Handicaps, Claimers, and the Farce of Starter Races: Racing’s Unfixable Fixation?

The British racing calendar is dominated by handicaps and stifled by a system that often rewards playing the game over honest competition. Claiming races, meanwhile, have been reduced to a sideshow, underused, misunderstood, and ripe for reform. Yet despite the growing chorus calling for change, it seems the powers that be at the BHA are pressing their fingers firmly in their ears, humming a merry tune of bureaucratic bliss.

Enter Stuart Williams, the seasoned Newmarket trainer,at Diomed stables has waded into the debate with a set of ideas that, while sensible and logical, are almost guaranteed to be ignored by those charged with shaping the sport’s future.

Claimers: A Flawed but Fixable System

According to Williams, the traditional claiming race failed because it often attracted a single high-rated veteran horse, thrown into the mix at a low claiming price. This one “class dropper” scared off other potential entries, leaving fields thinner than a Friday night at an all-weather meeting in January.

Williams has a plan:

“If you really want claimers to work, we need a claiming program where horses can be claimed one week and raced back in another claimer two weeks later. This would need a whole new system.”

A whole new system, Stuart? That’ll go down well with the BHA’s racing planners, whose idea of a shake-up is moving the start time of the Grand National forward by an hour. They’re not exactly the disruptors of the sporting world.

But he’s absolutely right. Claimers, if done properly, could inject life into the sport. A program where claimed horses can be recycled into another race within weeks would create competitive turnover, reduce deadwood, and give lower-grade horses meaningful opportunities.

The Rating Problem: Below 55 and Barely Running

Williams also highlights a glaring issue with the current system: the proliferation of horses rated below 55, clogging up the calendar with runners whose sole ambition is to underperform until the handicapper hands them a lifeline. As he puts it:

“Owners and trainers would then be more proactive in trying to achieve a rating of 55 or above in their three [or however many it takes] starter races; this would improve integrity overnight!”

He’s spot on. Many starter races have turned into tactical farces, with half the field cantering along as if they’re out for a Sunday hack, all in the hope of landing a mark that “underpays their ability.” It’s not racing; it’s box-ticking.

By setting a floor at 55, horses would need to demonstrate a minimum level of competitiveness just to earn a handicap mark. It would weed out the dross, tighten field quality, and spare punters the spectacle of watching horses whose primary tactic is to ensure they finish closer to the ice cream van than the winning post.

Pre-Race Claiming: A Stroke of Genius?

Another issue with the old claiming system, Williams points out, was the post-race bidding war:

“Any old bod could watch one win by 4L and say, ‘I’d like to claim that one.’”

This often led to questionable claims and the occasional bit of skullduggery, as friendly connections and rivals played their games. Williams proposes a simple solution: pre-race claiming only. If you want the horse, you put your money down before the stalls open, not after the winning post.

And what about the rare but inevitable risk of injury? Williams again shows his practical side:

“There would need to be an insurance protection in case of serious injury during a race. I’m sure Weatherbys would come up with something at a relatively low cost that would work for everyone.”

It’s a smart idea. Cover the risks, simplify the system, and give trainers, owners, and punters a reason to take claimers seriously again. But will the BHA take notice? Unlikely. Racing planners seem to treat ideas like this as amusing novelties, the sort of thing to nod at in meetings before filing in the Not a Priority drawer.

Starter Races: A Comedy of Non-Tryers

One of the most damning observations from Williams concerns the state of starter races, where the goal for many runners isn’t to win but to lose just enough.

“A lot of the starter races are a farce, with up to 50 or 60% of the runners having no interest in getting anywhere near the business end of the races.”

This isn’t hyperbole—it’s reality. Watching a maiden hurdle or a low-grade Flat novice race often feels like playing “spot the trier.” Half the field runs conspicuously wide or gets a quiet ride at the back, all with the noble aim of qualifying for a lenient handicap mark.

The current system actively incentivises this behaviour. If we’re serious about integrity, it’s time to address the elephant in the room.

Racing Planning’s Selective Deafness

And yet, for all the sound logic and practical ideas coming from trainers like Stuart Williams, there’s little evidence the BHA or racing planners are paying attention. The sport seems paralysed by inertia, its decision-making processes clogged with committees and consultations that move at the speed of molasses.

The sport has an opportunity here:

• Introduce a robust claiming system to complement handicaps.

• Set a minimum rating to eliminate the farce of starter races packed with non-triers.

• Make claimers pre-race and build in insurance to cover risks.

It’s not rocket science—it’s common sense. But as Williams himself admits, “I know I am probably just amusing myself here.” And that’s the saddest part. Racing’s brightest ideas often come from those on the ground—trainers, owners, and jockeys who live and breathe the sport—yet they’re ignored in favour of tepid initiatives that do little to address the sport’s fundamental problems.

A Vision Unlikely to Be Realised

British racing doesn’t need to reinvent the wheel. It just needs to listen to those who know how to make it spin faster. Trainers like Stuart Williams, who genuinely care for the sport, have laid out a blueprint for improving the integrity and appeal of lower-grade racing.

The question is: will the BHA listen? Or will they continue down the same well-trodden path, burdening the sport with systems that reward manipulation over merit?

One thing’s for sure: if racing planners don’t start listening soon, the sound of hooves galloping into the distance might not be from the winners—it’ll be from disillusioned owners and trainers heading for the exit.