Ten years ago the BHB (British Horseracing Board, as it was called in those days) went to court to establish that the data generated by the racing industry was the copyright property of the racing industry, which that industry was entitled to sell to parties who wished to make use of it. Litigation between the BHB and the William Hill bookmaking organisation ended up in the European Court of Justice, and a panel of European judges came to the conclusion that the relevant data was not eligible for copyright protection.

Ten years later I still find that verdict unjustifiable. Recently I dug out a report on the case composed in 2005 by a reputable legal firm,  and read through it in the faint hope of finding some reason to be cheerful.

Two items caught my eye:

a) In its judgement, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) said: The resources used to draw up a list of horses in a race and carry out checks in that connection do not constitute investment in the obtaining and verification of the contents of the database in which that list appears.

Am I mistaken, or is that not the opposite of the truth? I also suspect that the ECJ has been unjust in describing in such simplistic terms the complicated and vital process of assembling and utilising the data underpinning British Racing.

b) The report goes on to mention that the BHB contended that the ECJ had “misunderstood” the facts of the case. It occurs to me that if the facts of the case were misunderstood, it is quite likely that the facts were inadequately presented. Is there not a possibility that a better-presented case might have produced a better result? Is it not possible that the BHB litigated without showing sufficient respect for the acumen of the William Hill Organisation, and without paying sufficient attention to the extreme difficulties facing British litigants in the European courts?

Both the above considerations suggest to me that perhaps now is the time for the BHA to consider returning to the euro-legal arena, hopefully represented by a team that understands Europe considerably better than the last lot seem to have done.

Coincidentally, the report I have been reading ends with the suggestion that the “database right” is not clearly defined and that the issue will continue to crop up until its true scope is settled.

*

The Tote is gone – an act of surrender by the racing authorities on a par with anything that happened in WW2, and an act of treachery on the part of David Cameron which he should never be allowed to forget.

The Tote and the pool betting licence now belong to Mr Done (who is to be congratulated on his shrewdness and his energy in business, as well as on his consistent and liberal support of racing). Half the sale price has been promised to racing and the terms of settlement are, I understand, written in stone and beyond the clutches of further treachery. That leaves the other £90 millions, now lying in the vaults of the Treasury. That money belongs to racing. The facts of the case are beyond dispute, and the documentary evidence is readily available. It is not too late for a Judicial Review.

I congratulate the BHA on the agreement signed by 27 racecourses that may improve racing’s financial position by £5 million in 2014. I understand that the BHA is working with the government to improve the basis on which racing’s future fortunes depend. However, I don’t think that cooperation in that area entitles the government to get away with daylight robbery to the tune of £90 millions. A Judicial Review could settle this matter once and for all.

*

Now for something entirely different, but strangely familiar.

I have argued in the past that one of the rules of racing is unacceptable and should be scrapped, as should one of the guidelines.  I have also suggested that the proposition that BHA employees should “massage” the results of races to ensure that “the best horse wins” is unethical and corrupts the sport.

I now wish to criticise the way in which the rules are on occasion administered. As follows:

In the BHA’s Guide to Procedures and Penalties, page 14, there are two warnings that interference involving the running rail can lead to a charge of Dangerous Riding (see paragraph 1, and item “g” in the section entitled “Rider Causes Serious Interference by…”), and the same warning is applied to interference that prevents a rival from “going up the inner” (item “a” in the same section), a manoeuvre which usually consists of trying to take advantage of a gap between a rival and the rails.  Dangerous Riding warrants disqualification, and quite rightly so, and any involvement of the running rail can compound the dangers of a collision.

However, when (in the Eclipse)  Al Kazeem knocked his rival into the rails as the rival was coming up his inner, the dust hardly had time to settle before an inquiry was held,  and very soon afterwards it was announced that the placings would remain unaltered. It transpired that the stewards under the guidance of the BHA’s stipendiary steward had decided that this was a case of “careless riding”, which warranted a short ban for the jockey and no possibility of disqualification for the horse. Apparently the stewards had failed to notice the white wooden arrangement that decorates the edges of all racecourses and is widely referred to as “the rails.”

I hate having to go back to the Eclipse, but where  can one find a better example of “Rules are rules – except when the authorities decide to ignore them”? It is hard to believe that responsible and professional adults can have gone this far down a path that can only end in tears for British racing.

*

On Saturday 28^th September C4 showed two races under NH rules, the 2.15 and the 2.50 at Market Rasen, and in both cases the starts were a disgrace. It seems we are no nearer the “Eureka” moment when Mr Stier finally discovers that proper starts are only achieved if the whole field is allowed to walk onto the course (from the holding areas) BEFORE any attempt is made to start the race. He must also understand that, when there is a big field, getting the runners on to the course at the walk takes a few seconds longer than is allowed under present management procedures.  It’s as simple as that.

Best wishes.