RIP BHA

Back in September last year I wrote, following the announcement of Paul Bittar’s appointment:-

“Whilst I wish Bittar well in his new role, he is walking into an impossible job and he is taking on a poisoned chalice.”

It seems the first sip he has taken from the chalice contains hemlock and yesterday’s announcement regarding a near total capitulation to the whip rule changes is another nail in the coffin of British racing.

What I find particularly nauseating is the “I told you so” attitude and rejoicing of those who opposed the changes, they seem to think “common sense” has prevailed and they have won some kind of magnificent victory.

Rejoicing at yesterday’s decision is incredibly myopic and fails to take into consideration the long term impact of the decision.  

In terms of the whip issues themselves.

The jockeys had asked for more clarification as to what would be an acceptable use of the whip, the new rules provided that to a certain extent, although there was always scope for some adjustment.

The reality is, what the jockeys did not want were the much overdue effective punishments for breaking the whip rules, they wanted it both ways. Let’s face it, asking jockeys to support stronger penalties for whip breaches is like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas.

So it was no great surprise that the riders were up in arms when, finally, there were strong punishments introduced for what is effectively cheating.

There was an outcry last week when AP McCoy was banned for excessive whip use when getting Prince Of Pirates up to dead-heat with Brackloon High at Leicester.

Many complained that it was wrong to ban the champion jockey for such a ride. Why?

McCoy broke the rules, as a result of his breaking the rules his horse managed to dead-heat when, in all probability it would have finished second.

“Ah, but the rules are flawed”, is the response of the apologists - It doesn’t matter if the rules are right or wrong, those are the rules which are in place. We cannot pick and choose which rules and laws we choose to follow.

I happen to think the 50mph limit on the A34 through Oxford is pointless and stupid, but if I get caught exceeding that speed limit I somehow think my saying “but I don’t think the limit is right” would hold much sway with the powers that be – and rightly so.

So are those saying McCoy should not have been punished also suggesting that it is perfectly acceptable to win at all costs and escape with impunity?

Are they saying McCoy is a multiple champion jockey and he should not be treated so badly? That argument could well be turned round to say as multiple champion jockey McCoy should know better and should, therefore, be treated more harshly.

Then what about connections of Brackloon High, whose jockey remained within the rules but they still had to forfeit outright first place.

If racing wants to endorse a win at all costs, do what you want with just a slapped wrist policy then I want nothing more to do with the sport.

So what about these new changes?

Well for a start they are not going to bring any clarity to the situation and by handing the decision making back to local stewards we will see a return to inconsistency and even more ambiguity.

I wonder how long it will be before supporters of yesterday’s changes will be on their high horses again when the stewards begin making inconsistent decision – I would wager not very long at all.

Will I then be allowed to call them hypocrites?

Such a proposal could only work if we have centralised professional stewards.

Stewarding needs a root and branch change if there is to be any prospect of these new changes working.

The current system of Stewarding does not work and whilst the introduction of Stipes has partly improved the situation, it has also introduced some additional problems.

The quality of the Stipes is far too variable, whilst some are exceptionally good there are one or two who are simply on an ego / power trip.

There would still need to be an on-course Stewarding presence to deal with day-to-day matters as they arise but all disciplinary matters should be dealt with by the central panel. Then the proposed changes may possibly work.

The technology is available and it isn’t rocket science.

One thing is for sure, yesterday’s announcement will do absolutely nothing to bring an end to the whip debate and anybody who thinks it will do is living in cloud cuckoo land.

The decision plays into the hands of those who want to see a total whip ban, even those who want to see the abolition of horse racing period.

However the ramifications of yesterdays decisions goes far beyond the whip debate. It deals a serious, if not fatal blow to the credibility of the administration of the sport in this country.

Even before the whip changes were announced and implemented the BHA had a major credibility issue, the events of the past four months have only served to further undermine their credibility and authority.

If the BHA is to regain any credibility it needs a major overhaul, however even that may not be enough.

Paul Bittar needs to launch an immediate, independent, enquiry into the implementation of the new whip rules. Whatever ones opinion of the rule changes themselves I think it is universally accepted that the timing and method of their introduction was crass.

So far Paul Struthers seems to have been made the scapegoat but that was a case of shooting the messenger, those truly culpable have escaped with impunity. Isn’t there also an irony that the  BHA’s sacrificial lamb then went across to the “other side” and came away with what looks like a victory for the jockeys.

In his infamous interview with Nick Luck on Champions Day the BHA Chairman, Paul Roy, said that as Chairman of the BHA he must assume responsibility for the implementation of the whip rules. After yesterday’s embarrassing capitulation can we expect his resignation today – of course not the man has no honour.          

My fear is no amount of tinkering will dig the BHA out of the hole in which it finds itself.

The whip fiasco has been a distraction but it is but a mere gnat bite compared with some of the other issues the sport is facing.

The biggest issue is the future funding of the sport and, at the risk of repeating myself, the industry and, more specifically, the BHA does not have the ability or wherewithal to negotiate a proper commercial funding model for the industry.

At a time when racing needs strong leadership the BHA has shown itself to be impotent. Yesterday’s capitulation is not something to rejoice about. All it does is underline the lack of direction and leadership in a so called authority that is supposed to run the sport.

Paul Bittar is being lauded as a pragmatic leader, in my eyes he has rolled over and completely kow-towed to the PJA, his credibility is as much in question as the rest of the BHA board.

Whilst I am no fan of the bookmaking industry I can only assume they are absolutely wetting themselves with laughter when they look at the absolute mess in the higher echelons of UK racing.

After all are they not the ones who really run the sport?      

Turning A Drama Into A Crisis

Once again the BHA continues to demonstrate its unequalled expertise.

Unfortunately the area of expertise in which it currently excels involves pressing the self-destruct button.

Although the last few days have also helped explain why there was an exhibition of JCB equipment at British Champions Day last Saturday – they have been purchased by the BHA to enable them to dig even deeper holes.

The BHA (and others) have managed to turn the new whip rules into arguably the biggest PR disaster the sport has seen, even managing to overshadow the build up to what was racings best ever day last Saturday.

Now let me say I was one of those to welcome the new whip rules and, fundamentally, I still support them. The rules did need clarifying and there was little doubt the ineffectual punishments were encouraging riders to flagrantly ignore the rules, especially in big races.

However, as is often the case, once implemented the snags become apparent.

Two aspects soon became apparent. Firstly it is very difficult, in the heat of the race, for riders to know when they cross the furlong marker. Secondly the punishments for a minor breach can be considered disproportionately draconian.

Matters came to a head when Richard Hughes received his second ban in a matter of days after which he handed in his licence in a spectacular fit of pique.

One of his complaints was he had not been consulted by the BHA regarding the rules.

That is a rather disingenuous comment. The BHA state the Professional Jockeys Association (PJA) were fully involved in the review. Indeed the PJA issued a ringing endorsement of the changes.

It seems some jockeys believe the BHA should have consulted individually with riders. That is a ridiculous position to take.

As in the wider world it is standard practice to speak to representative bodies. Employers, unless it is a very small company, will negotiate with either a recognised union or a staff association, who have delegated or contractual responsibility to negotiate on behalf of the staff.

It is no different in this case. The BHA included, in good faith, the PJA in the review. It is abundantly clear the PJA either failed to or did not have the wherewithal to relay full details of the changes to its members.

There is an alternative view that the senior flat jockeys viewed the whip as being an issue for National Hunt racing only and arrogantly assumed they would be immune.

Whatever the reasons the PJA has plenty of culpability in causing the current problems.

So up until the middle of last week the BHA had done reasonably well in this saga although, with the benefit of hindsight, the introduction of the changes could have been better timed.

However since last Thursday the BHA seem to have lost the plot and have managed to make matters worse at every opportunity.

First of all there were a series of contradictory statements from BHA board members, which gave the clear impression the left hand did not know what the right hand was doing.

Friday then saw the threat of a jockeys strike on the following Monday, although the jockeys were quick to point out it was not a strike but they were merely making themselves unavailable to ride.

It then took the BHA all day to produce a statement saying they were inviting the jockeys to a board meeting, already scheduled for the following Monday. 

Does that imply had the meeting been scheduled for the following week, they would have waited.

With the way the situation was developing would it not have been prudent to have discussions with the jockeys that evening. With modern teleconferencing it would not be rocket science to organise. No the jockeys representations were tagged onto the end of a board meeting as if it was some form of any other business.

The first indication the BHA were not really taking the matter that seriously.

Saturday was British Champions Day and matters came to a head with Christophe Soumillon picking up a five day ban and losing around £50k in prize money for exceeding the new limits by one stroke.

That single ride encompassed the two major flaws in the new regulations.

If matters were not bad enough they were about to get worse for the beleaguered BHA as the Chairman Paul Roy appeared on RUK.

Had it been a boxing match the referee would have stopped the fight as Roy was no match for the peerless Nick Luck.

Frankly Roy’s performance was arrogant, crass and typified the arrogance of those who are supposed to run British racing.

Even those who generally support the new regulations must have despaired at this perfect example of car crash television.

Monday came and the jockeys delegation arrived at the BHA, although I was surprised to see Newmarket trainer  John Gosden has now become a jockey, he seems rather tall for such a role. On the other hand it was probably no great surprise to see him sticking his oar in as he and his with, Rachel Hood, seem to have become racings version of “rent a quote”.

The riders spent an hour and a half making their case and afterwards both sides made the right noises.

The BHA said they would make a statement by 17:00.

Most observers thought it would be a simple decision for the BHA to make, retain the count, scrap the final furlong rule and reduce the punishment for minor infringements. No more than an hours discussion at most.

It was gone 18:00 when the BHA statement appeared, saying the matter will be referred back to the original working party and they will report back by Friday at the latest.

Absolutely unbelievable but typical of a moribund organisation run by committees.

The new rules are fundamentally OK but just need some tinkering.

Racing is facing a crisis, is in the middle of a massive PR disaster, yet the BHA shows no sense of urgency – although, maybe, reporting back in five days is their definition of urgent.

The whip review group are all full time BHA employees. The BHA knew on Friday they were meeting the jockeys on Monday and if they had any modicum of intelligence they would know what the jockeys concerns were.

Why was the whip working party not convened on Sunday, in advance of Mondays meeting? They could then have presented the jockeys with a compromise solution.

Now the BHA board has come across as incompetent and impotent.

When I worked for a major bank we occasionally had problems which could have resulted in bad publicity which would have been damaging to the reputation of the bank. What we certainly did not do was refer the matter to a committee to discuss over the following few days.

 We did all we could to a) resolve the matter as quickly as possible and b) mitigate the damage at all costs. No manager who wanted to keep their job would even consider going home until the matter was resolved, although in most cases professional pride alone was enough that people did everything possible to resolve the matter as soon as possible.            

The BHA board have actually contrived to turn themselves into the laughing stock of sporting regulation – not bad considering they started from a position where they had the advantage.

Whilst all this has been going on what has happened to the 2012 fixture list, not forgetting the upcoming corruption hearings?

 

I would accuse the BHA of shooting itself in the foot if it wasn’t for the fact they shot them off some time ago.

Racing United?

The latest gimmick to appear in the battle around the funding of racing is the launch of Racing United, basically a petition sponsored by the Britiah Horseracing Authority (BHA), Racecourse Association (RCA) and the Horseman’s Group .

In launching the campaign, Nick Coward, BHA Chief Executive states, “The launch of this public campaign is the latest step in pressing home Racing’s case, a comprehensive case that is built on rigorous analysis, and which we have been advocating on behalf of the sport. Our objective is to secure what is right for the future of the whole sport, and the campaign is intended to leave no-one in any doubt as to the strength of support for it across the whole of Racing and its followers.”

All good words but vacuous all the same as racing shows a complete lack of imagination in continuing to pursue an antiquated, out-dated funding model.

Turning to the Government to sort out racings finances is, effectively, a tacit admission by racings rulers they do not have the wherewithal to run the sport.

Multiple champion jockey AP McCoy has lent his support to the campaign but speaking on BBC Radio he also said he believes racing needs changes at the top of its management structure. A very true comment and surely a statement that should be heeded, coming from somebody with a high profile in the sport, yet not renown for making “political” comments.

Also what is a petition, from what is effectively a self-interested constituency, going to achieve? I am sure, if polled, most turkeys would vote for the abolition of Christmas

The first change at the top of racing should be the immediate removal of BHA Chairman Paul Roy.

He has already amply demonstrated that he considers his ego to be more important than the interests of racing, continually becoming involved in purile, schoolboy mud-slinging with leaders in the betting industry.

That may be a character flaw, which although a potential embarrassment to the sport, it not necessarily terminal in terms of his position as head of the BHA.

What does make his position as Chairman untenable is his hypocrisy and double standards.

Roy has turned criticising and knocking betting exchanges into something of a cottage industry, taking any opportunity possible to criticise their business model and the perceived effect they have had on racing.

Yet this is the same Paul Roy who jointly heads an investment company which attempted to buy £40m worth of Betfair shares when the company was launched. A company which when only able to purchase £5m worth of shares then proceeded to hoover up as many shares as possible when they hit the market.

Now I am not criticising the decision of his investment company wishing to invest in Betfair, it is a very sound commercial incestment.

Yet this shows poor judgement on Roy’s part.

Firstly how does he reconcile his scathing condemnation of betting exchanges with this company’s acquisition of Betfair shares?

Notwithstanding the above there is a more serious “conflict of interest”.

Being a major shareholder in Betfair, via his company, Roy has an obligation to ensure optimum shareholder return and value in his investment. Yet in his role as BHA chairman he is espousing changes which would harm investors in Betfair. Is that not a conflict of interest?

Want another demonstration of his double standards?

Clearly from his background in investment banking and his on-going involvement in investment companies he is, at the very least, a supporter of a free market. Yet in his role of BHA Chairman he is calling for Government involvement in securing the future funding of racing. Is this not another example of double standards and hypocrisy? I have little doubt he would be the first to complain if the Government began restricting how his investment companies could invest or fund.

Also his criticism of bookmakers moving offshore is also somewhat rich. As an investment banker he knows the duty of organisations to secure maximum return for investors. Is that not what bookmakers are doing by relocating offshore?

Those who know me will also be aware I am no fan of bookmakers, but I do believe in a free market and bookmakers cannot be blamed for securing the best returns for their investors either by offshoring or reducing expense, be it minimising levy payments or other means of cost savings.

I wonder how many members of the BHA or RCA boards employ accountants to optimise their income by making the most of tax advantages and loopholes in the system?

Is that any different to what the bookmaking fraternity are attempting?

Now I have never met Mr Roy so I have no personal axe to grind per-se. Those who know him say he is an honourable man and I am sure he is kind to his family, friends and pets.

However there is a clear conflict of interest between his role as BHA Chairman and his other business roles, as well as some of his public pronouncements bringing the sport into disrepute.

For the good of racing it is time for Paul Roy to go.

Finally on the subject of Racing United, it would be better for the sport if racing was properly united, into a single group with appropriate business acumen and the ability and desire to fundamentally change the structure and funding of the sport.

Yes bookmakers do need to contribute more to the sport, yes exchanges do need to contribute more to the sport.

However it will not be achieved by Government intervention. It will not be achieved by leaders on both sides engaging in public slanging matches, allowing their egos to interfere with commercial interests.

It will be achieved by effective negotiation and a rationalisation of the number of fixtures so the sport is run to fit the funding not by demanding funding to support a bloated fixture list.

Two very quick observations regarding funding:-

Twilight fixtures serve no purpose, other than to feed funds into the bookmakers coffers, if the bookmaking industry want twilight fixtures they should fully fund them themselves.

Northern Racing offer appalling levels of prize money, yet their last annual accounts show a profit in excess of £3m pounds, likewise Arena Leisure show profits in excess of £4m. Why should they not be forced to provide more money to bring prize money to an acceptable level.

It would be very simple for the BHA to immediately impose a meaningful minimum prize money level.

So instead of silly, facile, false “Racing United” exercises why don’t those who are suppose to be running racing actually do their job properly.

If they cannot then move over for those who are capable of doing the job, although I am not holding my breath.

Government Stepping Back

Just in case you have been on another planet for the past week or so, the United Kingdom is in the midst of a massive spending review.

The people of this once great nation seemingly never learn from history. After all, every time there has been a Labour administration, the country has ended up in a financial mess or close to financial and economic ruin.

Although it has to be noted under the stewardship of Bliar (not a typo) and Brown, the level of fiscal incompetence and pecuniary sleight of hand has plumbed new depths.

If I applied such creative accounting to my company accounts I would soon feel the full force of the authorities, yet such creative accounting of the national accounts is seemingly allowed to pass with impunity.

Anyway, part of the review has been a look at Quango’s, an exercise which has seen many, although not as many as should have been, abolished.

Interestingly this particular exercise could have a significant impact on horse racing.

There are three Quango’s specifically related to horseracing and each has a differing fate.

There is the Horserace Totalisor Board which, as has already been announced, will be abolished and sold off.

There is the Horserace Betting Levy Appeal Tribunal, which will be retained in its entirety as it “performs a technical function which should remain independent of Government.”

Finally there is the Horserace Betting Levy Board, which like the Appeals Tribunal is being retained and for the same reason. However there is a rider which states, “modify functions to remove Secretary Of State’s role in determining Levy.”

That rider is interesting and, indeed, most welcome as the Government should have no role in deciding the funding of any sport.

When I first read the summary I assumed the Government was planning to step away completely and was delighted, however it seems my delight may have been somewhat premature.

Jeremy Hunt, the secretary of state for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, believes there is no longer any need for any political involvement.

In a statement the Department For Culture, Media and Sport said, "We plan to remove the role of the secretary of state from determining the Levy scheme to give the body greater independence and help further to reduce Government involvement in horseracing.

"What will we put in its place? That's yet to be decided.

"Ministers will discuss the options with the Levy Board and the Racing and Betting industries with a view to ensuring the funding for racing is fair and collected from as broad a base as possible.

"An announcement will be made on all this in due course."

The BHA have responded predictably.

Nic Coward, chief executive of the BHA, said: "Racing welcomes the announcement from Government that they are retaining the Levy and laying out plans to modernise it.

"In particular, we welcome that this is a first step by Government to a legal framework that will, in their words, 'ensure that funding for Racing from betting is fair and collected from as broad a base as possible'.

"The principle behind the Levy and the Levy Board - that of a fair transfer of funds from betting businesses to Racing - remains fundamental, and this Government announcement sweeps away any uncertainty about this for the future.”

Paul Roy, chairman of the BHA, stated, "(the) announcement is one part of what Racing has united to call for.

"It's a huge step, but it will only deliver a fair return for Racing in future years.

"Action is needed under the existing system to deliver a fair return in 2011. The matter should not need to land on the secretary of state's desk.

"But under the current process, the power and responsibility to come forward with realistic proposals is solely with the Bookmakers Committee.

"The proposal they are sticking to is a long way from one that could even be considered, and they have shown no sign of moving from it.

"On current forecasts, their proposal would mean a contribution of less than £50m to the Levy in 2011 down from over £100m just two years ago.

"They appear intent on exploiting loopholes for as long as they can, with catastrophic consequences for our sport and Racing people.

"Meanwhile, however, one major bookmaker is stating that exchanges are short-changing the Levy and Racing by tens of millions of pounds, and exchanges point back at big bookmakers joining others offshore and exploiting loopholes in the threshold system, estimated as hitting the Levy just as hard.

"They are both right. The Bookmakers Committee have to come forward with a proposal to deliver a return that is fair to Racing."

I hate to say it but Coward and, especially, Roy are beginning to sound like one trick ponies, spouting out the same tiresome rhetoric.

This is the same BHA management who had no Plan B when faced with a 2011 Levy return which was significantly lower than their, arguably, unrealistic expectations.

The same management who blustered about having to impose, much needed, drastic cuts to the 2011 program, yet then rolled over and published a fixture list with a token reduction of the number of fixtures, spreading the decreasing prize money even thinner.

It is a subject I have approached before and have no desire to revisit in detail again here.

Regular readers will already know my views on the CV’s of the BHA board and their ability to effectively manage a multi-million pound business.

Their slavish adherence to a single funding method, namely the Levy, shows a clear lack of financial acumen, foresight and an inability to view the wider issues.

The Levy is anachronistic and I have yet to seen any argument, yet alone a compelling one, as to why the Levy should be the means of funding the sport.

Why should racing alone receive a Levy contribution from bookmakers?

I had to smile, in particular, at Roy’s comments about racing being united. Racing is not united and never will be unless it is radically restructured. There are far too many disparate, vested interests in the sport for it to be unified.

The BHA is a vast improvement on its various predecessors, however it is still closer to being the Old Boys Club that was the Jockey Club, than being the effective custodian of a multi-million pound business.

The BHA needs to pay particular attention to the final word in its title, it needs to assert its authority and unite the sport as a single, cohesive grouping.

There needs to ba a funding model that is realistic and appropriate in the 21st century and not reliance on an anachronistic, unworkable model.

The BHA needs senior management who are not narrow minded, confrontational and who are ego-free. Individuals who are able to climb out of the deep, narrow furrow they have ploughed for themselves.

Watching the public pronouncements, from both sides of the debate, surrounding funding of the sport is like watching two alpha-males arguing over who has the biggest (or should that be smallest) penis, the on-going public spats are unedifying, achieve nothing and indeed discredit racing and the betting industries.

Most importantly racing, like any other industry in this country, needs to rationalise, indeed rationalise severely, to fit the funding available.

Yes it will mean a massive cut in fixtures, yes it will mean job losses, yes it will mean a decrease in the horse population. It means racing having to face the realities of the real world, realities others have been having to face for some time now.

Racing needs to emerge from its insular world and come into the real world and certainly the Government should not be getting involved in the macho posturing surrounding funding of the sport.

I would much prefer Government time and effort being dealing with defence, the NHS and education rather than becoming involved in debates about the funding of what is, in reality, a minority sport.

Instead of bickering with the bookmakers, perhaps those mandated with running the sport should concentrate their efforts in ensuring the Tote comes fully under the control of racing, although looking at their current track record that may well be a recipe for disaster.

Perhaps the Hong Kong Jockey Club, who really do know how to manage a racing set up, should come in and take over UK Racing and the Tote - lock, stock and barrel.