revolves around whether a horse who comes under the starter’s order should still be declared a runner even if they have not moved a muscle. In the case of Saturday’s race, the Ascot stewards deemed he was a runner as he had met the criteria laid out to be one, so all those who bet on him lost their money.

Some punters received refunds after bookmakers made what they refer to as ‘goodwill’ payments. In these cases, customers who have certain types of bets, usually singles but not exclusively, either receive their money back or are credited with a free bet. However, if Shishkin had been a non-runner, everyone who bet on him would have had their money back, albeit with a chunky Rule 4 reduction applied to those with bets still standing on the race.

Asked to provide a fuller explanation as to why Shishkin was declared a runner, a BHA spokesman reissued the note from Ascot, which said: "Having reviewed the start the stewards were satisfied that Shishkin had refused to race and was deemed to be a runner."

George Ryley, a member of the Horseracing Bettors Forum (HBF), is passionate about the subject and feels the time has come for a line in the sand: if your horse doesn’t run, your bet doesn’t stand.

“It’s a subject that’s important to me as a punters’ representative,” Ryley says. “I do feel that if a horse refuses and doesn’t take a step towards competing then punters should get their money back. 

“There is a bit of a split within punters as some people will say it’s a race and you pay your money out knowing the risks and take your chance, or there are others who say the rules have always been that way, but that doesn’t make the rules right does it? In this day and age punters should at least have a run for their money. In my mind, that’s an important principle.

“It’s not good that punters have to rely on the goodwill of bookmakers in such circumstances. It’s appreciated when the big firms do that, but it shouldn’t have to be the case that it’s relied on.”

Under racing's rules, if a horse has come under the starter's orders then they are deemed to be a runner. However, given Shishkin had shown an indication he was not in the mood to race, should it not have been the case that discretion could be given to rule him out?

Ryley is not so sure, and says: "Shishkin showed an indication that he might not be in a mood to race but that was all it was. To be fair to the starter, I have seen many examples over the years of horses who have shown an indication not to start, or who have had a reputation for not starting, who have jumped off fine.

"So I don’t think it would be right to say a horse is a non-runner if he doesn’t jump off having shown signs. I think there should be a flat rule that says if a horse doesn’t start then they are a non-runner."

Last week, the BHA outlined how it was looking to redraft its rules regarding non-runners after a number of horses were impacted by the stalls opening slower than their rivals' gates in the Epsom Dash.

Ryley said the HBF had been in discussion with the BHA over the potential change, and hoped similar amendments could be considered for scenarios such as the one involving Shishkin.

"We have been in discussions with the BHA about what happened at Epsom in the summer and that is something they are looking at to potentially bring in line with other countries," he says. "If that is something they can change then I don’t see why this couldn’t be changed either."

Read these next:

Fastorslow proves he belongs at the top as Galopin Des Champs shows 'no spark' for disappointed Willie Mullins 

What's on this week: Constitution Hill returns, Newbury's Coral Gold Cup meeting and Grade 1 action at Fairyhouse 

Who were the big ante-post market movers for the Cheltenham Festival last week? 

The Front Runner is our unmissable email newsletter available exclusively to Members' Club Ultimate subscribers. Chris Cook, a four-time Racing Reporter of the Year award winner, provides his take on the day's biggest stories and tips for the upcoming racing every morning from Monday to Friday. Not a Members' Club Ultimate subscriber? Click here to join today and also receive our Ultimate Daily emails plus our full range of fantastic website and newspaper content.