Judging of races and dispute settlement

In all early sports, disputes were problematic. The large amounts of money wagered on races meant that disputes were relatively common and had potential for violence or legal action. During racing's earliest stages, owners rode and raced against each other, deciding the result between themselves, which they continued to do when watching their grooms riding. Once owners were not always present in person, they needed other ways of settling placings and resolving disputes.

Dispute methods evolved over time. At Manchester in 1737, the ‘unfair and scandalous methods’ used by two Cheshire owners to ‘evade the plain meaning’ of the articles led to a change in 1738 to allow ‘disputes to be determined by the majority of subscribers’. At meetings, this decision-making process was carried out in the open air, or on the usually temporary wooden stand at the finishing post, occupied by those judging. Most racing disputes were initially usually settled by a majority view amongst those ‘subscribers’, ‘founders’ or ‘contributors’ actually at the meeting.

At Epsom in 1736 disputes were decided by the majority view of those who had subscribed a guinea to the plates. At Warwick, Huntingdon and Litchfield in 1755, differences were decided by those subscribers present on the course. This method became less common later in the century, though Ascot in 1784 still had disputes determined by the vote of the subscribers attending. At Stirling in 1764 the ‘gentlemen of the county’ or ‘whom they shall appoint’ (i.e. their representatives) acted as judges.

Such a process was cumbersome. Streamlining the process left it to fewer, more trustworthy individuals. At Peebles in 1720 disputes for one race were settled by ‘judges’ appointed by the ‘gentlemen subscribers’ for the plate, while for a second race it was ‘the magistrates’.