In the past, steeplechasers cantered down to the start, then walked round in a circle behind the tapes while tack adjustments and similar preliminaries were attended to. All this in an atmosphere of calm and quiet that suited the horses, their jockeys, their owners and trainers, and the public. This system proved satisfactory for two hundred years.

About fifteen years ago the system was changed. Where possible the runners were required to leave the course when they arrived at the start, and the preliminaries were conducted in a “holding area” designated for that purpose. When race-time approached, runners were instructed to return to the track and turn immediately towards the tapes so that the starter could send the field on its way in one continuous process. I believe the innovation was designed to ensure that races started on time.

The system has worked satisfactorily for perhaps 90 percent of races, namely for those races which have small fields. The other ten percent (races with perhaps 15 runners or more) have proved more problematic. As the races with larger fields include practically every prestige race in the calendar, that problem area is exceptionally important. More people watch these races, bigger prizes are up for grabs, more money is bet on them, and the consequences of any flaw in the system can be dire indeed.

What the viewer in the stands (or on TV) will see, when the field is a big one, is as follows. Once the preliminaries in the holding area have been completed, the runners will enter the first phase of what is called the “rolling start.” Tightly packed, the horses will rotate. While those on the inside of the circling group walk, those on the outside are sometimes cantering. Why? Patience! All will be revealed.

As the seconds pass the tension rises. Not just for the horses – the jockeys are also under pressure. They are aware that, if they return to the track at the back of the scrum, they are going to be giving away a lot of ground when the tapes go up. Hence the cantering, hence the overheating.

Let me ask a question. Your chaser or hurdler (often an inexperienced novice) is heading towards the first obstacle. Would you like him to be cool and calm, and ridden by a cool and calm jockey, both parties relaxed and intent on one thing only – jumping that obstacle correctly? That used to be the norm with the old system. Nowadays it is quite likely that the horse is upset and on edge, while the jockey is trying to make up the loss of ground imposed on him by the lottery which is the current starting system. Should this not be a cause for concern?

When 25 horses (for the sake of argument) pass through a gap in the railings on to the track (sometimes smashing the rails in their rush for the exit) and turn towards the tapes, the distance between first and last can be very long by the time the firstcomers are approaching the tapes and the last few runners have just reached the racing surface. Whereupon it is normal for the starter to send the field on its way.  At this point the handicapper is entitled to junk his computer (if the race is a handicap), as is the Weatherbys operative who has carefully defined the conditions (if the race is a non-handicap). Their work has been rendered worthless by the random rearrangement of the terms of engagement caused by the modern starting procedure when applied to races with large fields. One cannot help but wonder how much difference to results this kind of “distortion” is causing.

Another aspect of this phenomenon is the basic meaning of “a fair start.” In most sports a fair start is one which allows all the competitors to have more or less the same chance of success at the time when the gun fires, the whistle blows, the klaxon sounds, or the tapes go up. In most sports this is considered a fundamental principle. In Britain’s jump racing, however, it becomes of no consequence whatsoever, whenever a race involves a field of any considerable size.

If you consult the rules governing “Starting” on the BHA website, you will find that the first priority is to ensure that the race is started on time, or words to that effect. This would indicate that, in the opinion of the authorities, pressurising horses and jockeys is a secondary consideration, that making a nonsense of handicaps and race conditions (and thereby possibly distorting the results of races) are consequences worth accepting, and that fairness doesn’t matter – just as long as races start on time.  Is this healthy?

Besides, there is no certainty that the current system is a time-saver. False starts still occur, and recalling large fields of edgy horses is a slow process involving a lot of shouting and waving of arms. Incidentally, whenever an “incident” occurs at the start nowadays, the authorities automatically blame the jockeys. I think they are utterly wrong: the blame belongs to a flawed system.

Next week Cheltenham will dish up plenty of races with large fields. I hope that I am shown to be entirely wrong in my assessment and that a succession of superb starts will require me to eat humble pie. But if my misgivings prove well-founded, Cheltenham will be the best possible showcase for the flaws in the current system, and will point the way towards the elementary adjustments that need to be implemented to restore good order and best practice to a process that is in fact comparatively simple.

Andrew Simpson

4th March 2012