Worcester walkover a step too far???

Walkovers are such a rarity in racing these days that it is always a jolt to be reminded that the rules require the sole remaining horse to canter to the furlong pole and back in order to claim the prize. It is as if the simple embarrassment of a one-horse race is not enough, and so there is a need to advertise it too.

When Moulin De La Croix made the canter of shame at Worcester last week, however, several of National Hunt racing's leading trainers – including Nicky Henderson, Jonjo O'Neill, Donald McCain and Alan King – were feeling rather pleased with themselves.

At the instigation of their fellow trainer Charlie Mann, they had engineered the walkover to protest about the prize money on offer, which was £900 below the sum that they consider acceptable. "Racecourses' turnover was up last year and this year and bookmakers are making profits," said Mann, who added: "We gave them plenty of warning." The trainers decided to wreck the race, and wreck it they did.

What followed was a thoroughly predictable rush to portray those involved as heirs to Wat Tyler, standing up for their rights against brutal oppression by – who exactly? Worcester racecourse? Arena Leisure, its parent company? The bookmakers, who we are so often told are "bleeding the sport dry"? Well, whoever it was, the big boys really hit them where it hurts.

Worcester will not dare to run any more races for less than the top trainers think they deserve. But they will, you know. At the very next meeting, probably, and if not there, then at the one after that. Last week's protest was, admittedly, rather more effective than some attempted boycotts in the past. Yet it still did little to dispel the overall impression that when it comes to direct action, racing people don't really get the theory, never mind the practice.

Between them, the trainers who scratched horses from last week's race at Worcester won nearly £8m in prize money in the 2011-12 season. Add in Paul Nicholls, who tweeted in support that Worcester "got what they deserved", and the total is more than £11m. They have also picked up nearly half a million in the current season, which only started in May and doesn't really get going until September.

The Worcester protest was not have-nots agitating against haves to acquire whatever it is they are being denied. It was the already-minted demanding more.

The big yards may have decided that they could not be bothered with the money on offer, but had they not colluded to keep smaller trainers out, the prize would have found a winner, and probably one who actually appreciated it. The big boys, however, decided that since they did not fancy it, no one else would be allowed to have it instead.

It is behaviour that could be variously described as small-minded, arrogant, futile and pathetic. More importantly, though, it appears this could have been a premeditated breach of the Rules of Racing.

The horses entered for the Worcester race were of a much better standard than would normally have been expected for such a minor prize. No fewer than nine of the 12 declared runners had won their most recent start, and two of the other three had finished second. As a result, there was next to no chance that a small yard would put a horse into the race and then scupper the "protest" by declaring to run and refusing to scratch it.

So when did the conspiracy begin? When was it agreed that these horses should be entered for the race, and then declared to run, when there was never any intention that they would do so?

It is a question that the British Horseracing Authority, the sport's regulator, should ask each and every one of the trainers involved. And it might not hurt to remind them too that their BHA-issued licences, the ones that allow them to collectively win millions of pounds in prize money for their owners every season, require that the holder does nothing to undermine the integrity of racing.
Greg Wood
The Guardian