Worcester Ride Lands Dylan Kitts in Hot Water – Hillsin Suspended For 40 Days

Despite racing’s best efforts, there will always be those who suggest that all is not as open and honest as it may seem in the Sport of Kings. Racing’s history is peppered with tales of handicap coups, betting plots, and, further back in time, outright skulduggery in the form of fixed races and running “ringers”, i.e., one horse posing as another.

For some, these plots and schemes merely add to the mystique of the sport, whilst for the overwhelming majority, they serve as an unwanted stain. They are seen as a major detriment to a sport under mounting pressure in the increasingly competitive entertainment industry.

With all of the above in mind, the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) could certainly have done without the events which unfolded in the “Wacky Weekender Festival Pitchcroft 21st-23rd July Conditional Jockeys’ Handicap Hurdle” at Worcester on the 5th July 2023. A lengthy race title – which has triggered an even lengthier investigation.

What Happened?

The best place to start is by taking a look at the closing stages of the race under the microscope.

Even those unfamiliar with the sport would admit that this ride didn’t cast jockey Dylan Kitts in the best of lights. Seemingly full of running on the outside as the field jumped the last, it is fair to say that Kitts was – at the very least – a little less than vigorous in asking his mount for a finishing effort. Only beaten by 1¼l at the line, it also seems reasonable to assume that Hillsin would have gone pretty close to winning, at the very, very least, had Kitts become a little more animated in the saddle.

The ride certainly doesn’t look good on first – or repeated – viewing, and what made matters worse were the betting patterns in the lead-up to the race. Initially backed into 2/1 favouritism, Hillsin had drifted out to 11/1 by the time the race began. Understandably, alarm bells were ringing, and an enquiry was announced in double quick time.

Were Any Rules Breached?

In their role as racing’s governing body, the BHA are ultimately responsible for the policing of the sport. As such, there are rules in place surrounding almost all race-related eventualities. In regard to the Hillsin incident, Dylan Kitts is being investigated for a possible breach of Rule 157, which states:

“Where, in the opinion of the Stewards or the Stewards of the Jockey Club, a Rider has failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures throughout the race to ensure that his horse is given a full opportunity to win or of obtaining the best possible placing with the intention of concealing the true ability of the horse or affecting the result of the race the Rider shall be deemed in breach of this Rule and guilty of an offence.”

Why Did it Happen?

So, why did Dylan Kitts give Hillsin such a gentle ride when seemingly within striking distance of registering a win? Particularly bearing in mind that winning rides are especially valuable to Conditional Riders as they bid to climb the ladder and potentially move into the professional sphere. Only Kitts can answer that question, but two possible explanations have been proposed – one infinitely less damaging than the other.

Simple Inexperience

Many racehorses have their foibles, and it appears that Hillson falls firmly into the “quirky” category. In order to adjust to the character of his mount, Kitts states that he was instructed by the horse’s trainer, Chris Honour, to “keep a good hold of the horse’s head and take his time, before mounting a late challenge.”

It’s hard to disagree that Kitts followed through with the “keep a good hold of the horse’s head and take his time” portion of that guidance, but it is the “mounting a late challenge” element which has come under scrutiny.

Honour seemed to concur with that sentiment when commenting, “I’ve asked the lad to keep a hold of his head, and I think, looking back on it, he’ll agree he didn’t do enough from halfway up the run-in. The horse was there to do his best. We’ve ridden him accordingly and he’s got it wrong.”

So goes the argument that Hillsin’s unusual run was the result of a well-thought-out plan, poorly executed by the inexperienced man in the saddle. Few believe that but it is certainly plausible.

Or Was it a Deliberate Act?

The second scenario centres around the possibility that Kitts may have known exactly what he was doing but failed to conceal his intent in a convincing manner. But why would a rider deliberately lose a race?

Financial gain related to an outside guiding influence would seem to be one of the most likely reasons. As a relatively low-grade race, the conditional jockeys’ hurdle in question offered £3,406.24 in prize money to the winner. It is certainly conceivable that any individual who felt so inclined could make more than this amount by laying the horse to lose on the betting exchanges. For subscribers to this theory, the 2/1 to 11/1 drift will only add fuel to the fire.

Further potential substance was added to this conspiracy theory in the aftermath of the race, with Chris Honour claiming he had been instructed by associates of the horse’s owner, Alan Clegg, that Dylan Kitts – who had never previously ridden for the trainer – should take the ride. Clegg has since transferred both of his horses out of the yard at the request of Honour.

A slightly less underhand possibility is that the horse was being ridden in this manner in order to protect its handicap mark ahead of a tilt at a more valuable assignment at a future date – a practice certainly not unheard of in the racing world. It remains against the strictest interpretations of the rules but is far less frowned upon.

What Was the Outcome?

The immediate action of the BHA was to ban Hillsin from competing in a race for a period of 40 days. As for the man at the centre of this controversy, Dylan Kitts, his punishment is yet to be determined. He claimed that the horse was making “respiratory noises” – in other words not breathing well – and this is why he did not ride the horse hard. Once again, this is broadly plausible but believed by few. For now, he has, however, been stood down from all race riding for 22 days whilst the BHA conducts its investigation.

If found guilty, Kitts can expect a ban of some description, with the fact that he has already served a 14-day ban earlier this year for a similar offence unlikely to count in his favour. We await the outcome of the BHA hearing, but a more substantial spell on the sidelines may be on the cards.