HERE WE GO AGAIN. B.H.A. THE LEAD STORY ON THE DAY CONSTITUTION HILL'S FUTURE IS TO BE RESOLVED.

In today's Racing Post, William Frewen (owner) in the letters column sums-up with clarity all that is wrong with British horse racing's governance. Those who work for the B.H.A., the board members and those who sit in the loftiest chairs should read Mr. Frewen's comments and weep. What our sport deserves is someone at the top who cares as deeply about the sport as all of those who work at its cliff-face; the people who rise at dawn knowing their day will be spent under grey clouds, yet who will work with love of the horse in their hearts.

Lord Allen, the businessman with a reputation for winning battles in the boardroom, has conceded to those who objected to the B.H.A.'s commercialisation of Race Day Data (or whatever the hoo-ha is about).  How can he remain in his position now he knows that he cannot trust the stakeholders who he must work with. When he held the flame to their feet during that period before he signed the contract to become the B.H.A. chairman, the racecourses, the owners, etc, agreed to his proposal for an independent board. Yet two-weeks away from the start of the Cheltenham Festival, that board remains pie in the sky and such are the hostilities between Lord Allen and his far-from independent board that iis highly likely that Lord Allen will resign of his own free will or he will be asked to clear his desk.

What is absolutely certain is that no one at the B.H.A. will see the light of day and suggest root and branch change, that the next chair of the B.H.A. should be, in effect, a supremo, someone with a lifetime of experience of the sport, someone who cares about the sport to the same level as they care about their personal loved-ones.

Two nights ago, the industry awarded trophies and cheques to those determined to be the leading lights of British horse racing's workforce. Everyone nominated deserved the highest honour, yet in competition only one can walk away with the accolade as best of the best. What those who squabble around boardroom tables do not seem to realise, or if they do realise, they obviously do not care, is in seeking only self-satisfaction, victory for their own agendas, is that they are letting-down the very people who do the hard graft that allows them to draw their elevated salaries. In fact, British racing's stakeholders are letting-down the racecourses and their staff, owners, trainers, betting shop staff and their customers and everyone who loves and lives this sport. The longer into the future that this sport is allowed to drift through intransigence and self-indulgence, the less likely it will become for it to survive long-term.

British horse racing has the worst governance of any mainstream sport in this country, yet its workforce, and I include trainers and jockeys in this group, must be the hardest working and least well-rewarded of anyone who works in a sporting environment. Worst of all, when contacted by the Racing Post, these 'stakeholders' refuse to comment, refuse to say why they oppose Lord Allen and the changes they agreed to before he took office. I was opposed to Lord Allen when he was first named as the B.H.A.'s first choice as chairman because he was an outsider with little or no knowledge of this complex, many-layered sport. I warmed to him because he seemed radical and strong-willed enough to bring about change, to herd the stakeholders into a corner and have them bend to the ring of power on his finger. But that has not come about.

What those with influence must do now, those who are not in the pay of the B.H.A., is lobby to have someone at the top of the pyramid that understands the sport, someone who cares about horses, people and the sport that unites us all. Is that too radical a hope, that the man or woman at the top lives and loves the sport as much as you or I? Or me, anyway!

I again urge people to seek-out Tim Fitzgeorge-Parker's 1968 published book 'The Spoilsports. What's Wrong With British Racing.' It is an eye-opener to be confronted with the knowledge that much of what is wrong now was wrong 60-years ago. And that says it all, doesn't it?