BHA: Benvenuto Cellini non-runner call 'most extreme test of rule' and does not set dangerous precedent

Click here to add us to your Google preferred sources or find out more here

Benvenuto Cellini had to be deemed a non-runner in the Derby because of the weight of evidence showing his chances of winning the race had been “materially” compromised, the BHA argued on Monday.

In a blog posted in response to heated reaction from punters, bookmakers, racing fans and media in the aftermath of Saturday’s decision, the BHA dismissed concerns the ruling would set “a dangerous precedent” for future races and added that the horse’s finishing position would play a role when reaching a conclusion under the rule.

Benvenuto Cellini left the stalls as the 3-1 favourite for the Derby, starting slowly and coming past the post in tenth place behind winning stablemate Christmas Day.

• The Benvenuto Cellini episode is teaching punters to behave like spoiled children - and that's a bad precedent 
• 'Horseracing's capacity to shoot itself in the foot never lets us down' - readers' views on the contentious Benvenuto Cellini call 
• Benvenuto Cellini non-runner Derby call blasted as 'extraordinary act of self-sabotage' by bookie chief - but BHA backs its stewards 

Immediately after the race, it emerged a stewards’ inquiry was taking place due to Benvenuto Cellini potentially being compromised by his position in the starting stalls just before the off. At 4.24pm, approximately 20 minutes after the race had started, the favourite was declared a non-runner, resulting in a 25p Rule 4 deduction on bets.

The horse was taken out under rule (H)6, which had been introduced in 2024 to bring British racing in line with other jurisdictions operating under the International Federation of Horseracing Authorities rule.

What does rule (H)6 say?

6) The stewards may declare a horse a non-runner where:

6.1 In a race started from starting stalls, a horse is denied a fair start, and its chances are materially affected, including but not limited to where: a horse is prevented from starting on equal terms due to a faulty action of the starting stalls

The BHA said: “The rationale behind the rule is that it is unfair to the betting public to lose their money on a horse who is prevented from starting on equal terms.

“The unanimous decision reached by a highly-experienced stewarding panel was that the horse was prevented from starting on equal terms and that, as a consequence, his chance in the race was materially affected.

“If the starter had been aware that the horse was on three legs, with his leg physically entangled in the stalls, and his chances were going to be impacted in the race, he would not have enacted the start. The horse’s leg would have been released, taken out of the stalls and checked by a veterinary officer and then reloaded if safe to do so.”

The blog added that the rule would not be applied in incidents such as a horse rearing after the stalls had opened, so it was not setting “a dangerous precedent” for future races, and that the rule had been used to declare horses non-runners five other times this year at Yarmouth, Windsor, Kempton, Southwell and Exeter.

Benvenuto Cellini (green silks, centre) finished tenth in the Derby behind Christmas Day before being a non-runnerCredit: Henry NICHOLLS / AFP via Getty Images

Rule (H)6 states a horse who finishes first past the post would not be declared a non-runner, unless its actions at the stalls unfairly aided its position, but that “all relevant factors” would be reviewed if a horse was placed having been impacted at the stalls.

The BHA said: “If the horse had won the race then his chances clearly would not have been materially affected by the issue at the start, therefore would not be disqualified. If the horse is placed the situation is more complicated, and the stewards would consider all the relevant factors before making a decision.

“The incident we witnessed on Saturday is probably the most extreme test of this rule imaginable, involving the heavily backed favourite in the Derby. We entirely understand the frustrations of those who were affected by the Rule 4 deduction, and the impact on bookmakers.

“However, this must be balanced against the impact on those who had backed the horse and were denied a fair start, which is who this rule was brought in to protect.”

The BHA added that its rules remain "under constant review", and said: "We stand by our stewards who made this decision on the day in line with both the rules as they are framed, and the intention for which they were introduced."

Read more . . .

Absurd and nonsensical - why the Benvenuto Cellini non-runner ruling is bad news for punters 

'Horseracing's capacity to shoot itself in the foot never lets us down' - readers' views on the contentious Benvenuto Cellini call 

'The stars aligned' for Ronan Whelan as well-backed Christmas Day seals 50th British Classic for Aidan O'Brien 

Sign up to receive On The Nose, our essential daily newsletter, from the Racing Post. Your unmissable morning feed, direct to your email inbox every morning.