TED TALKS...

In 2010 the Bribery Act was passed into law in the United Kingdom. The act made bribery a criminal offence, punishable with up to 10 years’ imprisonment.

This legal development is reflected in this new Bloodstock Industry Code of Practice, which is designed to prevent serious malpractice in the bloodstock sales industry, including by banning: (a) bribery (whether described as “Luck Money” or not); (b) acting for both sides on a sale without prior informed consent; and (c) the practice of collusive “bidding up”

Self-regulation

THE MODERNISATION OF the code of practice for buying and selling horses has taken the whole of lockdown and more to develop from a simple one-page document, originally developed during Paul Roy’s tenure of Portman Square. The driving force back then was Henry Beeby and the first steps to a regulated industry were begun.

In our industry, rumours of inappropriate financial transactions swirl around the sales grounds every year.

The BHA, and Nick Rust, in particular, as a result of various approaches, commissioned a report in which many people were interviewed to identify wrong doing, reportedly found in five or so cases.

The BHA vowed to take these cases through the legal system – and the report was leaked to the Racing Post for a series of sensationalised articles.

The industry subsequently responded very positively to the recommendations and a committee of stakeholders was formed to address the findings of the damming report.

I sat on the original Paul Roy committee alongside Henry Beeby, but was not chosen to be interviewed by the BHA (which to this day I found strange).

Subsequently, the TBA asked me to represent the breeders on the new forum.

Illegal transactions need two to tango and, if illegal transactions are/ were rife, indeed we must do everything to stamp them out.

Many smaller breeders had concerns. To date the BHA’s five cases have not been prosecuted, probably due to the lack of concrete evidence.

The new industry code addresses many of the BHA’s findings and enables the industry to self-regulate its business, a bit like the financial services act in the City of London that governs hedge funds, banks and investments.

I think we have made a huge step forward – it is not complete but it will shows the industry that, if we have a problem, it will be forced to address abuse of the system legally.

The new code is robust and independent. The code covers both auction sales and also private transactions.

So how, and where, will we see its implementation when we go to the sales? Already the Tattersalls entry forms have included a section forcing those involved to accept the new code and abide by it.

The same will be done for the buyer of each lot at the time of purchase.

This means each buyer and seller has acknowledged the code and agreed to abide by it.

The vendors of all lots will contribute to a fund to finance the independent solicitor/barrister panel who will adjudicate any reported legal wrong doing.

As part of their membership of the Federation of Bloodstock Agents, bloodstock agents will need to undertake an online training module, which will also be part of new trainer licensing modules.

In time the manual will be available to all breeders and industry stakeholders and, although it isn’t a license, it is accreditation.

The code was developed around the law and, interestingly, there are a few legal anomalies as vendors are allowed to offer discounts to principle purchasers, as long as they are offered to everyone and not to a select few.

But this code helps to legitimise our industry when we are buying and selling.

It’s a tremendous step forward as it means breeders, bloodstock agents and the sales houses are not regulated by the BHA, but have reacted to industry concerns about transparency collectively and agreed to abide by the law and will be self-regulating.

The BHA does regulate owners and trainers, anbd perhaps some greater effort should be made to stop owners buying horses if they do not have the legitimate funds to finance their racing.

More rigorous checks on funding and the source of it should be a legal requirement, in conjunction with the possibility of issuing a formal owners’ licence.

Phoenix Thoroughbreds a recent example that could have been dealt with. I believe that these items should be high on the agenda for discussion at future BHA meetings.

After the Phoenix Thoroughbreds (below, right) revelations, Ted reckons it is time that more conversations were had regarding “owners licences” and further checking source of finances