Racing’s civil war threatens more blood-letting yet
BHA board must cut embattled chairman some slack or sport will face a major new crisis
Unless there is a rather belated outbreak of wisdom at the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) tomorrow, my prediction is that there is shortly going to be a lot of blood on their carpet; and it will not all be from the same victim.
Since chairman Steve Harman entertained rival factions from the competing camps in the pool betting ‘arms race’, civil war has effectively broken out among his board and he is apparently being charged with bringing racing into disrepute.
Harman was criticised for introducing Alex Frost, part of the Alizeti consortium who have bought into Fred Done’s Totepool betting business, to Government minister Matt Hancock.
That was cited by some shareholders of the opposing Britbet venture as a conflict of interest. Others, however, felt that it was entirely appropriate that the chairman of the BHA should be communicating with everyone wanting to invest in the sport.
The point has also been made that Britbet does not suffer from lack of access to influential decision makers – not that Hancock is one as far as pool betting is concerned.
Harman was subsequently the subject of a thorough review conducted by a barrister, which completely exonerated him of any conflict of interest.
I am reliably informed that Harman is now being accused of being erroneous over two matters covered by the review. Firstly, the circumstances around his introduction of Frost to Hancock. Was it orchestrated, rather than random, as first implied by Harman? And secondly, did Harman state that Frost was a constituent of Hancock’s when in fact he is a constituent of one of Hancock’s colleagues?
These errors are now being used as a stick with which to beat Harman. But there are well-placed insiders who work at the coalface of the sport, so to speak, who are of the impression that these inconsequential ‘brain fades’ are now being used by some members on the board to fuel an agenda to undermine Harman.
This scenario is not unfamiliar in the politics of running racing, or most other sports, for that matter. When ownership of venues, fixture lists, media rights and betting payments lie in different hands, there is bound to be a certain amount of ‘jostling in the playground’. But, from time to time, a grown-up has to step in and calm things down.
So those board members throwing their weight about would be wise to remember the historical fate of plotters who went around accusing others of treason. As often as not, they were the ones who had their heads cut off.
If it transpires the accusation Harman has brought racing into disrepute is spurious, it will then be the board’s turn to face accusations that it is they who have brought the sport into disrepute, by undermining their chairman.
What really matters here is, ‘What is in the best interests of racing?’ That is the big picture that some of the board members may have taken their eye off. And they should realise that losing Harman could be catastrophic.
He has been an incredibly good advocate for racing in Westminster. He can take credit for stemming the flow of off-shore levy payments; an achievement hard won in the corridors of power. That was a result of the bridges he constructed and the trust he has built up in Government. And he has much more work to do before he stands down next year.
Harman is much respected by the rank and file in racing. The board members now on his case may want to take a quiet moment and wonder if the same sentiment applies to them? If the board does decide to knife Harman, without proper consultation with the constituents whom they represent, one can expect there will be a call for a vote of no-confidence in the board. At which point the board of the BHA will have plunged racing into a major crisis.