HOT topic of the moment in the UK is the news that the BHA is launching an investigation into bloodstock sales in light of concerns raised about alleged breaches of the industry code of practice, and it’s interesting to see how people align themselves on this issue.

Some of the allegations made about the sector come from a time before the code of practice, which is set out in the BHA’s rules of racing, was introduced, but it’s clear that many people believe that there is still a regular flaunting of the rules.

We’ve all heard stories about the practice of agents or trainers agreeing inflated fees with vendors for the purposes of splitting the difference between what the vendor is expecting and what the new owner is willing to pay.

These stories are often second or third-hand retellings, and essentially gossip, but I’ve spoken to several would-be vendors who have refused to strike such a deal, and while their experiences should not be taken as a barometer for what is standard within the industry, they do suggest that the practice of asking for kickbacks is/was not unknown, and given that one example of malpractice trumps 50 examples of business transacted properly, it’s not surprising that people with a passing knowledge of the bloodstock industry tend to believe that corruption is rife.

Is the BHA’s decision to revisit the code an overreaction to scare stories dredged up from the past, or is there an endemic issue?

Speak to those who work in the industry, and you’re likely to be told that it’s a bit more column A than column B. The point about conducting a review isn’t that it creates an impression of wrongdoing which industry insiders feel is potentially damaging and reflects badly on those who are abiding by the rules, but that it enables the industry to show it welcomes the opportunity to prove that it is effectively regulated and ensures that those who break the rules, and act in a criminal manner, are shunned.

MURKY

Closing ranks and insisting everything is above board gives the impression that a light being shone on current practices is unwelcome, and that suggests to the outside world that there is something murky underneath the surface.

I have little doubt that those who don’t want a review are genuinely acting in the best interests of the industry, and are concerned that the current headlines give a false impression which could affect business adversely.

The problem I have is that “leave well enough alone” is simply not an acceptable policy any more, and can be more damaging in the long term, especially where it serves to protect the few who would abuse the system, as the Hollywood film industry is discovering at present.

It doesn’t matter whether there is one bad apple, a dozen, or whether the barrel is rotten – if an industry wants to discourage sharp practice, then it must show that it welcomes proper process, and the decision to look again at the code of practice and its implementation should be praised, whatever the eventual outcome.

On a similar note, but one which has made few headlines, the BHA decision to appeal a disciplinary panel verdict in a case involving trainer Philip Hobbs may be unprecedented, but should be commended when it is understood what may be achieved.

The BHA believe that the panel misinterpreted the rules in handing out no penalty to the trainer despite one of his horses testing positive for a prohibited substance, and while that decision has dismayed the National Trainers Federation, it is potentially in their interest that the appeal goes ahead. The NTF take the view that the panel were correct to mete out no punishment as the trainer took all reasonable care to ensure that he did not violate the rule in question, and the issue of accidental ingestion/administration of prohibited substances is a particularly thorny one.

It’s very possible that the panel’s interpretation of the rule is correct, but the only way to ensure that future cases can be dealt with equally leniently is to test the initial finding and establish a precedent.

That process will be dealt with at the subsequent appeal, and dealing with the issue in this is potentially more beneficial to trainers who follow procedure than for each case to be fought on an individual basis.