Simon talks about his passion for racing, his previous career experience and how nothing could ever keep him away from the Cheltenham Festival.

By David Hicks – Team Principal, Clerk of the Scales & Judges

The photograph

In March of this year, ultra high-resolution cameras were rolled out across every British racecourse to improve the quality of images judges are able to review when determining the outcome of a race.

These cameras capture images at around 6,000 frames per second, a much higher frame rate than previously, and also provide a significantly clearer image for judges to review.

It is important to keep in mind that the photo finish camera is the only camera that is aligned directly on the winning line. TV cameras, including the slow-motion camera often used on the broadcasts you are watching at home, may be very close to the line but they are never directly on it.

Once in position, the cameras record many thousands of photos of the winning line which shows us a timeline of when each horse crosses the line. Every vertical line of pixels in any of the images you see is a photograph of the winning line.

A photo finish

My approach is to say that every race is a dead heat until you have evidence that it is not. Clearly, in a majority of cases it is not difficult to do that but, as we have seen recently, finishes can get extremely tight.

When all horses have completed a race, the photo finish operator stops recording and immediately shows the Judge. In most cases, where the winning margin looks by eye to be less than a head, we will announce a photo finish on course and begin the process of determining the result.

At this point, the operator is able to enlarge the image on the relevant horse so that a line can be placed on the leading part of its head. Sometimes, as we saw at Newmarket in the second race of the afternoon on Saturday 4 July, it is not always immediately clear which horse, if any, has come home in front.

When this is the case, we can continue to zoom in further, ensuring that there is sufficient contrast between the image of the horse’s nose and the background, so we can clearly identify the leading part of the horse’s head. In the case of the race at Newmarket, we were able to identify a gap, albeit only a few pixels.

To help demostrate this further, we are also able to move the line across the image to the point where it touches the second horse’s nose. Remembering that every vertical line is a photograph of the winning line, what we could see at this point in time was that the winner鈥檚 nose was already across the line and was therefore in front.

Having seen this evidence, the Judge will confirm the result with the Stewards before announcing it to the public, in order to provide an extra layer of checks and verification on top of the judge鈥檚 decision.

The governing principles

The introduction of the new cameras earlier this year has not changed the way in which we are going about our work as judges. We still follow the same processes and call results in exactly the way we did previously.

What I can say is that, as a result of the increased frame rate and image clarity of the new equipment, we are now able to separate horses in a way that we would not have been able to previously.

Of course, this doesn鈥檛 necessarily mean an end to dead heats entirely, but we are now able to call results with a much greater degree of accuracy.

As far as the time taken to call some results, there is no time pressure directly on our judges to determine a result. Naturally, we want to get a result confirmed as soon as is reasonably possible but the main thing for us is that we take our time and clearly examine the evidence in front of us. Our priority is announcing the correct result in the first instance, rather than rushing to get a result out that may not be correct.

In conclusion

The introduction of the new cameras has represented a shift for all of us involved in the sport, given the increased ability we now have to determine results. It is entirely understandable that those of you following the sport and betting on races may have been surprised by some of the recent decisions.

I can assure you with total confidence that all recent examples of tight finishes have been called correctly.

Recognising that due to the challenges with viewing some images in a lower resolution than the judges have access to, the wide image alone may not initially provide full confidence in the result called, these extra images will show a close-up of the gap that has been identified by the Judge, as well as another showing the second-placed horse hitting the line with the winner already beyond it.

I would also remind everybody that the clearest view of the image is that seen by the judge on course. Photographs of a webpage or television screen shared on social media result in a compressed image that can present a misleading view on a given outcome. If you have any concerns, I would always advise you to check the images uploaded to the 糖心传媒 website.

糖心传媒 statement regarding Gambling Commission announcement on financial risk assessments

Host Nick Lightfoot looks back on it all with 糖心传媒 Chief Executive Brant Dunshea and Head of Stewarding Shaun Parker, as well as finding out how the 糖心传媒 has responded to the extraordinary heatwave in Britain.

Michelle Douglas also joins the show to discuss the upcoming . You can find out more about the .

After a few days to reflect, we sat down with the 糖心传媒’s Head of Handicapping Dominic Gardiner-Hill to assess his impressive victory and confirm his new mark following ‘the best performance we’ve seen in the world in 2026.’

“The Gambling Commission board met to consider next steps on financial risk assessments. It was presented with an extensive evidence base but has not yet fully completed its assessment of that evidence. We will communicate further in due course.”

This was an update that this author freely admits he did not expect to read following the Gambling Commission鈥檚 Board meeting on Thursday May 21.

Following a frustrating couple of months, where serious concerns largely fell on deaf ears, it was welcome confirmation that the intense joint lobbying from racing and betting 鈥� both publicly and behind the scenes – had the desired effect of pausing the implementation of affordability checks, at least for now.

The penetrating media and political campaign opposing the checks required a significant effort from across British racing. We thank everyone who played their part in ensuring that the message was heard loud and clear that this policy should not happen without further assessment of its impact on the sport.

Activity has included:

鈥� An open letter to Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) Secretary of State Lisa Nandy MP, signed by over 400 leaders and figures in British racing, and supportive politicians, asking her to stop the checks.
鈥� The creation of a 鈥榳rite to your MP鈥� online portal for racing fans to ask their MPs to write to Lisa Nandy to stop the checks. Thousands of letters have been sent.
鈥� A 糖心传媒-led stakeholder letter-writing campaign in which racecourses, stud farms, owners and trainers have written to their MP urging them to put pressure on Government.
鈥� Numerous articles in the news pages of daily papers including several leaders and op-eds.
鈥� Multiple meetings with Ministers and senior advisers in the Treasury and DCMS.
鈥� The All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Racing & Bloodstock members writing to Lisa Nandy urging her to act. Letters have also been sent to

Treasury Ministers Dan Tomlinson MP and Lord Livermore requesting they intervene due to the risk of black market growth to the Exchequer.
Short of an official update, it is unclear what happens next, but further delay seems inevitable. The next Gambling Commission Board meeting 鈥� where the policy will likely be on the agenda once again – will presumably be the next big moment.

The political will still seems to exist from this Government to make these intrusive checks a reality, with DCMS confirming in a recent Parliamentary Question response that they still support 鈥渢he intent of the policy鈥�. So, it remains vital that work is undertaken to address some of the flaws with the policy exposed by the pilot. It seems clear that the fact of these flaws left the Board in a position where it did not feel comfortable enough to sign off on the checks and the next phase of work.

What was also apparent before Thursday 21 May, and remains so, is that horseracing and the betting public should be given the opportunity to see the 鈥渆xtensive evidence鈥� presented to the Commission Board. As it considers what comes next, this should be a priority for the Commission and would go some way to addressing the trust deficit that has built up over the course of the pilot phase and ahead of the recent Board meeting.
The Commission Board鈥檚 decision leaves us in a holding pattern. What happens next via the new Implementation Working Group, on which we understand representatives from the Commission, DCMS and Betting will sit, matters enormously.

We will be closely monitoring the next steps of this process, providing scrutiny where necessary. This is not over, and we may be back to ask for your support once again.

Gambling Evaluation Advisory Group

An unexpected development thrown up by our campaign was the revelation following Dr James Noyes鈥� principled resignation from the Gambling Review Evaluation Advisory Group that such a group even existed. And not only does this group exist, but said group is apparently 鈥渇ailing to carry out its functions in a proper manner鈥� and relying on entirely qualitative methods rather than real world data.

In our extensive engagement with the DCMS since the 2023 White Paper, and even in official on the record responses to parliamentary questions, this has not been mentioned by the Department and the reluctance even now to reveal the group鈥檚 wider membership until after the findings have been published surely raises questions about the level of transparency surrounding the pilot tests of affordability checks.

It is worth noting that Dr Noyes has long been viewed by many in betting and racing as anti-gambling given his role as a pioneer for the concept of checks, and his withdrawal of support can be seen as somewhat of a bellwether of just how widespread concern now is about this policy.

As his remarkable resignation letter makes clear, he not only believes that proper checks and balances are not being applied to this policy, but also that, what is now being planned is so far beyond his original proposal that it will not deliver the frictionless, non-intrusive process that was promised and will instead risk causing serious harm to British racing.

Regarding checks and balances, it would be reasonable to expect that responsibility for a public policy that will impact two multi-billion-pound industries, and the country鈥檚 second-favourite sport, should reside with our elected Members of Parliament.

Why the DCMS, which is responsible for our sport and the betting industry, has washed its hands of a policy which it devised and instead handed power to an unelected quango remains a mystery.

As we continue to push for answers on why this has happened, responses to Parliamentary Questions on the 26th of May from DCMS Minister Ian Murray to APPG for Racing and Bloodstock members Bob Blackman and Jack Rankin have confirmed that we are expecting the findings of NatCen鈥檚 evaluation of the Gambling Act Review later this year.

The same answer to Bob confirms that 鈥渇inancial risk assessments鈥� (FRAs) are not in scope of that evaluation, which, to put it bluntly, seems quite selective. While I am sure the Department would cite the delay to the implementation of FRAs as their reasoning, what is the point of evaluating a wide-ranging review if the most controversial and potentially impactful policy is not accounted for?

APPG for Gambling Reform report on sponsorship and advertising

Previously, this blog predicted that the next gambling policy battleground would be sponsorship and advertising, and the APPG for Gambling Reform鈥檚 report, which recommends a significant tightening of the current regulations, was the latest entrant into that debate.

Following a conversation with the APPG鈥檚 clerk, we have had confirmation that the racing carve out recommended by the report鈥檚 authors Alex Ballinger and Dr Beccy Cooper would apply to all of the policy recommendations made in the report such as banning all gambling advertising before the watershed and stopping betting operators from sponsoring individual programmes. It was pleasing to once again see the unique relationship between horseracing and betting recognised.

While concerns around the impact on children and young people of seeing such advertising is not without merit, what is increasingly clear is that the priority should first be to ensure that illegal operators are not targeting UK consumers, especially on social media.

DCMS will soon be releasing a consultation proposing a crackdown on illegal gambling sponsorship and advertising in the UK and we will be offering British racing鈥檚 full support for such a move in our response.

The race for No10

Following the lacklustre performance of the Labour Party in both the local elections in England, and in the devolved elections in Scotland and Wales, we, like many of you, have been watching with interest as the various runners and riders have set out their stall for replacing Sir Keir Starmer as Prime Minister.

The Makerfield by-election in Royal Ascot week, which could see Andy Burnham returned to Westminster as a Member of Parliament looks key, and we expect to see a pause in proceedings until then.

Rest assured that if there is a change in leadership which delivers a considerable change in the make-up of this Government, we will be proactive in engaging with any new Ministerial teams.

The purpose of this blog is to set out the background and rationale regarding the introduction of this rule, and to address some of the comments and concerns that have been raised.

From 1 May 2024 we introduced an amendment of in order to allow the 糖心传媒 Stewards to declare a non-runner in any race beginning from starting stalls if they believe that a horse has been denied a fair start.

The change aligned Britain with the International Federation of Horseracing Authorities (IFHA) model rule and the approach applied by most other major racing nations. Its introduction followed engagement with and feedback from industry stakeholders, including participants and the betting industry.

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.

At the moment when the start was enacted in the 2026 Derby, Benvenuto Cellini had one leg trapped in an elevated position on the running boards in the stalls shortly before the start was effected.

As is normal process, the 糖心传媒鈥檚 raceday stewards held an enquiry into the incident immediately after the race, with the starter, veterinary officer and rider interviewed.

Once the evidence had been gathered, the stewards considered the questions as to whether Benvenuto Cellini was denied a fair start and, if so, did it materially affect the colt鈥檚 chances in the race.

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鈥檚 leg would have been released, taken out of the stalls and checked by a veterinary officer and then reloaded him if safe to do so.

Credit: ITV Racing

But the incident happened in mere fractions of seconds. The starter wasn鈥檛 aware, and couldn鈥檛 be expected to have been aware. Therefore, it would not be fair to all of those who backed the horse that he should count as a runner.

One of the most common concerns we are hearing from punters and media is that this now sets a dangerous precedent. We are being asked the question 鈥渨hat happens if a horse rears when the stalls open? Will they now be declared a non-runner?鈥� 聽The answer to this question is very clear 鈥� no they will not, this is entirely different.

When this rule was announced a number of examples were cited as to when it might be enacted. One of those examples was as follows:

“Where a horse鈥檚 own behaviour alone, after the starting mechanism has been operated, results in the horse being unable to start on equal terms, the horse shall not be declared a non-runner. However, if a horse, for example, kicks out and gets caught in the starting gates before the starting mechanism has been operated, and the starter is unaware leading to the horse being unable to start on equal terms as a result, the Stewards can consider declaring a non-runner.”

This example can clearly be applied to the incident in the Derby, and this is plainly different from a horse rearing up after the starting mechanism has been operated. In such incidents the horse would be declared a runner as they have been given the opportunity to break evenly, but didn鈥檛. In the case of Benvenuto Cellini he was denied the opportunity to break evenly, and is therefore declared a non-runner.

Further to this, the question is being raised as to whether a horse would be removed from the race if they rear up in the stalls prior to opening. This is also highly unlikely to be the case. The difference with Benvenuto Cellini is that his leg was caught in the stalls, as opposed to just rearing up. This is the differentiating factor. In such circumstances prior to starting the race the horse would be removed from the stalls and checked by a vet prior to reloading and running (if able). This does not apply when a horse just rears up. A horse simply rearing up without becoming in any way entangled with the stalls would fall under the category of a horse鈥檚 own misbehaviour and therefore count as a runner.

A further comment we are seeing suggested is that this scenario goes beyond what was envisaged when this rule was introduced. However, the fact that such a scenario was specifically cited when the rules were announced shows that it does not, and the rules were intended to capture situations such as this.

The rules themselves are intentionally broad, stating that 鈥�The Stewards may declare a horse a non-runner where鈥 horse is denied a fair start, and its chances are materially affected, including but not limited to鈥�.x, y, z鈥�. Clearly it is not possible to list every possible example in the rules of racing, and it is ultimately down to the stewards鈥� discretion on the day. This discretion is important, as circumstances may vary and stewards must have the ability to act accordingly.

A further question being asked is whether the horse would have been disqualified if he had won or been placed in the race. Head of Stewarding Shaun Parker answers this question in .

Following Derby favourite Benvenuto Cellini being declared a non-runner, our Head of Stewarding Shaun Parker explains:

– How the decision was reached
– What would have happened had the horse won or placed
– How this non-runner rule is applied consistently鈥�

鈥� British Horseracing Authority (@糖心传媒Horseracing)

In short: 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.

It is being suggested in some places that the rule is not being applied consistently, that it has only been applied because this was a significant ITV race and that the World Pool somehow impacted the decision. This does not stand up to scrutiny. This rule has, in fact, been applied six times in 2026. The other incidents were at Yarmouth, Windsor, Kempton, Southwell and Exeter (the rule was extended to include Jump races in 2025). All these examples were away from ITV cameras and the World Pool races, yet the rule was applied consistently.

The presence of the ITV Racing cameras has caused some debate, with the suggestion that its placement above the stall of the Derby favourite may have impacted the outcome of the enquiry 鈥� and could indeed create the situation where rules may be applied differently on different racedays.

To be clear, the stewards at Epsom made their decision based on the available stewarding cameras and having heard the evidence of those involved in the incident. The ITV stalls camera was not available to the stewards until well after the enquiry was underway 鈥� and while we feel it vindicated the decision, it was incidental to the outcome.

It is also worth pointing out that while disparities in technology often exist in professional sport 鈥� e.g. certain racedays have drone footage available to the stewards while others don鈥檛, and Video Assistant Refereeing is only available in certain tiers and competitions of professional football 鈥� the stewards made their decision at Epsom in the same manner as they did at all the other courses where the rule was enacted in 2026. Indeed, in reaching their decision at Windsor, the stewards relied on the evidence from those involved, as video footage of the incident was not available.

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.

In 2018 a remarkably similar incident occurred involving favourite Harry Angel in the Diamond Jubilee Stakes at Royal Ascot. While it is fair to say the Harry Angel incident was more pronounced in nature, the principle was very similar, as was referenced by the ITV broadcast team on Saturday.

This incident occurred prior to this rule being in place, and Harry Angel therefore had to count as a runner. This led to significant, sustained criticism and complaint from media and punters alike regarding the unfairness that a horse should be deemed a runner when he had not been afforded an equal start and his chance in the race had been materially affected.

The fact is that there is no one set of rules which will be satisfactory for everyone in such a situation. We understand why those who are impacted by the incident on Saturday are disappointed. Equally, if this rule wasn鈥檛 in place, then those who backed Benvenuto Cellini would have a right to feel aggrieved.

It is the view of the 糖心传媒, however, that we should be in line with the majority of the international racing community on this issue, rather than an outlier

The Stewards themselves followed the procedure for enacting this rule to the letter. The enquiry was announced quickly after the conclusion of the race. The enquiry was then held in quick order and a result reached and announced in good time, and again well communicated.

Shaun Parker then immediately made himself available to carry out interviews with ITV and Racing TV, as well as posting an explanatory clip on our own digital channels 鈥� showing a level of immediate accountability rarely seen in other sports. We thank Shaun and his team for their calm professionalism in the highest pressure of situations. The personal abuse that they have received, which prompted the 糖心传媒 to calling for greater respect, is deeply regrettable.

It is completely understandable that decisions taken by 糖心传媒 officials may prompt passionate debate and be subject to robust scrutiny.

This is the nature of elite sport and something we do not shy away from.

However, we will never accept vile and unacceptable abuse directed鈥�

鈥� British Horseracing Authority (@糖心传媒Horseracing)

Some industry and betting stakeholders have suggested that the rule should now be reviewed. We will of course listen to any concerns which are raised and engage with those within the sport. Our rules are constantly under review and the same will apply here.

We also understand that many people will disagree with the contents of this blog, which is intended purely to set out the rationale behind the rules and their application on Saturday.

However, 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.

Elevate Talent is a global agency with a strong reputation for sourcing exceptional leaders across a range of sectors, including for sports governing bodies.

Appointed by the 糖心传媒鈥檚 Nominations Committee following a successful tender process, Elevate Talent will begin the recruitment process immediately.

Alongside the skills expected of a senior leader with significant Board-level experience, the successful candidate will have an active knowledge of horse racing, the industry鈥檚 financial model, stakeholder environment, political relationships and the interdependence between racing and gambling.

They will also have a track record of implementing customer growth strategies and an open and transparent approach to inspire confidence among racing鈥檚 stakeholders, participants and customers.

When appointed, the 糖心传媒 Chair will be responsible for supporting the 糖心传媒鈥檚 executive team in delivering the long-term strategy to secure British racing鈥檚 future, including through the growth of the sport鈥檚 income, participation, customers and audience.

They will lead the recruitment and development of an effective, skilled and experienced Board to take the difficult decisions that reflect the interests of the whole industry and its member bodies.

This includes the effective regulation of the industry, prioritising horse and human welfare, and ensuring the highest standards of integrity to maintain Brish racing鈥檚 international reputation as a safe, clean and fair racing jurisdiction.

Working with the 糖心传媒 executive, the Chair will foster effective working relationships with government departments to help shape national policymaking in priority areas and work closely with industry stakeholders to support the sport鈥檚 commercial interests and growth strategies.

The full candidate brief is available on the . The role will involve a two-day per week commitment for the successful candidate. Applications for the role close on 19 June.

David Jones will continue in his role as 糖心传媒 interim Chair until a permanent appointment is made.

Notes to editors:

The 糖心传媒 Nominations Committee makes recommendations to the Board on suitable candidates for appointment to the Board and the role of Chief Executive.

The committee comprises three independent board members, one member appointed by the Racecourse Association (RCA) and one member collectively appointed by the Racehorse Owners Association (ROA), Thoroughbred Breeders鈥� Association (TBA) and Licensed Personnel.

For the appointment of the new 糖心传媒 Chair, an interim Nominations Committee has been formed comprising the following members:

• Kyrsten Halley (Nominations Committee Chair)
• Tara Warren
• Raj Parker
• Louise Stewart appointed by the RCA
• Philip Newton appointed by the ROA, TBA and Licensed Personnel