Racing’s disciplinary system is to be separated from the sport’s ruling body as part of changes recommended by the Quinlan review, published on Thursday. Christopher Quinlan QC, hired to give an independent overview of the system which has attracted so much criticism this year, concludes in a 151-page document that the current set-up is broadly fair but makes 24 recommendations for change, all of which have been immediately accepted by the British Horseracing Authority.
However, Quinlan declines to say anything about the vexed Jim Best case, which created the need for his review to be accelerated. A finding against Best was quashed in May because of an appearance of bias and insufficiency in the published reasons, with the result that the case will be reheard in November. As the case remains live, Quinlan says it would be inappropriate for him to investigate it.
His main area of concern is racing’s disciplinary panel, which, he says, “has not evolved sufficiently with modern and best practice. That is not through malice or ill will or bad faith on the part of anyone”.
A BHA director, currently Jamie Stier, has been responsible for running the panel and appointing its members but that is to change. Under the new system, the panel is to be run by a “judicial panel chairman” who is to be a senior legal practitioner, independent of the BHA, with in-depth knowledge of the sport.
He is to preside over an expanded pool of people who can be called upon to make up disciplinary panels, to be doubled in size to 22, including more lawyers but excluding those who also work as raceday stewards. Those stewards have accounted for at least two-thirds of all panels under the existing system but Quinlan rules that “to remove them would enhance confidence in the process … by addressing the concern that active stewards adjudicating upon the decisions of stewards with whom they have officiated is unfair”.
Instead, Quinlan urges broadening membership of the panel, perhaps to include former trainers or jockeys, or veterinary surgeons. He adds that it would be desirable for an experienced lawyer to chair every inquiry, rather than just the more complex cases, as happens now.
Quinlan appears stunned at the informality of the system for appointments to the disciplinary panel. “It might be said to be organic,” he notes, the closest he ever comes to being scathing. “Insofar as there is a procedure, it is not set down in the rules or elsewhere. Plainly it is not transparent.”
He recommends that the appointments procedure be formalised and opened up to competition against published criteria. He sets down time limits for publication of verdicts and clarifies the situations in which the BHA must disclose documentation to the defence. There is to be a fast-track system for minor offences and pro bono advice for those who cannot afford their own defence.
Quinlan also tackles the disciplinary panel meetings which have been the subject of some suspicion, as they amount to regular meetings between those who act as judges and prosecutors in BHA cases, with others excluded and no minutes published. While he stops short of insisting on opening those up to external scrutiny, he offers stern counsel about what can be discussed.
“It should not be a vehicle by which the regulator or the defence comments upon the correctness or otherwise of the decisions,” Quinlan says. “Nor should it be one in which the regulator or the defence are able to make submissions on, for example, the meaning of the rules or of policies.”
BHA officials have welcomed Quinlan’s review and expressed the hope that a judicial panel chairman might be appointed by the end of the year, in time to appoint the rest of the newly expanded panel by the end of March. Simultaneously, the authority announced a reshuffle of responsibility among its senior personnel so that the duties of Adam Brickell, the recently departed integrity director, are absorbed by his former colleagues.
Nick Rust, the BHA chief executive, said: “The changes we are making mean that everyone connected with our sport will be able to have the utmost confidence in the impartiality and fairness of the BHA’s disciplinary panels. As well as providing his own expert, independent view, Christopher Quinlan’s report has given us the opportunity to address the concerns of our sport’s participants and stakeholders and to improve their confidence in what we do and how we do it.”
The review was also welcomed by Paul Struthers, chief executive of the Professional Jockeys Association, who has been advocating changes to the existing system for years. “Whilst we have never accused the disciplinary panel of, nor believed its members were, biased, we believed that the perception or feeling of such bias existed for various reasons,” he said.
“It is important that these recommendations, along with those outstanding from the previous integrity review, are implemented in full and it is to the credit of the BHA board that they have all been accepted and will be implemented within a six- to eight-month time frame, which in our view is reasonable, given their scope. This needs to be done in a way that is collegiate and has the involvement and buy-in of relevant stakeholders.
“It is also important that this is complemented by a continued culture shift as already advocated and demonstrated by Nick Rust. Both elements are equally crucial to a fairer system that remains robust and to regaining the full confidence of participants and the public alike in the BHA’s disciplinary and integrity processes.”
Rupert Arnold, chief executive of the National Trainers Federation, was also encouraged by the review. “We believe trainers will welcome Christopher Quinlan QC’s recommendations,” Arnold said. “His finding that, viewed in totality, the BHA provides a fair disciplinary system is important as it clarifies any doubts that some may have had. That in itself engenders confidence.
“However, more significantly, the BHA’s confirmation that it will adopt all the report’s recommendations for further strengthening of the disciplinary structure, making it structurally independent of the BHA means trainers will be confident that when they face a disciplinary panel, it meets the highest standards of modern sports regulation.
“Another positive aspect of the report is the recommendation to broaden membership of the panels to include suitably qualified people with racing knowledge. This will create a deeper sense that disciplinary decisions are made with appropriate understanding of the evidence.
“Combining the licensing and disciplinary panels makes sense, though we have some concerns that applicants for a licence do not currently have more timely access to an independent assessment of their case. This could be dealt with using similar protocols to those that have been recommended for disciplinary cases in the BHA’s Integrity Review carried out earlier this year.
“Finally, in relation to the changes to the BHA Executive team, we are particularly pleased at the news that a new role of director of equine health and welfare is to be created. Equine welfare is a primary objective in our sport; this position gives it the standing it deserves in the governance of racing.”
Rupert Arnold, chief executive of the National Trainers Federation, was also encouraged by the review. “We believe trainers will welcome Christopher Quinlan QC’s recommendations,” Arnold said. “His finding that, viewed in totality, the BHA provides a fair disciplinary system is important as it clarifies any doubts that some may have had. That in itself engenders confidence.
“However, more significantly, the BHA’s confirmation that it will adopt all the report’s recommendations for further strengthening of the disciplinary structure, making it structurally independent of the BHA means trainers will be confident that when they face a disciplinary panel, it meets the highest standards of modern sports regulation.
“Another positive aspect of the report is the recommendation to broaden membership of the panels to include suitably qualified people with racing knowledge. This will create a deeper sense that disciplinary decisions are made with appropriate understanding of the evidence.
“Combining the licensing and disciplinary panels makes sense, though we have some concerns that applicants for a licence do not currently have more timely access to an independent assessment of their case. This could be dealt with using similar protocols to those that have been recommended for disciplinary cases in the BHA’s Integrity Review carried out earlier this year.
“Finally, in relation to the changes to the BHA Executive team, we are particularly pleased at the news that a new role of director of equine health and welfare is to be created. Equine welfare is a primary objective in our sport; this position gives it the standing it deserves in the governance of racing.”
