Ex-jockey Graham Bradley served a five year ban (for talking to the wrong people and saying the wrong things for gain) and has since made it clear that he wishes to train. Since the end of his ban (2009), it is my understanding that he has behaved impeccably. However it would appear that High Holborn’s disciplinary brigade doesn’t like him.

Looking back on that period recently, Richard Forristal in The Guardian referred to Bradley successfully completing one of the courses which would-be trainers must pass in order to be eligible for a licence. I quote: “The regulator is clearly reluctant to licence him, given that he applied in May 2013, and all those who did the course with him are now training.”

The fee for those wishing to take these courses is £2,000. The BHA were quick to take Bradley’s money. Its subsequent attitude has been unusually snail-like.

Bradley is being helped by Brendan Powell, a trainer who has always been held in high esteem by the racing world, first as a jockey and in recent years as a trainer. In his yard, among other horses, Powell trains a number of horses which would be part of Bradley’s string if and when he gets a licence. All above board, transparent and with no attempt at subterfuge or concealment.

The most recent indication of officialdom’s attitude came on July 3^rd 2014, when the BHA informed B and P of the possibility that they might be charged with rule-breaking.  The suggestion was that Bradley (unlicensed) was in fact training horses which were supposed to be under the sole control of Powell. The racing world waited and waited for further developments. Not a problem for the great majority, but no fun at all for B and P, both subjected to life under the shadow of suspicion and the manifold ramifications of that suspicion, as a result of the BHA’s announcement.

Time passed, and eventually the BHA announced that a disciplinary panel would look into the matter.

Four months later, on November 6^th 2014, the BHA announced that a three-day enquiry by unnamed panellists had cleared B and P of all charges.

The announcement went on to say that the BHA was dissatisfied with the verdicts, and would not comment further until the anonymous panel’s written explanation of its decisions was available. So, the panel clears B and P, and the BHA immediately re-establishes the atmosphere of suspicion which has been hanging over every aspect of their lives for more than a year.

Strangely enough, no record of the three-day enquiry seems to exist in the various pages of the BHA website. And, as far as I know, there has been no sign of the written explanation of the panel’s deliberations and decisions referred to above.

This is the way justice is served under the present management of the BHA’s integrity and disciplinary departments. And it gets worse. On November 11^th, the BHA announced that on October 3^rd (note that date: five weeks earlier and not a word to press, industry or public) the BHA’s Board (the supreme authority in British Racing) had granted the disciplinary officers a quite unusual power – the right to appeal against the decisions made by their own home-grown panels. It would seem that, in the eyes of the disciplinarians, the matter was simple common sense: if we don’t like the verdict, we change the panel and start again.

There is a certain logic to that attitude. If you are more interested in power and control than in justice, that is the way your mind works.

The BHA Board, however, is expected to be better than that. Its role is to provide leadership, wisdom, integrity and justice. And if there is the possibility of a cancer in the system, and in this instance that possibility is very real and very obvious, it is the Board’s job to identify and eliminate it.

The world waits, eager to see how this drama ends. Are we to witness an amazing conjuring trick? A trick in which the wand of retrospective injustice is brandished, and its targets are consigned to the outer darkness?  Time will tell.

This is a horror story in every way. But there is just a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel. The treatment meted out to Mr Bradley has been despicable, but he could expect a certain amount of difficulty in his attempt to get a licence, because of the problems that led to his ban. But that caveat does not apply to Mr Powell. If it proves to be the case that Mr Powell is completely innocent, then the damage done to him, to his family, to his business, to every aspect of his life will be seen to have been enormous and disgraceful (and it is still going on.)

I would be delighted if the day dawned when his lawyer felt it appropriate to advise him that he should sue the BHA for a very, very large sum of money. I feel that only the threat of a mega-payout will rouse the Board from its slumbers. It needs to take note of the monstrous behaviour of some of its employees, under its nose and apparently with its blessing.