The previous day, Julie Harrington had said in her email to me (Chapter 13),

I hope the conversation today will allow us to hear some other views and discuss what role the NGB [national governing body] of a sport should/could be in these areas.

No such conversation transpired. I had expected a split screen with, say, nine or sixteen people, rotating between the hundred or so staff on the call, enabling people to participate in the conversation. Instead, viewers were restricted to sending comments electronically. Virtually the entire session was between the CEO and the two guests.

The host started by asking Julie Harrington,

“What do you say to people who have both on social media and more publicly said that this kind of conversation is not necessary, and that it is beyond the realm of the regulator to be involved in discussions about politics and race”.

The host didn’t say this objection had been raised by a member of staff, namely myself, in my email to Julie Harrington. By attributing my objections to people “on social media and more publicly”, staff were denied knowledge that objections had been raised internally.

The two guests introduced themselves:

Paul Brewster, a retired Barbadian jockey who moved to England in 2001, re-engaged with racing in 2011, and was appointed to Racing to School’s Board of Trustees in May 2019. He said: “I’d never thought that an opportunity would have been there for me to give back to the sport that gave me so much ... I have to thank the team at Racing to School [and] everyone at Careers in Racing who have made it possible for me to be able to give back to this sport and I will always be eternally grateful to them”.

Callum Helliwell joined the BHA graduate programme in 2018 and spent two weeks in Newmarket (“had the time of my life … got to be more involved in the industry than I could ever have dreamed” and “changed my life really and gave me a target”) and three months at Great British Racing (“another great experience”) followed by working at the National Stud for six months. He moved to work in television at Sky Sports Racing. “I’m living the dream and I’m very, very lucky to be doing that”.

Neither of these testimonies are of people who had been racially mistreated. Yet by the end of the Zoom call, Callum Helliwell was saying:

“I suddenly had this horrible feeling in my gut that people didn’t want me and people didn’t feel comfortable with me being there and my very presence made them feel in a negative way … I was angry … [white people think] everything is okay because they’re not burning a cross and have a white hood over their head”.

Paul Brewster added:

“Listening to Callum, I mean, it is so sad you come into a sport and you’re trying your best and people are judging you based primarily on the colour of your skin. That is so ludicrous but it happens and I think a lot of it needs to be addressed through education … You look at things like the apartheid era, you look at the civil rights movement in America”.

Crikey - white hoods, apartheid, burning crosses; what happened? Two things. Mr Helliwell explained:

“I didn’t consider myself black until I went to university ... there was the Afro-Caribbean society [which] I didn’t want to join … because I believed that was a negative thing [but] I remember Philando Castile, and many other deaths at the hands of [American] police officers. I [was] up in arms about that, and being told [by friends] ‘Oh Callum, that’s an American thing’, and ‘if he didn’t run that wouldn’t happen’. Eventually, I started to believe this [and then] George Floyd happened, and then suddenly you realise … I’m just being told not to say anything”.

Helliwell was agitated by what he believed was happening in the United States. For him, this was introduced into horseracing when he was asked by Josh Apiafi to take part in Mr Apiafi’s television feature, “The Uncomfortable Race” (Chapter 11):

“I got a phone call from Josh … I had never spoken with him … he contacted me and said, would you like to be part of this young guns project that I’m doing ... we did the documentary … basically the three of us [and Josh Apiafi] discussing .. racing’s lack of action post-George Floyd in comparison to other sports, how it affected us, and … how to get more people from ethnically diverse backgrounds and other diverse backgrounds into the sport, and what racing can do”.

Note the reference to a “young guns project”. The context here, of course, is young black people competing with older white people. I had never heard people talk of “young guns” in horseracing before; young jockeys or trainers were assumed to be joining and continuing the racing tradition, not challenging or competing en bloc with older people.

Helliwell said that after the TV programme was broadcast, he received the following backlash:

“… there was a very negative reaction on social media ... I was trying to do my job and I was in the job of my dreams and I was really, really happy … and then I went on social media and I saw this storm of comments … it hit me like a ton of bricks ... the responses were so raw and so visceral … And it was from people’s public accounts ... I’ve seen these people on racecourses, I knew lots of these people from when I was working at sales”.

Mr Helliwell’s “trying to do my job” misses the point; he had been accepted in racing, then criticised the sport on television for failing to support Black Lives Matter, describing racing as “left behind”. That’s what led to the reaction. It is similarly incorrect for Paul Brewster to claim that Helliwell was being judged on the colour of his skin.

Mr Brewster’s comparisons to apartheid are mystifying. Apartheid was a policy of racial separation in South Africa; for example, black people could not live in white-designated regions. British horseracing does not operate such a policy; there are no ‘white’ racecourses in Britain. Racecourses are ‘white’ only in the sense Britain is a part of the world where white people live; if one goes to India or Hong Kong, one will see racecourses with non-white people.

The host asked Mr Brewster the following question: “Paul, you are one of the few black board members within British Racing, if not potentially the only one. Is that something you have been conscious of during your career?” Paul Brewster replied, “Well to be honest with you I did not even realise that I was one of the very, very few. That was shocking to me. Obviously, it demonstrates that the industry has got some work to do in that area”.

What exactly was Mr Brewster expecting when he moved to Britain - a demographic mirroring that of his home country? But there’s another point to be made; if Mr Brewster is dissatisfied at the lack of black directors, had it occurred to him that it is black people who have work to do, rather than the industry?

If there was any message to come from this Zoom call, it was that Mr Brewster and Mr Helliwell had assimilated successfully, and in a natural way, but that acceptance had been hijacked by diversity activism. Josh Apiafi had sought out Callum Helliwell because he was young and invited him to make televised criticisms without applying control for accuracy or nuance. This led to the backlash from those criticised, leaving Helliwell distressed.

Josh Apiafi couldn’t have been unaware that using Helliwell in this way might cause such a reaction, because he had done the same thing with Rishi Persad (Chapter 8). But whereas Mr Persad was 47, Callum was only 24. He had been turned from a happy and assimilated member of the horseracing community into someone disaffected and alienated.

The timing of this Zoom call should also not be overlooked. Invitations were sent on the anniversary of George Floyd’s death, portraying his death as a ‘wake-up call’ for staff in horseracing’s governing and marketing bodies. The call was designed to illustrate the new perspective and parameters staff were expected to accept and work within, as the BHA moved to change the sport’s racial composition.

The first sentence is misleading because (a) it implies Floyd’s death was related to race, when race played no part in the charges, trial or conviction, and (b) fails to clarify Derek Chauvin’s central conviction rested on unintentional killing through excessive force, not premeditated murder. These points are important because a number of horseracing executives and personalities had appeared to accept the idea that Floyd’s death was part of a wider pattern where American police were routinely targeting unarmed black people with fatal violence.

Why did they believe that? Possibly because popular media would headline the fact that around 1,000 people were shot dead by U.S. police annually while emphasising stories of unarmed black victims, thus causing the misperception. The actual number of unarmed black people fatally shot by U.S. police in 2019, the year prior to horseracing’s interest, was 11 (alongside 26 unarmed white deaths and 11 Hispanic).2 Most black people shot dead are armed with handguns or other weapons (242 in 2019, alongside 387 white people and 154 Hispanics). It is true to say black fatalities are twice as high per head of population as white fatalities, but not when circumstances are taken into account, such as level of threat to police (in 2019, 48 police officers were also killed).3 Overall, in a country of over 330 million people, use of fatal force by U.S. police is exceedingly rare.

And yet, horseracing executives chose to believe what the media appeared to convey. This belief was reflected in the image above, whereby the first sentence (“On the anniversary of George Floyd’s murder we stand against racism”) creates momentum for the second - “There is no place for racism in society, sport or racing”. What, then, is meant by “racism”?

Previously, the word racism would be assumed to mean racial discrimination, but as noted in Chapter 10, the diversity policy combined with BLM/George Floyd narratives changed the meaning to numerical imbalance or, more pointedly, the presence or activity of white people without black people. Thus we arrive at the notion that horseracing itself can be said to constitute “racism”.

The Email Exchange

New BHA chief executive Julie Harrington chose the anniversary of George Floyd’s death to invite BHA and GBR staff to a Zoom call entitled “Let’s talk about race and ethnicity”. Her email expressly referenced the “changed understanding” of “racism”:

Today is the anniversary of the murder of George Floyd. His tragic death has changed the conversation and understanding around racism and discrimination – leading to people from all over the world sharing how they are affected by these issues. Racing is no different, with Josh Apiafi, Sean Levey, Rishi Persad, and Sulekha Varma sharing publicly their personal experiences of working in our sport.

We want to continue this conversation, and our live Q&A session will aim to:

• Help us understand some of the challenges faced by ethnically diverse communities

• Learn from other people’s personal experiences

• Open the conversation – giving everyone a chance to participate.

I want to continue my learning in this area, so will be joining the panel … Improving diversity and inclusion is one of the BHA’s priorities, and this event is part of a wider Action Plan, which we will share more about in the next All Staff Call. This BHA Plan is part of a unified industry commitment to improving diversity and inclusion in our sport agreed by industry leaders.

Our commitment to greater understanding and action on ethnicity will build on existing initiatives, including Careers in Racing’s “Step on Track” programme … designed to introduce young people from Black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds to the horseracing industry. Racing is typically welcoming to anyone interested in our sport, but I am sure there is more we can all do to understand and address any barriers to attracting the employees and customers of tomorrow. I hope you will be able to join us on 8 June for this event and take part in this important conversation.

Subscribe now

In one sense, the email was welcome; former chief executive Nick Rust had not approached staff in this way. But the email also referenced the “unified industry commitment to improving diversity and inclusion” and a “wider action plan”, indicating the matter was not up for discussion. I mulled over this invitation; I did not want to ask awkward questions during a live discussion so sent Julie Harrington my views, copied to Chairwoman Annamarie Phelps, beforehand:

Dear Julie,

Thank you for your email, and for arranging the BHA's first Q&A on this topic. My views are below. Please note, for my own protection, I will not be adding to this statement or entering into discussion regarding it. If you choose to address these points in the Q&A, you are welcome to attribute them to me.

i) If evidence exists of discrimination by racecourse staff, employers, etc., this is properly dealt with under the Rules of Racing or other legal remedies.

ii) So long as people are free to exercise consumer choices, and job applicants protected under employment law, the regulator has no reason to be interested in this matter. Any demographic changes in horseracing should occur organically, and the pace determined by individual choice.

iii) Matters relating to Black Lives Matter and the George Floyd case (which was not race-related and remains under appeal), and suggestions of “white privilege” and “systemic racism”, are subjective, and open to double standards.

iv) Accommodation of Sharia law should be made only after profound circumspection.4

v) The wider question as to Britain’s demographic future is a matter for Parliament. It is not for the governing body of horseracing to express a view either way, whether on its own volition, at the behest of activists, or on behalf of the State.

Julie Harrington replied the following day. While acknowledging the views in my email, she expressed a very different view of the BHA’s involvement:

Dear John

Firstly I am happy that you feel comfortable sharing your views. We have asked the moderator to build some of the themes you mention into the Q & A. I am sorry you do not wish to enter into further discussion at present, I hope that as the conversation develops you will feel happy to add your voice.

This is just one area of inclusivity in which we hope to build confidence in our team members to discuss. We should all feel happy to discuss if our organisation and our sport is as welcoming and inclusive as it might be.

My own personal view is that the BHA’s role is broader than that of regulator. I also believe that to be welcoming goes beyond enforcing rules. Leaving matters to existing rules, regulations, laws etc. and as a matter for parliament will not progress positive change. Without people and organisations taking individual responsibility and pushing for change, women still wouldn’t have the vote and gay relationships would still be illegal.

As I say that is just my view, I hope the conversation today will allow us to hear some other views and discuss what role the NGB [national governing body] of a sport should/could be in these areas.

Best Wishes,

The final two paragraphs state a “personal view”, but diversity was declared policy. The penultimate paragraph drew analogies to women’s suffrage and the decriminalization of homosexuality, but no comparable discriminatory laws exist to bar black people from horseracing. So, the reply sidestepped the issue in hand - whether a sports governing body should be adopting views on matters unrelated to its proper remit.

Where a sports governing body would have grounds for opining is if black people were not allowed to participate in racing, similar to the restrictions on women being professional jockeys prior to 1966. If such a restriction existed today, it would be perfectly justified for the BHA to take a view, since this is both relevant to the industry and restrictive to one section of the population. But no such discriminatory rules exist against black people.

How did we end up here? A succession of senior executives had adopted a worldview which they regarded as a moral crusade, with George Floyd its martyr and Derek Chauvin the symbol of oppression. Here again is the second paragraph of Julie Harrington’s first email; it runs from George Floyd’s death straight to the “personal experiences” of non-white people in horseracing:

Today is the anniversary of the murder of George Floyd. His tragic death has changed the conversation and understanding around racism and discrimination – leading to people from all over the world sharing how they are affected by these issues. Racing is no different, with Josh Apiafi, Sean Levey, Rishi Persad, and Sulekha Varma sharing publicly their personal experiences of working in our sport.

Chairwoman Annamarie Phelps used similar wording when speaking to the media: “George Floyd’s tragic murder … led to black communities all over the world sharing how racism and discrimination affects them … Racing is no less impacted”.5 The jarring linkage - running directly from George Floyd’s death to “personal experiences” in British horseracing - implicitly aligned white people in the sport with Derek Chauvin’s knee on George Floyd’s neck.

The four individuals said to have shared these “personal experiences” can only be a reference to Sky Sport Racing’s “Leading the Way” TV series, in which Josh Apiafi interviewed the other three. However, despite Mr Apiafi’s probing for examples of racial discrimination, the interviews remained on role models and perceived under-representation.

The BHA’s senior leadership was aware there were people who disagreed with the worldview; for example, push-back to the Rishi Persad interview (Chapter 8), as well as more generally, such as the then imminent launch of GB News. In normal discourse, there would be at least two views - for and against - but the diversity and inclusion policy was oppositional; use of words such as ‘racism’, ‘homophobia’, and ‘transphobia’ rendered disagreement morally illegitimate, meaning naysayers could not be seriously engaged with. The “unified industry commitment” formally entrenched this, with the result that there was no way to press home an objection, beyond a polite email, because the idea that diversity could be wrong was itself precluded.

The interview is no longer available on the internet, but I recall that Annamarie Phelps started the interview smiling, seeking a friendly reception, whereas Mr Apiafi was belligerent from the outset; the smile slipped. Josh Apiafi demanded to know why the BHA had not done more to mark the death of George Floyd.

Annamarie Phelps replied:1

“Racing did discuss what we should do in the immediate awful moment a year ago, and it would have been really hypocritical of us I think - at that time - to have said anything enormously public and meaningful about standing alongside our black communities when actually we don't have very much ethnic diversity in the sport, and we had done probably at that time very little to try to be more inclusive. There's a whole raft of things, at all sorts of different levels, which are much more meaningful to those people, I hope, working in our industry than a grandiose statement which we had nothing behind at the time”.

This reply seems intended to outflank Josh Apiafi by being more Josh Apiafi than he was. What Annamarie Phelps should have said was: racecourses are not the place for Mr Apiafi’s BLM activism; no barrier exists to black people going racing; and if Josh Apiafi has evidence of racecourse staff being unwelcoming to black people, he should report it promptly. Had Annamarie Phelps kept to those positions, Mr Apiafi’s attacks would have been nullified.

Why did Annamarie Phelps, and by extension the BHA, end up in the position it did? By anticipating claims of ‘racism’ on account of horseracing’s ‘white’ demographics, they attempted to ward them off by making floating admissions. For example, on 14 June 2020, Annamarie Phelps said:

“In the light of the tragic killing of George Floyd and the discussions that have been ongoing about white privilege across our society, it is right that we acknowledge we haven’t prioritised tackling racism or diversity in racing as a sport, or at the BHA, as we should have”.

In so doing, the BHA created precisely the effect it was seeking to avert, because hostile activists were then free to refer to “problems” that were “admitted”. For example, Josh Apiafi said in a television interview on Sky Sports, 25 May 2022:2

“It’s been slow Hayley, but I think you have to, first of all, realise there is a problem, and unfortunately racing was a little slow out of the blocks ... once they admitted there was a - there is a - a problem that needed addressing, they then put various different factors in place”.

What must viewers have thought - that black people had been denied entry to the racecourses, that they were expected to use segregated facilities? It didn’t occur to interviewer Hayley McQueen to ask! Only by working backwards can one discover that BHA admissions were floating admissions to floating accusations, and that the supposed “problem” didn’t exist.

The racing media’s lack of scrutiny

A recurring feature of racing television interviews was that presenters, there to talk about sport, had no skills with which to critically question diversity activists. But it was also the case that broadcasters such as Sky Sports Racing shared their opinions; for example, Hayley McQueen introduced the above interview by saying:

“It is two years on from the murder of George Floyd, an event that sparked the global conversation about diversity and led to most sporting organisations promising change. Today we’re looking at whether the promises are being kept. I’m joined on set by Josh Apiafi ...”

Sky Sports presented diversity as “global conversation” rather than, say, a cultural or ideological coup in white-western countries, with the rest of the globe looking on in incredulity.

Josh Apiafi later described Sky Sports as “huge backers” of diversity, giving him a “public voice to create change”.3 Sky Sports had its own diversity committee, of which Josh Apiafi was a member, and produced Mr Apiafi’s diversity TV programmes, such as The Uncomfortable Race. In common with the Racing Post (Chapter 8), Sky Sports had rendered itself incapable of objective or balanced reporting on diversity-related matters.

Josh Apiafi later explained his hostility to horseracing authorities in a podcast, November 2022:4

“There’s two ways of getting a horse to move forward, you either give it a kick or you give it a pat … I’ve done things where I’ve kicked the sport which was [when] we did a programme called The Uncomfortable Race where I personally sat down with three young black males … [racing] needed a kick … if you look at horseracing, it’s full of white privileged males, they might not think it, but their thinking is within, let’s say, 10% of each other”.

This is a strange thing to say; people in horseracing are employed on the basis of skills: equine roles, racecourse operations, stewards, hospitality, marketing, management, IT, administration, etc. The idea that people in the industry, white or not, have the same or similar thinking is not a serious proposition.

In another interview, Mr Apiafi said: “If you’re all the same white male people in a room, you’re all going to pretty much think the same”.5 In another: “our sport is still full of middle to old age white males … [if you go to Christmas bashes] it’s embarrassing when you look round the room”.6 Claiming to quote his father, Mr Apiafi likened Cheltenham crowds to a “Ku Klux Klan convention”.7

What offends Mr Apiafi - is it the thinking of “white male people”, or is it something else? All becomes clear when Mr Apiafi says:

“When you walk into a room, if no-one looks like you, you don’t feel comfortable and I’ve gradually become more and more uncomfortable in racing’s room”.8

This, then, appears to be Mr Apiafi’s motivation; he is “uncomfortable” around people of British ethnicity. He said during an interview on Sky Sports on 25 August 2019:9

“Rishi Persad and I have been trying to drive [ethnic diversity] for a long, long time, realising that we’re pretty much loners in the sport … it’s wrong when you look around and there’s no-one that sort of looks like you”.

I pass no judgment on Mr Apiafi feeling self-conscious among British or white people; this is not something he can control (I am sure many Britons would feel similar if they were the only white person at a football match in Africa). The question is why Mr Apiafi should translate his emotional reaction into an animus against white people, rationalised, at least in his own mind, by claims that they are “white privileged males” limited in their “thinking”.

Mr Apiafi also had an active imagination in other respects; at Ascot Racecourse on 19 June 2021, he told Sky Sports presenter Gina Bryce,10

“Horseracing is run from 75 High Holborn within the M25, within the centre of London, one of the most diverse cities in the world, and it is a hundred percent white”.

During my time in the sport, the British Horseracing Authority and its predecessors have never been “100% white”, not in the Portman Square days (for me, 2002-2004), or at Shaftesbury Avenue (2004-2009), or when the BHA was based at 75 High Holborn (2009-2023). In early 2021, when the above interview was conducted, there were three black members of staff at 75 High Holborn. Either Josh Apiafi knew that 75 High Holborn employed black and ethnic minority staff and was lying, or he didn’t know the racial composition but purported to know it, in order to portray the BHA in what he thought was a bad light.

This was far from the only inaccuracy in Mr Apiafi’s public statements about diversity.

• Writing for The Times of 5 August 2021, Mr Apiafi said in reference to George Floyd’s death, “every other leading sport voiced public support for the protests. But racing? It did nothing”. This claim is provably false; see Chapter 5.

• Mr Apiafi made the same claim on The Paddock and The Pavilion podcast in May 2021, that horseracing’s leadership (which he dismissed as “a room of white people”) decided to “ignore what happened”.11 He repeated the false claim yet again in the Racing Post on 26 May 2021.

• Speaking of the three young black men he interviewed in The Uncomfortable Race (Chapter 11), Mr Apiafi said: “these guys had reached out to me during the last year because they weren’t being heard, they were feeling hurt”.12 This is surprising, because Callum Helliwell, one of the three, said elsewhere that Mr Apiafi had contacted him and invited his participation in a “young guns” project that he, Mr Apiafi, was working on.

Mr Apiafi’s rhetoric peaked with demands for the “eradication of racism” from horseracing,13 implying black people were being subjected to widespread or systematic discrimination. Yet, this was never evidenced; in the above Gina Bryce interview at Ascot, Mr Apiafi said:14

“We’ve got a sport where the 600 most senior directors within the sport, there are two people that are from a minority and ethnic background, that’s fundamentally wrong. If you’re going to be reflective of society, there’s got to be problems, barriers or unconscious bias there that we need to overcome to make our sport far more reflective of society”.

Mr Apiafi did not identify the supposed “problems, barriers or unconscious biases”; he merely asserted “there’s got to be”. But Josh Apiafi had positioned himself as racing’s Mr Diversity; if anyone had an interest in identifying such causes, it was him. Yet, despite the “long, long time” he said he has spent on the matter, he could not offer a reason, other than the obvious explanation he avoided: the 600 directors are predominantly indigenous British because we are in Britain.

Despite all this hot air, or perhaps because of it, racing’s charitable arm, the Racing Foundation, saw fit to provide Mr Apiafi’s company Apiafi Associates with a £103,000 grant in October 202115 to launch the Racing Media Academy to “grow diversity within British Racing”.16 The following year, Apiafi Associates was awarded another £100,000,17 and a further £46,000 in 2023.18

On 25 May 2021, the first anniversary of the death of George Floyd, Sky Sports Racing broadcast The Uncomfortable Race,1 a 21-minute television feature in which Josh Apiafi interviewed three young black men to “find out how the industry’s reaction to the events of the past twelve months has affected their view of the sport they love”. The three were aged 20, 20, and 24: Elijah M, Kanane F, and Callum Helliwell.

Josh Apiafi introduced the feature:

“Following the murder of George Floyd, protests quickly spread around the world as people expressed their anguish and anger over the death of yet another black person at the hands of the police. Global organisations reacted by publicly showing their support for a universal effort to address and eradicate racism. So too did the world of sport … taking the knee as a sign of support for the Black Lives Matter movement. But in horseracing, immediate action was not forthcoming”.

Josh Apiafi’s introduction was misleading; he implied that black people had been repeatedly killed by police because of their race, while stopping short of saying so, and described the death of George Floyd as “murder” without explaining the US verdict was nearer to manslaughter under British law. Mr Apiafi reiterated the claim that the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) did not respond to Black Lives Matter, but this time gave himself wiggle room by adding the word “immediate”. The documentary also repeated a clip of Rishi Persad’s claim that, “There’s been no gesture whatsoever from anybody in the sport” (see Chapter 8), illustrating how the BHA’s failure to demand a correction in November 2020 led to the false assertion being broadcast a second time.

Right from the outset, therefore, the documentary framed diversity and inclusion around the death of George Floyd, and the supposed wrong-doing of people in horseracing for not reacting in a certain way. This set the scene for the rest of the feature, half of which consisted of the three interviewees saying horseracing was insular. Repeatedly, they put the onus on horseracing to approach black people, rather than on black people to make their own decision to go racing:

• Elijah M: “Horseracing is not ... an institution that is really going out and really engaging with the world around them, and in that sense it is very separated”. (9m 15s)

• Kanane F: “They [horseracing] need to come out more [to] society and [be] not trapped in their little bubble and it will be good to bring them to places like Leicester, Birmingham, central London”. (9m 30s)

• Kanane F: “They’ve not pushed it out as much as they should to allow people to understand that this is a pathway that they can actually choose”. (15m)

• Elijah M: “I would love to see racing engaging more with the wider community because ... when you watch racing it’s in these small pockets of the countryside and it’s very out of touch with reality”. (17m 45s)

Kanane F also said:

• “At the moment, it’s a big bubble; they don’t want to be involved in the outside world or doing anything that the world is actually getting on with; it’s just racing and racing, and that’s it … Even when I was riding out, you don’t hear anyone talk about anything else but racing”. (16m)

Racing people talking about racing! What evidence is there horseracing had left black people out of its bubble? The facts are as follows:

• Racing is televised and every home in the country with a television set receives racing pictures; racing news and results are reported in newspapers and on the radio; racing is advertised at railway stations, on the side of buses, and on the London Underground; racing is also accessible online. Just because racehorses aren’t in the centre of Birmingham is not a reason for people not to know horseracing exists.

• What about accessibility? All racecourses are accessible by road, clearly signed and with suitably sized car parks. Most racecourses can be reached by railway; Kempton Park racecourse is next door to the station; Sandown is a short walk from Esher railway station. Racecourses a mile or more from the railway station, such as Newmarket and Epsom, lay on bus shuttles. Windsor can be reached by riverboat. Racecourse websites have “getting here” pages and accessibility guides.

The notion that black people are cut off from horseracing by living in cities is absurd; cities are the centre of advanced transport networks, far more so than English villages. Josh Apiafi did not challenge the young men on any of these points, allowing the industry to be painted as distant and aloof.

One of the interviewees said: “We just want to be given a fair chance, we want to share the same opportunities that those who are born into those horsey backgrounds actually do” (20m 35s). But black people are not denied a fair chance, either. Jobs at yards, racecourses, and elsewhere are advertised, for example on Yard and Groom. Trainers, when not advertising, are approachable. While it’s true to say people born near racecourses or with racing connections have a head start, they have a corresponding lack of advantage in other sports, and walks of life such as city jobs, tourism, the coastal industry, theatreland, oil and gas, etc. Mr Apiafi failed to mention any of this, so it was unclear what complaint the programme was making, other than British horseracing communities are “white”.

Subscribe now

George Floyd

Josh Apiafi sought the young men’s views on George Floyd; he said, “Over the past twelve months, diversity and inclusion, since the death of George Floyd, has come more to the fore in the media, how has this affected you as a young black professional?”

• Callum Helliwell: “As a black person, if I see a man with a knee in his neck who cannot breathe, and being filmed and killed in front of people – again by a police officer in broad daylight - and racing can just ignore that and continue on and act like nothing had happened, rather than just putting in a single bit of acknowledgement, a black square for God’s sake on your social media pages; if you can’t do that, then what on earth are you going to do when something else happens?” (2m 20s)

• Elijah M: “It’s affected me a lot. There was a part of me that thought that racing was ultimately late to the party. It’s taken so long to be recognised, and to be honest it’s still not fully recognised it”. (11m 10s)

• Callum Helliwell: “I think racing’s been left behind, I think racing has been left trailing by other sports ... racing should take heed from these other sports and understand that … it is right to show support for the Black Lives Matter movement”. (11m 25s)

• Kanane F: “In racing, they should push it through a lot more - at least do something to show they do support them [Black Lives Matter], even if it’s not big”. (12m 20s)

Note how the BHA’s promotion of Black Lives Matter the previous year (Chapter 5) had gone entirely unnoticed. An objective interviewer would have corrected them, or established facts ahead of the interview; for example, the BHA did put a BLM black square on social media:2

Josh Apiafi said George Floyd’s death was:

“… a statement of what happened for hundreds of years, I think. It’s not just the actual physical gruesome of murder of George Floyd; it’s what it stood for, in terms of white supremacy, and in terms of inclusiveness, a full diverse generation coming through”. (17m 10s)

Mr Apiafi’s symbolism was explicit: Derek Chauvin’s knee on George Floyd was the symbol of a perceived “white supremacy” that existed for hundreds of years, and the desired response was a “full diverse generation coming through”. This suggests the objective was not encouraging black people to go racing, but something deeper: the levelling of a historic scorecard.

The most significant aspect of the programme, however, was not its framing of George Floyd’s death, or how it portrayed horseracing as an inaccessible bubble, but its underlying assumption that racing’s British workforce and audience must stem from injustice or exclusion, rather than reflect an existing demographic and historical fact. This assumption carried the expectation that horseracing authorities should implement demographic change - this, of course, being the whole point of horseracing’s diversity and inclusion policy, which the documentary was intended to accelerate.

A green light

Racing began – notionally – when two riders raced to the end of a field for a wager. At some point, perhaps because of a dispute as to the winner, a referee was appointed. The point is that racing came first, the referee second; prior to racing, the referee had no reason to exist. Today, the referee is the BHA; it has developed regulatory and governing functions, but it is an outgrowth of the industry, not the industry itself.

By promoting diversity and inclusion, the BHA has given employers a green light to replace indigenous employees, particularly stable staff, with non-native labour. The issue is not so much that the BHA has sided with employers against staff - which might be a legitimate position in a given circumstance - but that it has fundamentally changed the underlying relationship; previously, the BHA governed a British workforce; now, through its emphasis on diversity, it governs a global workforce. This creates a conflict of interests between native employees and their new competitors. During the documentary, Kanane F said:

“Not many people have tried to interact with me, speak to me on the yards, even when I’m riding out, I get the dirtiest looks, you can see people [thinking] why are you here, you don’t fit in, you’re not meant to be here ... I try to keep going with what I want to do because I just want to make these boundaries open up to a lot of other kids like me because it would make the industry a lot better and help the industry to bring diversity around, and help to push out the word” (7m 25s).

Here one sees the problem; a young black man perceives that he, as an outsider, is unwelcome on an English stable yard; but he also says altering the staff in the favour of his racial kin makes it “better”. He does not see the inconsistency, that this could impose a similar sense of exclusion on the existing British workforce.

This tension reflects two interests: one is the right of British racing employees to exist as sovereign British workers on British soil; the other is the natural desire of non-Britons to establish their own presence. British stable staff (allegedly) give “dirty looks”, but that is all they do because the large number of non-indigenous and foreign staff employed in the industry have the support of racing’s authorities. British staff cannot seek that the BHA protects their native and sovereign status because, under the logic of diversity, that is “racism”.

These conflicting interests presented the BHA with a decision; what should it have done? It could have said something along the following lines:

The British state’s policy of changing the country’s demography is not a matter for horseracing’s governing body. People from immigrant backgrounds are welcome to apply for jobs alongside British staff; we will ensure they are treated equally, and can enjoy horseracing on the same terms; but we will go no further; we will not be propagandists or facilitators for a wider government policy.

Had it done so, the BHA would have both respected the native workforce and accommodated the new workforce as individuals rather than as representatives of groups, and so protect its impartial name. Instead, it did the opposite; by adopting “diversity and inclusion”, the BHA became an active agency for implementing demographic changes to that portion of British society over which it has regulatory power - to be explored later in this series.

It’s time for a recap. Chapter 1 of this substack started events in 2017 when British Horseracing’s diversity policy was adopted. Chapter 9 took us to the end of 2020.

The stages of diversity; first, installation

Prior to the diversity policy, horseracing was a free association of men and women; the role of horseracing organisations was to manage people in racing, and advertising and broadcasting was the link to the rest of society. In 2017, free association was replaced with diversity and inclusion, a mission of making horseracing representative of society.

The BHA claimed a business case and said, “study after study has shown that organisations take better decisions and perform better with diverse teams”.1 This statement wasn’t backed up by the Government’s 2013 survey of 112 studies and articles, cited by the Diversity in Racing Steering Group; the Government survey said in relation to ethnicity:2

“… no studies were identified that attempt to capture the causal impact of ethnic diversity on business outcomes”. (p18)

Regarding LGBTQ and other categories, the survey said:

“There are very few workplace studies that attempt to quantify the impacts of diversity on business outcomes when considering disability, religion and sexual orientation ... There are studies of sexual orientation in the field of economics, but these do not investigate the business benefits of such diversity”. (p18/19)

The “study after study” claim was baseless, but it provided a pretext whereby the diversity policy could be extended from women’s representation (the subject of the Oxford Brookes 2017 survey; see Chapter 1) to ethnicity and LGBTQ.

The second stage; escalation, June 2020

The death of George Floyd facilitated the second phase in mid-2020, seen in the change in the language:

• In 2017-2019, diversity was “an exciting opportunity for the sport”;3 making sure “fans of all communities feel welcome”;4 and a desire to “thrive and grow as a sport”.5

• From 2020, the discourse involved words like “racism”, “systemic racism”, “unconscious bias”, “lived experience”, “white privilege”, and the ubiquitous “barriers”.

The BHA’s CEO and Chair had imported into horseracing Critical Theory (Chapter 5), also known as “anti-racism”, which works in the following way. Diversity advocates look for white people doing something, such as having a bet, draw an imaginary circle around them, look inside the circle they’ve just drawn, and declare racism because there aren’t black people in the same circle. Thus, having a bet becomes a racism event that perpetuates “white privilege”. What is the white privilege? It’s whatever white people are doing, in this case, having a bet. It’s as simple as that - white people doing things is racism.

What if white people didn’t have a bet? Would anti-racism require black people have a bet by themselves? No, because anti-racism isn’t concerned with what black people do or don’t do, only that they act as a foil and so a means of defining white people or institutions as racist.

In this framework, “anti-racism” replaces anti-discrimination. Previously, wrongdoing was regarded as unfair treatment; now, demographic imbalance within a chosen scene is regarded as the wrongdoing. This shift was illustrated in the Diversity in Racing Steering Group’s 2020 Annual Update:6

• “In striving for inclusion, we must stamp out all discriminatory behaviour”.

• “Inequalities and injustices can be tackled efficiently only once they become statistically visible”.

• “… develop activity to raise awareness and understanding of the imbalance, barriers and issues faced by ethnic minority people”.

Note the word association: absence of “inclusion” is taken to imply discriminatory behaviour; “imbalance” is associated with barriers; and “inequality” is associated with injustice. No actual discrimination need exist for these words to be applied. This thinking denies differences in participation can occur naturally across diverse groups, and creates a rationale for artificial or coercive measures to eliminate differences, now referred to as “inequality”, “injustice”, and “racism”. This puts British horseracing in the crosshairs, because its existence, or any part thereof, can now be defined as “racism” at the drop of a hat.

The third stage; systemisation (the Board gets on board), November 2020

Whereas prior to 2020, diversity appeared to be the hobby horse of the chief executive and chairwoman, in November of that year, the policy was formalised by the BHA Board and chief executives of seven racing bodies,7 announced as the “unified diversity commitment”.

That announcement was in response to hostile public reaction to the unsupported but televised claims by TV presenter Rishi Persad (Chapter 8) that horseracing had been discriminating against people of colour, and his criticisms of the sport for not supporting Black Lives Matter. Furious objections on Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter were described as “bile and bigotry” by Lee Mottershead at the Racing Post.

Nine days later, the “unified commitment” to diversity was announced,8 yet there is no indication that horseracing’s leaders asked questions such as:

According to the Racing Post, the public response to Mr Persad was bigoted. Shouldn’t we verify that claim?

or:

Mr Persad claimed that horseracing excludes people of colour. Shouldn’t we investigate this accusation before tacitly accepting it?

or:

We’re considering a unified commitment to diversity and inclusion for the entire industry; shouldn’t we conduct surveys of staff, participants, and the public, before acting on their behalf?

Why this apparent lack of due diligence? The online reaction to Mr Persad represented a spontaneous mini-insurgency, not only against his remarks, but against the wider events of 2020. Statues had been vandalised, British history rewritten, white people portrayed as “racists”; now, these narratives were gaining footholds in horseracing. Given the strength of the reaction, one might have expected horseracing’s leadership to pause their diversity and inclusion drive, to reconsider, to consult; instead, they brought forward the “unified commitment” without delay.9

The issue here need not be the leadership’s lack of familiarity with diversity and its origins or drivers (such as Critical Theory, post-War liberalism, and social contagion), or even why they endorsed it (e.g. pressure from the BHA’s CEO and Chair; a genuine belief in diversity’s perceived case; panic at the prospect of more “racism” accusations). Rather, the issue is that, in the light of known opposition, they chose to systemise diversity in such a way that ensured future opposition could not be entertained. In this one regard, if no other, one is entitled to assume the nine Board members and seven CEOs knew what they were doing.

The fourth stage; a founding myth for horseracing’s diversity?

The founding myth of Britain’s multiculturalism is that West Indians came after the Second World War at the request of the government to rebuild Britain. This story is false; the British government made no such request and didn’t know about the Windrush and other such ships until after they had docked. But the legend is spread via Black History Month, and few institutions question it.

Diversity in racing’s own founding myth started with the claim that “study after study” had shown that organisations perform better with diverse teams, and the Diversity in Racing Steering Group’s 2020 Annual Update foreshadowed, possibly, a development of this; referring to Covid, it said:

Diversity and inclusion is referenced as a key contributor to sustainable prosperity in racing’s Recovery Plan … Being diverse and inclusive … is an absolute necessity to ensure the future recovery and success of British racing.

This idea was incorporated into the aforementioned “unified commitment” and so lays the groundwork for a future narrative that, prior to 2020, horseracing was “exclusionary” with “barriers” but, following Covid, diversity saved horseracing. Such stories may capture the minds of people 30 years from now, thus providing diversity with its own foundational myth. Time will tell.

Subscribe now

The fifth stage; part of the horseracing landscape

Nick Rust left the BHA at the end of 2020, and received an OBE for “services to the sport of horse racing”; according to chairwoman Annamarie Phelps, “The award also reflects the leadership Nick has shown in areas such as diversity and inclusion”.

New chief executive Julie Harrington took over in January 2021 and said early on: “Another big area is around how inclusive racing is as a sport and how do we make it more diverse, both the BHA as an employer, but also across the entirety of racing”. Thus, a diversity policy, started out of the blue by her predecessor, was not questioned or reviewed, but simply reiterated; “diversity and inclusion” had become part of the institutional landscape.

Yet the key policy decisions in May 2017, June 2020, and November 2020 were announced without prior warning; there had been no consultations, debates, surveys, or research. Activist groups like the Diversity in Racing Steering Group, Racing With Pride, and Women in Racing had no formal power but, combined with the BHA’s salaried Head of Diversity and Inclusion, acted as a vanguard for policies while providing ‘go to’ groups for senior leaders to consult - in preference to alternative opinion which, post-November 2020, had been sidelined.

And relationships within the industry had changed; people who had joined horseracing bodies such as the BHA were now part of a political and ideological movement which framed group differences in participation as “exclusion” and “barriers” to be dismantled. This changed the BHA’s relationship to horseracing; and the aim of making horseracing demographically and culturally “representative” changed the industry’s relationship to society at large.

The “unified commitment” said:

… ensuring a better understanding of the attitudes and perceptions towards British racing from underrepresented groups, ethnically and culturally diverse communities and the barriers to getting them involved in the sport.

The words “underrepresented” and “barriers” are there for a reason; without them, seeking audiences and participants by group identity loses its justification. The notion that horseracing must reflect society also overlooks the fact that horseracing isn’t society, nor is it the only sport or entertainment. People express preferences across a vast array of pursuits: sports and games, theatre and cinema, arts and crafts, music and dance, festivals and exhibitions, community and church, and much more. Why, then, should horseracing internalise a representation of people, when people are represented in their choices across society’s activities as a whole? This question has never been satisfactorily addressed.

Which leaves us with a conundrum; what are the reasons for the diversity policy, if not the business and moral cases claimed? Well, there are business and moral motivations - of sorts - only not the ones described when the diversity policy was first announced. These will be identified and examined in due course.

Forthcoming: the sixth stage; propagation

Before then, we must add a sixth stage to the above five: the consolidation and propagation of diversity-and-inclusion across British horseracing. This has taken many forms - a new calendar, social media campaigns, webinars and hired consultants, all alongside a sustained push to embed “anti-racism”. Upcoming chapters will explore this rollout.

In December 2020, the Diversity in Racing Steering Group (DiRSG) released its third report; like its second report, there was a ratcheting up of rhetoric:1

In Summer 2020, the UK witnessed an outpouring of anger against racism that was felt across all of society including sport, and racing is no different. The lack of ethnic diversity in some areas of racing has been acknowledged by the DiRSG since its inception, and it is accepted by racing’s leaders that change should be happening faster ... Crucially, this is not a one-time conversation. We can all learn from and support this new wave of awareness and solidarity and acknowledge that real change requires a long-term commitment from everyone.

Speaking of Josh Apiafi’s and Rishi Persad’s “Leading the Way” broadcast in November 2020 (Chapter 8), the Annual Update said:

They are right to point to racing’s failure to respond collectively to the black lives matter movement and to address the lack of ethnic diversity in racing.

The DiRSG was thus judging the racing industry. This was a long way off from its mid-2018 description of itself as an “advisory group”, and the Update sought to encompass everyone in the industry in its ambitions:

• “… it is imperative that if [racing] is to become more inclusive and diverse, everyone within the sport must strive for one clear goal.”

• “This will take collective commitment and effort but the sport will benefit as a whole.”

• “The diversity and inclusion agenda requires long term commitment from all … [and] collaboration from the whole of British racing.”

• “Being diverse and inclusive in how we think and operate is not a choice ...”

DiRSG’s expectation of compliance was underlined by its endorsement of the Jockey Club’s response in September 2020 to negative comments regarding the formation of Racing With Pride, a LGBT+ networking and activist group. The Jockey Club had said:

“We want racing to be welcoming and inclusive for everyone, if you don’t support that environment then please don’t contact us here or attend”.

The DiRSG Annual Update endorsed this message by saying “Well said” with a hand-clapping emoji:

I have not seen the negative comments in question, but generally such objections are not against gay people having social groups per se, but against LGBTQ and Stonewall activism within institutions, aimed at demoting the family and promoting gender-identity theory in youth settings. For example, whereas in May 2017, the BHA was “proud [to be] a sport where women and men have the opportunity to compete on equal terms”,2 DiRSG’s 2020 Annual Update changed this to, “proud to be one of the few sports where all genders compete on equal terms”. Racecourses had not yet introduced drag queens and LGBTQ dance stages, but these would soon follow.

Subscribe now

The question of oversight

The Annual Update said DiRSG was “reviewed and supported by the industry’s Members’ Committee”.3 To what extent, then, did the Members’ Committee know what DiRSG was doing?

• Did the Members’ Committee know that DiRSG’s LGBTQ sub-group denied the biological basis of male and female?

• Had the Committee agreed to DiRSG’s e-learning module which tacitly advocated introducing gender theory into school classrooms? (Chapter 6)

• Were they aware that Black Lives Matter, endorsed by DiRSG in June 2020, sought to “disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure”?4

As noted above, DiRSG was judging the industry, endorsing exclusion of discontented racegoers, declaring what everyone should do. On whose behalf did DiRSG speak? Who was in charge?

The DiRSG was not a formal BHA department; it consisted of numerous racing officials and personalities (Chapter 2), free to act independently and speak to the media outside of normal frameworks. Yet, DiRSG was lodged within the BHA; it used BHA premises for meetings, used BHA platforms for distribution of reports, and its chairman from 2017 to mid-2020 was the BHA’s own chief executive, Nick Rust — creating a Pooh-Bah-like arrangement in which the same person was both running the governing body and chairing the group advising it. DiRSG did not display the BHA logo, but it was a Department for Diversity in all but name. Given it was assumed to have expertise on diversity, it may have been the case that the Members’ Committee and boards of various horseracing bodies simply nodded through whatever ideas it proposed.

It should be borne in mind that senior people in horseracing have no familiarity with “diversity”. When horseracing is attacked regarding animal welfare, racing people respond with knowledge and confidence; they are on familiar ground. Accusations of being “white” or “heteronormative” or “racist” come from outside horseracing experience; their roots are in American liberal and Marxist academia. And whereas animal-welfare activists are transparent in their desire to end horseracing, diversity is presented as being in horseracing’s interests, and this is the cause of much of the fog.

Diversity, Equality and Inclusion consists of four elements:

1. a feminism that regards female competition for traditionally male roles as liberation, while treating the domestic or family-centred role as lesser or oppressive;

2. an LGBTQ activism shaped by Queer Theory that regards traditional family formation as “heteronormativity”, a structure of oppression;

3. gender theory that denies the biological reality of male and female (the ‘T’ in LGBTQ); and

4. Critical Race Theory that posits the founding population as ‘racist’.

No society can withstand these elements if applied indefinitely, but their deconstructive nature is not immediately apparent due to diversity’s colourful image; rainbow flags, pictures of happy ethnic minority children, female jockeys having won a race, and so on. There may have been an extent to which horseracing’s authorities were persuaded by this and just went along with it.

Diversity’s radical nature, however, became apparent when it went from being presented as an “exciting opportunity” in 2017-20195 to something aggressive from mid-2020; to re-quote the above paragraph from the Annual Update:

The UK witnessed an outpouring of anger against racism that was felt across all of society including sport, and racing is no different. The lack of ethnic diversity in some areas of racing has been acknowledged by the DiRSG since its inception, and it is accepted by racing’s leaders that change should be happening faster.

Note that “racism” is not racial discrimination, but simply the absence of “ethnic diversity”; British people existing among themselves is now defined as “racism”. Did the Members’ Committee agree to that passage; did they even understand its implication?

Black Lives Matter revisited: what happened in June 2020?

Horseracing’s highest decision-making body is the BHA Board; what role did it play in the mid-2020 escalation? The death of George Floyd was on 25 May 2020, and BHA chief executive Nick Rust, and Head of Diversity and Inclusion Rose Grissell, made their George Floyd and BLM-related posts on Workplace on 5 June (Chapter 5). But the decision to adopt this stance was taken at least three days earlier, on 2 June, when the BHA issued its Black Lives Matter tweet.6 This was the day after the results of George Floyd’s post-mortem.

The BHA Board met by video conference on 26 May7 (the day after George Floyd’s death), and again on 2 June8 (the day of the tweet), but the minutes of neither meeting record any discussion of George Floyd or BLM; horseracing had been suspended because of Covid for several months and was to resume behind closed doors on 1 June; that was the main topic of discussion. The absence from the minutes of a recorded decision to endorse Black Lives Matter and its associated narratives suggests the decision was not taken by the Board, but by chief executive Nick Rust, with the chairwoman Annamarie Phelps in tow, and presented as a fait accompli.

Just over a week later, Annamarie Phelps and DiRSG referenced each other in their mid-June articles (Phelps in the Racing Post on 14 June 2020, and DiRSG’s pamphlet Let’s Talk about Race in Racing, 16 June 2020; Chapter 5). This suggests Annamarie Phelps and DiRSG had been working together to agree a position on Black Lives Matter; if so, that would again indicate the Board was bypassed.

The above is of course conjecture.

“Jungle Bunny”

As 2020 drew to a close, an incident occurred that illustrated the climate that DiRSG had helped to create. On 12 December a filly, Jungle Bunny, raced at Chelmsford, a name that, unknown to almost everyone in racing, is regarded by some as a racial slur. When this was pointed out on social media, the BHA said, “This name is deeply offensive and should not have been permitted”; the following day it added:

“We reiterate today the apology that was issued yesterday after the horse ran. Racist language is not tolerated in our sport, whether intentional or accidental. We are opposed to racism and prejudice in all its forms and are committed to making British racing an open, diverse and inclusive industry that is welcoming to all. We have taken steps today to ensure the horse was renamed immediately. It is now called Jungle Bells. This will be reflected in records of the race result and horse form. We are deeply concerned as to how this happened and are reviewing the processes for approving the names of racehorses”.

The language indicates panic, and assistant trainer Emma Folkes felt obliged to make a public apology. She explained the name was a combination of the filly being sired by Bungle Inthejungle, and a computer game “Jungle Bunny Run”, played by the trainer’s grandson.

No indication existed that the filly’s connections had acted in anything other than good faith. Yet the BHA’s official response — branding the name “racist language … whether intentional or accidental” — left them hung out to dry. All that was necessary was a statement along the following lines:

It has been brought to our attention that the name of a horse that ran yesterday could be misconstrued, so we have arranged for it to be changed.

This interview would precipitate the next shift in horseracing’s diversity and inclusion policy.

Sky Sports Racing introduced the interview as follows:1

In this feature, Persad speaks in-depth with Sky Sports Racing’s Josh Apiafi on the issues of diversity, race and inclusion in the sport of horse racing. Persad provides an eye-opening account of a broadcaster from an ethnic background working in the racing industry, recounting shocking experiences and looking to find solutions for the betterment of the sport and society today.

Despite the suggestive write-up, the one clear example of racial discrimination that Mr Persad provided was unrelated to horseracing; it was a moment when he was called the “p-word” at school.2

Otherwise, Mr Persad talked of “barriers [that] are more subliminal, subconscious”; he said:

“How many people who worked in stable yards have progressed from being a member of the stable staff to becoming a trainer? (Apiafi: “exactly!”). Why not? Because, guess what, the way it is that all trainers are white, 99.9% of trainers are white, and that people of colour are all stable staff and they don’t go on to become trainers”. (12m 45s)

Mr Persad’s description of trainers as “white”, rather than English, Scots or Welsh, obscured the fact that trainers are British, as one would expect. Mr Persad also overlooked: most people of colour are recent arrivals in Britain; being a trainer is not just a job but a lifestyle; there are many stable staff to one trainer, not the other way around; and most white stable staff do not become trainers either. Mr Apiafi did not challenge Mr Persad on these points.

Three unsupported assertions

Mr Persad made three unsupported assertions. Here is the first:

“What we have found in our time in the sport is the fact that people have been put by the wayside because of their colour, people have been put by the wayside because of sex, or whether they prefer to be gay or not”. (11m 40s)

Strictly speaking, that’s several assertions, but the focus here is on racial discrimination, because this is what the interview was principally about.

Had Mr Persad been able to substantiate his claim that people were put by the wayside “because of their colour”, that would have been the centrepiece of the interview. Mr Apiafi would have invited Mr Persad to expand on what he knew; what form does this “putting by the wayside” take? When did Mr Persad first notice it? How often does it occur? Who is doing it; is it organised centrally?

No such conversation unfolded, because horseracing has no mechanisms to put people “by the wayside” because of ethnicity: racecourses are open to all; job applicants are protected by employment law. Applicants wishing to become trainers, jockeys, and owners are not judged on racial grounds.

Regardless, Mr Persad, supported by Mr Apiafi, sought to impose an obligation on racing people to support Black Lives Matter:

“Racing is behind the times, I’m afraid to say. You think about the fact that the Black Lives Matter movement has been going for a significantly long time now, in 2020. How many people in racing have put up their hand, to say either I’m supporting Black Lives Matter or taking a knee or whatever, there’s been no gesture whatsoever by anybody in the sport, to say they’re supporting it. Now why is that, is it because they don’t care, is it because they are afraid to put their head above the parapet, or is there another reason”. (8m 55s)

That’s the second unsupported claim; the BHA did support Black Lives Matter (see Chapter 5) and it’s hard to see how Mr Persad was unaware of that, since he was a member of the Diversity in Racing Steering Group.

Mr Persad’s third unsupported claim was indirect, an omission, when he referenced the “pain and emotion” exhibited by West Indian former cricketer Michael Holding, during a television interview several months previously. Mr Persad said:

“We want [respected people] in racing … to say that we [the racing industry] have some solidarity with what's being said, we have solidarity with people who have suffered oppression. When Michael Holding … did those pieces on Sky, I was really moved … it really does move you emotionally to watch something like that … what surprised me was [Holding’s] pain and the emotion that came behind it. I was taken aback by that because he's normally such a man in control of his emotions”. (9m 50s)

Viewers were left to assume Michael Holding’s emotion was due to oppression by white people. In fact, Michael Holding’s emotions were triggered by the memory of his mother being ostracised by members of her (black) family for marrying a black man of a darker complexion.3 The effect of omitting this was to add emotional weight to the interview’s theme that racing people (i.e. white people) were indifferent, outdated, and discriminatory.

Subscribe now

The role of the Racing Post

Following the interview, there was reaction on social media. Mr Persad told the Racing Post,

“I was really shocked. Being on television you get some stick and I've been on the receiving end of some negativity before but I've never been on the receiving end of as much negativity as this and it hurt … some of it has been unpleasant and some of it, I think, has been unnecessary”.4

Lee Mottershead, Racing Post journalist (and another member of DiRSG), referred to a twitter thread: “At least two people described Persad’s observations as ‘self-indulgent rubbish’, while the theme from some in the racing community was ‘there’s no issue here’”.5

Mr Mottershead further accused Mr Persad’s critics of “oozing bile and bigotry”, and quoted one tweet as saying “We’re in a white country”.

This latter tweet, however, was not quoted in full by Mr Mottershead; what it said was: “What difference does colour make, [whether they’re] white or black, forgetting we’re in a white country. If he went out to the Bahamas I bet it’s only black trainers and jockeys”.

Here is a screenshot of the tweet, and Mr Persad’s remark, to which it was replying:

The point made in the tweet was that, by taking issue with participants in British horseracing being white, Mr Persad was applying to British people a standard he did not expect of non-white people.

Let’s illustrate with an example: trainers in Britain are 99% white for the same reason 99% of chefs in Indian restaurants in England are brown. There is no barrier to English people running Indian restaurants, but Indian food is a product of Indian culture and therefore of Indian people; they enter the hospitality and catering sectors and pass restaurants on to their children. English involvement is confined to being customers, and this is based not on diversity and inclusion policies, but consumer choice. This arrangement is considered acceptable for Indian restaurants, but not – in the eyes of Mr Persad or Mr Mottershead – for British training yards; why the double standard?

The social media replies to Mr Persad were a mix of coherent objections, exasperated protest, and bad language dismissals, but no racial slurs were identified - but Mr Mottershead’s references to “bigotry” and “We’re in a white country”, conveyed an impression that racial slurs had been used.

Racing Industry “Joint Statement on Diversity”

Four days after Mr Mottershead article, and nine days after the broadcast, the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) issued a press statement6 in conjunction with the Racecourse Association and Horsemen’s Group;7 it was signed by Annamarie Phelps, Maggie Carver, and Charlie Parker:

The BHA Board invited Rishi Persad to join its scheduled meeting on Wednesday [18 Nov 2020]8 to share his views on racing’s approach to diversity and his experience, having aired his own views publicly in the past few days. The Board condemns the responses Rishi has received …

But Mr Persad did not air “views”; he made a televised claim, effectively an allegation, that there had been exclusion of non-white people:

“What we have found in our time in the sport is the fact that people have been put by the wayside because of their colour …”

The joint statement continued:

The Board … strongly believes that the sport needs to have an open, progressive and respectful debate about diversity, for both moral reasons and in the interests of the long term health of the industry.

Yet, the joint statement said in its final paragraph:

… the industry’s leadership organisations will progress proposals put forward by the sport’s Diversity in Racing Steering Group to publish a unified commitment and a plan to improve diversity and inclusion, aiming to build on the work which has been carried out across the industry in recent years.

Thus, a statement claiming a need for “debate” also announced a prior decision to publish a “unified commitment” and plan to improve diversity and inclusion, thereby making “debate” redundant!

Racial dynamics override process

In a nutshell: on 11 November, Mr Persad and Mr Apiafi provoked a response, reported by Mr Mottershead on the 16th in a manner that was selective and misleading. Mr Persad addressed the BHA Board on the 18th, and executives of seven organisations issued their statement on the 20th.

Racing’s leadership failed to pursue the following options:

• Applying basic procedures to regulate the process, such as having Mr Persad interviewed formally so his televised claims could be investigated and assessed.

• No consideration appears to have been given to whether Mr Persad had brought horseracing into disrepute. The speed with which the leadership responded suggested horseracing had been portrayed in the worst possible light. The question was whether that portrayal was justified.

Why were these routes not taken? The wider Black Lives Matter campaign, endorsed by the BHA’s chief executive and chairwoman in June 2020 (Chapter 5), created an energy which portrayed white people as racially oppressive. Mr Persad’s interview leaned heavily into this, and the energy took over; horseracing’s senior leadership condemned the reaction to Mr Persad, while ignoring the offence he had caused; they sought his “personal reflections”, but did not hear from those who did not agree.

Indeed, engaging opposing views was becoming untenable, because doing so would acknowledge that a key underpinning of Diversity and Inclusion, the belief that black people could only go racing by overcoming white barriers, might in fact be wrong.

“Unified commitment”

The “unified commitment” on diversity was duly published in May 2021,9 signed by the CEOs of eight organisations. It was a slim document, referring to LGBT+, Women in Racing, and deploying loose terms such as “underrepresented”. It called for diversity champions and data collection on the workforce.

The document didn’t add much that was new; its significance lay in that a “unified commitment” could be said to encompass the whole industry, and so deny recognition of future dissent. From this point, diversity would be talked of only in terms of a settled industry consensus. The Diversity and Inclusion policy had been sealed.

In October 2020, the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) marked “Black History Month”. It invited a black member of staff, who immigrated to Britain 19 years previously and who I anonymise as K, to write an online essay; the following is an excerpt:

I have been asked about whether the death of George Floyd and the momentum the black lives matter movement has had globally will bring about real change. I don’t know. I hope it will, but I think change will be slow as this is learned behaviour on both sides. I see initiatives; some are tokenistic, some make me cringe. Others are powerful. But racism, both conscious and unconscious, still runs deep in parts of our systems and structures.

This indicates Black History Month was used to continue narratives around George Floyd, started in June 2020 (Chapter 5). K wrote:

I have experienced racism, some of it overt, some less so. From the manner in which I was denied a bank account to the daily stresses of being questioned while commuting; being told that my appearance will affect my job prospects, that people can’t understand my accent (which I hope never fades!), and people’s manner shifting when they learned my name (and deliberately mispronounce it). If I get irritated, I’m immediately judged as the angry black woman who should “watch her tone”. Every time I enter a shop, I physically alter my behaviour to somehow show I’m not a thief. I don’t know a single black person who doesn’t feel the same, regardless of their wealth or status.

The above is what’s known as “lived experience”. The problem with lived experience is it allows assertions without evidence. Let’s take the first example, the denial of a bank account.

Any bank employee in this country who discriminates against black people risks the sack if found out. Although K is confident racial prejudice was involved, she does not explain why the bank account was denied, and refers instead to the employee’s manner, which is speculation. An alternative interpretation is the bank account was denied for procedural reasons, and this led to tension between K and the employee, which K attributed to racial prejudice.

Similar points could be made about the other incidents. K says she was told her appearance affects her job prospects, but “appearance” is a wide-reaching word, and her using it suggests something other than race, in which case, it is relevant to her claim of racial prejudice?

Her last point, “Every time I enter a shop, I physically alter my behaviour to somehow show I’m not a thief”, is an objective expression of her feelings; K is referring to what is in her mind, what she feels. Do shop staff do something to make her feel that way; look at her, follow her around the store? Maybe K is right and staff are wary of her, but it’s also possible K feels conspicuous and comes to the wrong conclusion as to what others are thinking.

What we don’t have in the cited stories is the version of events from the other side; the bank employee, the ticket collector or commuter, the shop assistant.

I wonder whether there was any attempt to nail down or refine K’s claims before they were published; regardless, the chief executive and chairwoman were on hand to affirm them in the online comments section:

• Nick Rust: “That’s brilliant of you to write for us like that. Thank you. Helps us to reflect and learn”.

• Annamarie Phelps: “Thank you so much for sharing your story. Please have the confidence to keep telling it, any month of the year, so we can all become more understanding of the issues people of colour face daily and we can work together to make the world a better place”.

The use of pronouns “we” and “us” identify who K’s story is aimed at (white staff) and imply Annamarie Phelps and Nick Rust were speaking for staff collectively; like Nick Rust’s “thumbs up” to BLM narratives (Chapter 5), it signals to staff the expected perspective.

Let’s test the matter by flipping it the other way around: an organisation draws attention to the killing of a white person by a black person, treats it as racially motivated, and asks a white member of staff in that context to describe their experiences of black people, leading to negative and subjective stories; and the CEO responds, “That’s brilliant of you to write for us like that. Helps them to reflect and learn”. Such a thing would be considered unacceptable and risk legal action.

And there’s another point. The chief executive and chair properly have seniority in the context of horseracing governance, but elevating a black staff member’s experiences, which they choose to identify with, implies moral seniority over staff in matters that are opinion, such as race relations, immigration, and what constitutes “racism”.

Black History Month is an idea originally from the United States, relevant to that country because black people were present as slaves during the USA’s founding in 1776. It fits less well in Britain, or not at all, because West Indians came to Britain via immigration within living memory, and African immigration is almost entirely post-Blair. Black History Month is particularly incongruous in British horseracing, and the absence of a black history was tacitly admitted by the Diversity in Racing Steering Group when it described black people in the sport as “trailblazers”.

Why, then, did the BHA adopt this notion of a “black history”? Probably, for the same reason it adopted concepts such as “pregnant people” and sex being “assigned” at birth (Chapter 4 and Chapter 6). These ideas formed part of a wider framework relating to various forms of identity, which were being ported in from external sources.

To mark Pride month this June, the DiRSG dedicated LGBT+ sub-group has today launched a new e-learning module to improve LGBT+ awareness and inclusion within British racing … The LGBT+ dedicated sub-group has been developed following research in the sport which indicated many individuals who identified as a sexual minority did not feel comfortable ‘coming out’ at work, despite largely positive attitudes towards sexual minority individuals throughout the sport.

Here is the module’s announcement:

The following images are selected screenshots from the module. It started with this slide which refers to violence and abuse against LGBT+ people.

The citations in the above slide are wrong. The Hate Crime Report 2021 did not show that “two-thirds of LGBT+ people have experienced violence or abuse”, but rather “two-thirds of respondents” (p7).1 The online survey was aimed at followers of LGBT anti-abuse groups,2 so it would have been surprising if most respondents hadn’t experienced abuse at some point. The poll said nothing about the LGBT population at large because it was not a nationally representative or weighted survey.

The slide’s reference to Out in Sport 2019 is a mistaken reference to a book of that name, published in 2016.3 The 2019 survey they’re thinking of is OutSport,4 but the “eight in ten” figure cited doesn’t come from that survey; it comes from an earlier survey in 2015 called Out on the Fields.5 In 2016, the book Out in Sport observed that the 2015 survey was flawed; for example, it asked respondents whether they “witnessed or experienced” incidents, which risks double counting. The 2019 OutSport survey sought to resolve this by separating experiencing from witnessing, and other refinements; it found 16% of LGBT respondents had one or more negative personal experiences in the previous 12 months, not 80%.

(The above mistakes suggest DiRSG hadn’t read the reports; this wasn’t the first time DiRSG failed to cite reports accurately; see Chapter 2).

Gender Theory

The e-learning’s main purpose was to introduce a new vocabulary and framing of human biology. Previously, the unstated but assumed position was that men were men, women were women, a small minority of men and women were homosexual, and an infinitesimal number identified as the opposite sex.

The new training taught something different: people have “gender identity, sexual orientation and gender expression [that] can change over time”.

The top box says “sex is assigned at birth”, thus denying “male” and “female” as biological definitions. In their place is “gender identity” (to the left) that need not match “assigned” sex. This combination of “assigned” sex and “gender identity” has the effect of deconstructing male and female.

Consequently, the below slide says “trans men [i.e. women] are men” and “trans women [i.e. men] are women”. Note also the link to Stonewall:

In the below screenshot, men and women - who describe themselves as such - are redefined as “cisgender” or “non-trans”; the effect is to categorise men and women as a single gender among a larger number of gender identities.

What Racing2Learn teaches is contested and, in this writer’s view, false; sex is not ‘assigned’ at birth, it is observed. What’s the difference? A three-sided shape is observed to be a triangle; it is not ‘assigned’ the shape of triangle, as though a matter of choice. If it has three straight sides, it is a triangle. A three-sided shape cannot be ‘reassigned’ as a square, as this would mean a triangle could have four sides or three sides.

In the same way, a man cannot ‘reassign’ himself as a woman. Men and women, boys and girls, are biological; males have XY chromosomes, females XX chromosomes. This reality cannot be wished away or denied by substituting ‘identity’ in place of sex. The e-learning module’s assertion that “trans men are men” and “trans women are women” is therefore wrong; “trans men” are women who identify as men, but they are still women. “Trans women” are men who identify as women, but they are still men.

None of this should be taken to disregard individuals who identify as the opposite sex; such individuals are entitled to respect and reasonable accommodation, but they are still the sex they were born as.

The e-learning module went on to explain about the gay rights movement, Pride, and LGBT+ History Month:

Such e-learning is not comparable to, say, instruction on handle a horse, or how to use a fire extinguisher; it is political in nature. The passage below, explaining “Why Pride is still important”, tacitly endorses the introduction of LGBT and gender theory to school children.

The module drew to a close by encouraging participants to engage in LGBT+ activities:

Finally, there was a test, with the following type questions, designed to affirm the “learning”:

In that last question, the expected answer was “true” when the correct answer is “false”.

Despite the e-learning’s ideological and contested nature, it was included in the mandatory licensing courses for trainers and jockeys at the British Racing School and National Horseracing College.6 Great British Racing, horseracing’s marketing arm, said the module would be completed by its “full team”.7 By 2022, over a thousand people had completed the course.8

The BLM logo was accompanied by an email from the BHA’s Head of Diversity and Inclusion which referred to “systemic racism”:

The statement assumed ignorance or indolence on the part of the reader: “a lot to learn”, “educate ourselves”, and so on. Note the word “murder”, even though Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin had yet to go on trial.

Within moments of the post appearing, BHA chief executive Nick Rust gave it a “thumbs up”. The post would have been run past him, and he was likely standing by to signal approval; the “thumbs up” indicated an argument with the BHA’s endorsement of Black Lives Matter was an argument with him.

What were the facts regarding George Floyd that the Workplace post failed to acknowledge?

• There was no basis for saying that Derek Chauvin had intended to kill George Floyd (i.e. murder); it could have been manslaughter (as the court eventually found),1 or the death could have related to Floyd’s drug overdose.

• There was no indication at the time - or since - that George Floyd was restrained by Derek Chauvin because he was black. Race was never raised as a relevant aspect in the subsequent court case.

Yet, a double assumption was made that, because Chauvin was white and Floyd black, it was “racism”; and because Floyd had died, it was “murder”; and declared as such to staff.2

The Head of Diversity and Inclusion went on:

The above books and podcasts represent a worldview in which white people and society are “racist”, i.e. tainted or oppressive. I contemplated replying with book recommendations of my own, such as Douglas Murray’s Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race and Identity, which takes a critical look at identity politics played out in workplaces and universities; or his earlier book, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam, which examines changes being made to Europe’s demography and culture.

But these books would cut across the line being imposed. I say “imposed” because staff were being told what to think; that “racism” was a trait of white people, it was endemic, and we needed “uncomfortable conversations”.

Double standards

The use of BHA platforms to draw attention to George Floyd created double standards that were impossible to justify.

• The BHA made no announcement regarding the death of Tony Timpa, a white man who died in Dallas in August 2016. Timpa, 32, had been held face down with his hands cuffed behind his back, his legs zip-tied, and a police officer kneeling on his back while placing his hands on Timpa’s shoulders. Timpa protested (“Help me”, “You’re gonna kill me”) but the police held him there for 15 minutes and Timpa died on the ground. Camera footage is available.3

• Nor did the BHA make a statement about Alexander Monson, a British man who died in police custody in Kenya in 2012. The Kenyan police said Monson had died of a drug overdose but a pathologist hired by the Monson family found he died from a fatal blow to his head. Following a campaign by the family, an inquest ruled in 2018 that Monson was beaten to death by police; in 2021, four police officers were convicted of manslaughter.4

I select the above two cases because each reflects the George Floyd circumstances: in the case of Timpa, a white man dying in near identical conditions; in the second, a white man dies in the custody of black police officers in controversial circumstances.

The BHA leadership assumed, wrongly, that race played a role in George Floyd’s death so, for further comparison, we must turn to an example where race is relevant. I joined the BHA’s predecessor the Jockey Club in early 2002. At that time, Robert Mugabe was giving the nod to mobs in Zimbabwe to commit violence against white farmers; in March 2002, the Guardian reported, “the tenth white farmer killed during a two-year campaign of intimidation and occupation of white-owned land … shot dead near his homestead while trying to escape an attack”. The Jockey Club did not make a statement on these killings; was it wrong not to do so then, or was the BHA wrong to do so regarding George Floyd in 2020? Both positions cannot be correct simultaneously.

Lack of relevance

But there’s a more straightforward objection to the BHA’s stance: George Floyd and Black Lives Matter have no relevance to the regulation and governance of horseracing. It would have been entirely appropriate for chief executive Nick Rust to be suspended, pending an investigation into possible misuse of authority; but prior standards of governance had been overwhelmed by the notion of “systemic racism”.

Later that day, 5 June 2020, Mr Rust wrote on Workplace:

Our sport (and the BHA) is quite a bit behind others on diversity and inclusion based on the hard evidence available to us. This needs to change. As founding Chair of the Diversity in Racing Steering Group, I wish more had been achieved in making change happen over the last few years, and I’m determined that the BHA does all it can in the rest of my time here and beyond.

We need to not only make an initial industry statement, but consider what we expect of those we licence, our shareholder organisations and others connected to the sport. There should be no funding to organisations who do not have the basics in place on diversity and inclusion (all groups), and we should not licence anyone who fails to uphold the highest standards.

Mr Rust added:

Black Lives Matter. We cannot accept racism or other discrimination in any form within the BHA or the sport, and our actions must now fully match our words.

Two things are being conflated; the view that black people ought to be involved in racing, and the belief that discrimination prevents black people from being involved. Mr Rust’s latter remark implies racial discrimination was accepted in horseracing, but no examples were provided to demonstrate this, and racial discrimination is already against the law. I was troubled by the threat to deny licences to participants who didn’t agree with what was happening, so responded with a post of my own:

I believe that would be an over-reach of the BHA’s purpose, and don’t agree with it.

Mr Rust replied:

Thanks John. Just my view. Depends what we “expect”, of course, as to whether it’s an over-reach, but I take your point!

Few realised it, but a coup had just taken place. A death in a foreign country, yet to be tried, had been projected onto British horseracing, bringing with it a new moral order that changed fundamentally the relationship between the governing body and the industry. Participants, now under the presumptive cloud of “systemic racism”, faced having to validate themselves with “diversity and inclusion” requirements or, potentially, be excluded from the sport. I’ll expand on this in future Chapters but, for now, will continue the chronology of events.

Subscribe now

Annamarie Phelps’ article in the Racing Post

Just over a week later, 14 June, BHA chairwoman Annamarie Phelps told staff on Workplace:

In the light of the tragic killing of George Floyd and the discussions that have been ongoing about white privilege across our society, it is right that we acknowledge we haven’t prioritised tackling racism or diversity in racing as a sport, or at the BHA, as we should have.

The same day, Annamarie Phelps wrote in the Racing Post:5

It is also right to consider and respond to the major social issues of our time, whether that's environmental sustainability or, most pressing, the explosion of anger in the United States and here following the killing of George Floyd … These conversations are not easy to understand, particularly for those of us who have not suffered the daily prejudices that those from black communities, in particular, face.

By stereotyping white people as having “privilege” and black people as facing “daily prejudices”, Annamarie Phelps was passing judgment both on horseracing and British people as a whole. Any disagreement as to the accuracy of her statement is parried by her claim that “these conversations are not easy to understand”.

The phrase “right to consider and respond to the major social issues of our time” is giving executive staff the power to use the BHA for any activism they choose. Who decides the “social issues of our time”? What constitutes an “explosion of anger”? Whose anger? And what, precisely, is the “social issue” relating to George Floyd that is not already remedied in law and practice? Police officer Derek Chauvin had been arrested, hadn’t he?

“Let’s Talk about Race in Racing”

Two days later, 16 June 2020, the Diversity in Racing Steering Group (DiRSG) produced an eight-page pamphlet called Let’s Talk about Race in Racing, published on the Racing Foundation’s website and featuring BLM’s clenched fist black power logo:

The DiRSG, which included senior horseracing staff, made accusations against the industry:

Given the current climate world-wide with regards to race relations and racism and the effects being felt here in the UK, DiRSG believes this is an opportune time to remind everyone that British racing has already acknowledged that there is an issue … Black, Asian and minority ethnic people continue to be under-employed and, despite a clear desire for progression, continue to be underrepresented at senior levels … DiRSG acknowledge the racial injustices experienced by Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) people and the suffering it causes. These recent events have prompted us to ask, are we doing enough? The answer is simply, no … Like many other sports, the current debate about race and racism is prompting the DiRSG to focus specifically on how we are addressing discrimination and prejudice as they affect Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) communities.

The DiRSG pamphlet asked:

The lack of ethnic diversity amongst racegoers is apparent and other areas of the sport … If you go into racing yards across the country, you will meet a huge range of people with different heritage and ethnic backgrounds, yet how many are there amongst the 600 Racehorse Trainers or 450 Jockeys?

And:

… it’s not always obvious what the answers are to the questions: how come there are few BAME people in our organisation? or why do few BAME people come racing?

The answers to these questions should be perfectly obvious:

1. Britain is part of Europe where “white people” (i.e. Europeans) have been in residence for tens of thousands of years.

2. The reduction in the “white British” share of Britain’s population is recent; from 95% in 1991 to 77% in 2021 (74% in England). Most of this change occurred during the period the present writer was employed in horseracing; one could see the changes in London and the south-east, especially from 2015.

3. Non-Europeans arriving in their millions do not sprinkle themselves into every corner of society. Such a thing is not logistically possible, and why would they, anyway?

4. The question is not, “why aren’t there BAME people in racing”, but “why should there have been BAME people in racing”. That is the question DiRSG needed to address before making “racism” accusations, but didn’t.

There are 59 racecourses in Britain running around 1,500 fixtures each year; neither the BHA leadership nor DiRSG were able to cite a single instance of people being turned away from racecourse gates on account of their race, or any other comparable practice of discrimination; instead, they floated the suggestion of racial discrimination and left it hanging in the air, and this became the justification for the escalation of the diversity policy.

A staff survey, May 2019 (“pregnant people”, etc.)

In May 2019, the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) held an online survey for staff on “Equality, Diversity and Inclusion”. Note that a third word has now been added to diversity and inclusion; equality.

Questions reflected the new thinking; instead of asking whether staff were male or female, staff were asked, “Which gender do you most identify with?”

Another question was: “Have you ever been present when you felt that any of the following would not feel welcome in a BHA place of work, including racecourses, or at a work event”. The ten identity options to choose from were:

• a member of the LGBTQ+ community;

• person from a racial or ethnic minority;

• different socio-economic background;

• particular religious or political belief;

• pregnant person or a person with maternity needs (e.g. a breastfeeding person or person who has recently given birth);

• person of a particular age;

• person who is married, or in a civil partnership;

• person of a particular gender;

• person with a disability;

• women.

Does the reader notice any absences in that list? Women appear as an option but not men; racial or ethnic minorities are included, but not the majority indigenous British. White/British males qualify only if fitted into some other category, such as LGBTQ+, or having a disability.

Note also the fifth option; women who are pregnant, breastfeed, or who have given birth, are referred to as “persons”; in a very short space of time, the BHA had gone from expressing pride in May 2017 that males and females compete on equal terms, to seemingly abandoning biological sex distinctions.

“Racing With Pride” and Stonewall, June 2019

In June, the BHA launched a campaign to celebrate 50 years of Pride. Announcing collaboration with Stonewall, the BHA said, “this year racing will be coming together between 28 June and 6 July to be #RacingWithPride by sharing positive messages in support of our LGBTQ+ community and to celebrate 50 years of the Pride movement”.1

This was the first time that a diversity event had been rolled out across the whole industry, and it did so with uniform social media messaging; for example:

Racecourses also flew Pride flags; this is Chester:2

The campaign was said to make “all racegoers feel welcomed & accepted for who they are. Racing is for everyone”. Yet, no racecourse had a policy of making people unwelcome. People who were LGBTQ+ were free to enjoy the racecourse, order food and drink, place a bet, and watch the racing, like everyone else.

What was the point? The campaign turned sexual minority racegoers into a single category while placing an expectation on those falling outside that category to become their “active allies”; BHA chairwoman Annamarie Phelps issued a statement calling on all to join her in “being a proud LGBTQ+ ally and pledging to stamp out homophobia, biphobia, and transphobia”.3

At around this time, I went to a cash machine during lunch, and was surprised to see an almost identical message appear on the screen. When one works in an organisation, one assumes its leaders write their own public statements, or at least have the PR department do it for them; but seeing my bank display the same message as Annamarie Phelps suggested the message had been produced elsewhere, probably Stonewall, and circulated among corporate bodies to use.

Magnolia Cup, August 2019 - Muslim hijab

Much publicity was given to 18-year old Muslim woman Khadijah Mellah riding and winning in the Magnolia Cup at Goodwood Racecourse, on 1 August. The Magnolia Cup is not a professional race, but an annual all-woman affair that combines charity, glamour, and publicity. Goodwood says the Magnolia Cup is to “change the perceptions of women in sport”.4

The Racing Post described Khadijah Mellah’s win as “ground breaking”, “the first woman to race-ride in a hijab”.5 Goodwood Racecourse also referenced the hijab,6 and Great British Racing said Khadijah made “history becoming the first British Muslim jockey in the UK to win a race”.7

This represents a major ethical conflict in horseracing’s diversity policy. At the narrow end, the hijab is a by-product of the Islamic assumption that women are ancillary to men, which presumably conflicts with the “empowerment of women” that the Magnolia Cup is said to promote. More fundamentally, promoting the hijab is a tacit promotion of Islam itself. Islam is a worldview that has no separation between Mosque and State, meaning commands of Mohammed, a 7th century prophet-turned-war chief, take precedence over laws and mores of non-Muslims; this causes parallel Muslim societies to form in the West, and the risk of Jihad, religious struggle, if the ways of Mohammed are not respected.

As the saying goes, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions; sentimentality over a smiley 18-year old in a hijab and talk of “changing perceptions” led to horseracing authorities flirting with Islam; no formal decision had been made to that effect; yet, it had been introduced all the same, via what was supposed to be a ladies’ charity race.

Subscribe now

Transgender Day of Remembrance, October 2019

In October, the BHA marked Transgender Day of Remembrance, a day to “memorialize those who have been murdered as a result of transphobia”. A post on Workplace, the BHA staff website, said:

Why is this relevant to racing? An estimated 1% of the population fall somewhere on the broad “trans” spectrum (that’s 1% of our participants and racegoers too) and with racing having the first transgender jockey to ride in a race last year, it is important that the BHA are trans-inclusive.

BHA staff were invited to “Trans in the City”, an event hosted by BP in Canary Wharf for top employers.

RaceStraight becomes Racewise, December 2019

For many years, the BHA had a confidential telephone line called RaceStraight, horseracing’s equivalent of Crimestoppers; people could call it if they suspected suspicious betting and other integrity concerns. In December 2019, the BHA announced it was to widen RaceStraight’s remit to include Equality, Diversity & Inclusion, as well as other matters such as drugs and welfare; staff were asked to come up with a new name.

A few weeks later, RaceStraight became Racewise, where ‘wise’ stood for: Welfare, Integrity, Safeguarding and Equality. Traditionally, the ‘e’ in horseracing meant equine (Equine Welfare Officer, British Equine Veterinary Association, etc.). Now, “equine” made way for “equality”, and publicity material featured a black rider. Since the letter ‘e’ no longer represented horses, “welfare”, previously associated with staff welfare, was reassigned to horses, and staff welfare became “safeguarding”.

This game of musical chairs in terminology illustrated the BHA’s shift from an organisation that had horses at the centre, to one that centred equality and using black people as a symbol of this social mission. This is not equality in the sense of reducing inequality of income, but a stylised or visual equality achieved by placing black people among white people, or women among men.

Diversity in Racing Annual Update, December 2019

As 2019 drew to a close, horseracing’s Diversity in Racing Steering Group (DiRSG) produced its second report, saying that DiRSG had been “developing a closer relationship with the industry through the Members’ Committee”, and “raising awareness of the need to prioritise D&I at industry meetings across the sport”.

The Annual Update was more strident than its predecessor in mid-2018, speaking in terms of “accelerate progress”, “strive”, “push forward”, “springboard for further action”. It said, “Our ambition is for racing to be a sport for EVERYONE … Our focus will be on creating an inclusive culture and widening representation”.

The reality, however, is that horseracing isn’t for everyone, and it is inevitable interest correlates with diverse groups (otherwise, they wouldn’t be diverse). That doesn’t mean newcomers aren’t welcome at British racecourses, or that horseracing isn’t open to all; but the Action Plan wasn’t prepared to take no for an answer:

It is imperative that if racing is to become more inclusive and diverse, everyone within the sport must strive for one clear goal, a shared responsibility will accelerate progress. For this to become a reality, as outlined in the Oxford Brookes report, we must build a greater understanding of diversity issues and engage and educate stakeholders, participants and the workforce on the importance of D&I for commercial, legal and moral reasons.

Note the mild confusion as to why diversity was being adopted: the Oxford Brookes report of May 2017 is cited, while the former commercial and moral “cases” are subtly downgraded to “reasons”; and “legal” is added, when this wasn’t the reason given previously. The reason for this inconsistency shall be explored in a future essay.

Mission creep, meanwhile, including “considering targets”, was in full swing:

Unless we can understand the true and accurate make up of our workforce, participants and fans, and monitor any changes, we will not be able to identify the challenges or know the true impact. Once clear methods of collecting accurate data are identified we will hold the industry and ourselves to account by considering targets and publishing data.

“Male, pale and stale”

Despite all the above, it still came as a surprise a month into the new year when, at the BHA staff Roadshow at Kempton on 23 January 2020, chief executive Nick Rust declared British horseracing to be “male, pale and stale”. There was no reaction from the audience, other than to politely listen.

Prior to 2017, the word “diversity” meant the diversity of horseracing itself; jockeys, trainers, stable staff, owners, racegoers, breeders, bookmakers, punters, broadcasters, administrators, sponsors, racecourses and, of course, horses. In 2004, a former British Horseracing Board chief executive said in a speech:

This is a sport that is universally acclaimed for its diversity: from the Grand National at Aintree to a Bumper at Exeter, from the Epsom Derby to a Seller at Catterick, from the nuances of Chester to the expanses of Newmarket, from the recent and continuing development of All Weather Track racing to the splendour and undoubted highlight of the international Turf calendar at Royal Ascot, British Racing exemplifies diversity.

In an instant, all of that had been disqualified as “stale” by the BHA’s incumbent chief executive, and the word diversity redefined to mean multiple genders and ethnic difference. Anyone could have telephoned the newspapers during the tea break, told them of Mr Rust’s remark and get a headline, but nobody did; I doubt the idea occurred to anyone. Horseracing is a product of social trust, meaning strangers agree to be bound by a set of rules, as opposed to clan or familial loyalty. Yet, it was precisely this social trust that had been taken advantage of in the name of diversity, both in that moment and over the last two years.

In January 2018, the BHA produced a press statement, Female jockeys as good as males, suggests Thoroughbred Horseracing Industries MBA study,1 based on a two-page summary of research by Vanessa Cashmore that sought to “quantify female jockey performance against their male counterparts”.

The summary said:

Female participation was found to be extremely low. Women account for just 5.2% of rides during the study period, despite holding 24% of jockey licences … using detailed statistical methods to control for quality of mount, female performance was seen to be equivalent to that of male jockeys. These results indicate the possibility of gender discrimination, either conscious or unconscious, or at the very least an inherent hiring-bias towards selecting male riders.

In other words, if there is no difference in average male/female performance, there should be no difference in male/female participation. Vanessa Cashmore may well be correct in the first proposition, but the second does not follow necessarily. For example, there may be a pool of male riders that trainers rely on routinely, and this favoured group lifts average male participation above that of female riders; in other words, there may be a bias towards individual males, rather than males per se. I am not saying this is the case, merely that it is an alternative explanation. Another explanation might be that some female jockeys are mothers and this affects their availability to ride, and so on.

In order to know, one has to read Vanessa Cashmore’s full research; however, the BHA’s press release was based only on the two-page summary, which had the following footnote:

Despite not being published, the research was endorsed by the Diversity in Racing Steering Group (DiRSG) whose spokeswoman Susannah Gill was quoted in the BHA’s press statement as saying:

“This research takes us one step closer to putting the tired argument about strength and capability on the scrap heap and focus on changing perception, on changing attitudes and most importantly, driving behavioural change”.

Subscribe now

“Sexuality in British Horseracing”

In February 2019, another two-page summary of research was circulated, this time by David Letts regarding his MBA into Sexuality in British Horseracing; an exploratory study into prevalence and attitudes; here is an excerpt from the summary:

This project investigates the prevalence of sexual minority individuals within the British horseracing industry and the associated attitudes which exist … it is essential that the industry is aware of the existent diversity in this domain in order to formulate diversity and inclusion strategies for sexual minority participants … though the male weighing room in British horseracing is not inherently homophobic in nature, however it inadvertently encourages an atmosphere of heteronormativity which can have negative consequences for those located outside of those parameters.

Again, there was a footnote:

There is no particular reason to doubt that the research met the terms that the authors intended; nor is there anything wrong with research that seeks to ensure fair treatment for women jockeys and sexual minority participants.

But as seen with previous reports into diversity, such as those produced by Oxford Brookes University and American consultancy McKinsey (see Chapters 1 and 2, respectively), nothing can be taken at face value. The release of the two summaries provided opportunity for a media splash without the means of independently verifying the research itself.

As such, the summaries provided academic mood music for a growing diversity system; the DiRSG, the 2018 Action Plan, a Head of Diversity & Inclusion, and much more that was to follow, very soon.

In August 2017, three months after its May press statement (see Chapter 1), the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) announced the creation of a “Diversity in Racing Steering Group” (DiRSG), fulfilling one of the recommendations of the Oxford Brookes report.

The DiRSG’s initial members included BHA chief executive Nick Rust, senior officers from the BHA, Jockey Club and Racehorse Owners Association, Susannah Gill from Women in Racing, and various racing and media people.

The BHA said that DiRSG was expected to “lead and direct our sport in this vital area”;1 yet, DiRSG said in its first publication (below) that it was an “advisory group with no executive or decision-making function”. DiRSG’s remit was confusing; “advisory” implies something passive, i.e. the industry would consider actions, and the Group would provide advice. But DiRSG’s stated aim of “leading and directing” implied that it held responsibility for determining policy, subject to an authorising decision.

In practice, DiRSG’s lack of a final decision-making function relieved it of any restraint on what it could say or propose, giving it more leeway than had it been a formal department. DiRSG didn’t display the BHA logo, but it could use BHA premises for meetings, use BHA platforms for distribution of its reports, speak to the media, and would soon have its own budget; £275,000 was provided by the Racing Foundation in 2019.2

The cancellation of James Underwood, November 2017

The BHA and DiRSG had an early opportunity to assert the diversity policy when racing journalist James Underwood wrote the following, in response to DiRSG’s formation, in his European Racing and Breeding Digest:

One doesn't imagine that black people or other ethnic minorities are interested in going racing. They prefer football, like most people here who spend slabs of time watching it and other ball games, in a life that can be written off as balls. Racing could send a boat to Libya to save a number of black people in the awful refugee centres there to be settled in accommodation at Kelso and Southwell - but they'd soon be hitching a lift to East London. As for the gays, they would soon find that the racing crowd isn't very sympathetic to their way of life and, if they couldn't get into the stables to meet the lads there, they'd soon be bored.

The BHA responded:

… following the publication of James Underwood's European Racing and Breeding Digest earlier this week, the BHA has terminated its subscription. Our decision follows racist and homophobic comments in an editorial piece related to the formation of the Diversity in Racing Steering Group, a group which holds at its core a vision for a more inclusive and diverse sport ... At the first meeting of the DiRSG, its members made a commitment to calling out and challenging behaviour which goes against values that our sport has embraced - inclusivity and respect.

The BHA didn’t just cancel its subscription to Mr Underwood's publication; it wrote to organisations across the industry with the result that Mr Underwood stopped receiving invites to media events and annual meetings.3

James Underwood was 89 years old, and his remarks could have been treated as an educational matter, taking into account his sentiments were common during his long life, as illustrated by TV programmes like “Fawlty Towers” and “It Ain't Half Hot Mum”. Mr Underwood was quoted in the press as saying, “I was trying to get from one subject to another. I realise now that I got it wrong, but I come from a different age”.

Mr Underwood’s cancellation represented the diversity policy’s first victory, and it signified something else; the BHA’s response was only two days after Mr Underwood’s piece, meaning no opportunity was provided for a right of reply. The BHA’s action fell short of a formal exclusion order, but it was an exclusion in practice, by shaming, suggesting that the diversity policy and DiRSG could become a de facto substitute for normal procedures.

Subscribe now

Diversity and Inclusion Action Plan, July 2018

In July 2018, DiRSG released its first report, an 8-page Diversity and Inclusion Action Plan to “improve representation across all aspects of the sport”.4 Note the word inclusion; this had not appeared in the BHA’s May 2017 press statement announcing the diversity policy, nor was it a concept proposed by the Oxford Brookes report. The Action Plan stated:

Diversity covers a broad range of human differences, including but not limited to race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, social class, physical ability or attributes, religious or ethical values system, national origin, and political beliefs.

An internet search suggests this definition is from the United States, possibly Ferris State University, Michigan, which had been using the wording at least since 2009.5 This indicates ideas were not being drawn up by DiRSG or even within British horseracing, but brought over from American academia:

The Action Plan went on:

… currently some of the traditions and practices of the sport are out of kilter with modern British society. From the composition of the sport’s leadership and the opportunities afforded to participants, through to the make-up of people attending and enjoying racing, British racing could appear to many in our country to represent the past, not modern British society.

The terms “modern Britain” and “the past” disregard the fact Britain’s 59 racecourses exist in the present; the Action Plan was obviously using these terms to mean the social and demographic changes DiRSG wanted to see; for example, to make horseracing less white, less male.

DiRSG member Susannah Gill said in May 2018, “We are still perceived in Britain as a white man’s rich sport … management of racing [is] very white, predominantly male and middle-aged”.6 Another DiRSG member Sulekha Varma suggested horseracing had an image of being “stuffy and white only”.7 Annamarie Phelps, BHA chairwoman said (in 2020), “Racing here is often seen as a sport that is predominantly white and privileged”.8 The BHA’s claim in May 2017 that diversity was needed to be “fair” was upgraded by the Action Plan to a “clear moral case”.

Until the diversity policy, people in racing were not regarded as “white”; they were just people in racing. Note also the associated terms: “white and privileged”; “rich”, “stuffy”, “middle-aged”. One might expect this framing from racing’s detractors such as animal welfare activists, but not from prominent people in the industry. And “white” is not even accurate; if it were, racing people in Britain might be Norwegian, Austrian or Italian; instead, they are English, Scots, and Welsh, exactly as one would expect.

The above attitudes represented a profound change in outlook. Previously, horseracing was regarded as normal and good; now, racing was being presented as abnormal and unfair; this conclusion was reached via the suggestion that racing was “not modern” because it “represented the past", which was based on the suggestion it was “white” and male.

The “moral case”

What, precisely, is not “fair” or “moral” about horseracing’s arrangements? British horseracing is a free association of men and women who come together for said activity; the process of public involvement is as follows:

1. Racing is advertised on television, in newspapers, and online; advertisements appear on railway stations platforms, on the side of buses, and along London Underground escalators.

2. People look at the advertisements and decide whether they want to go racing, or apply for jobs.

3. Racing attendance and participation reflects people’s choices whether to engage in the sport.

4. So long as people are free to exercise consumer choices, and job applicants protected under employment law, there is no basis for saying there is unfairness.

The “commercial case”

The Action Plan also said there was a clear commercial case for diversity and inclusion, and its footnotes cited reports; what do these reports say?

The Business Case for Equality and Diversity: a survey of the academic literature, produced by the British government’s Department for Business, Innovation & Skills in 2013,9 concluded:

The academic research analysed [contained] little consideration of the role of internal processes and policies. This kind of evidence cannot explain how business benefits were realised … they tend not to focus on business performance impacts, or to look at firms’ context and strategic response, what worked and why … The insight from this report suggests that the business case for equality & diversity might have more resonance with businesses if there was credible evidence of this more practical kind. (pages vii-viii)

So much for that! Another report was Delivering through Diversity by American management consultancy firm McKinsey, 2018,10 which provided no causal evidence between boardroom diversity and performance; it said:

Correlation is not causation. There are real limitations, and we are not asserting a causal link. (p38)

McKinsey claimed a correlation between leadership diversity and corporate performance, but when two economists sought to verify its research in 2024, McKinsey denied them access to its data. The economists tried to recreate McKinsey’s study by using U.S. companies in the S&P 500, a sample that McKinsey was likely to have used, but they could not find the claimed correlation.11 Even if McKinsey’s correlation did exist, DiRSG missed the obvious point that cause and effect could be the other way around, i.e. high-profit corporations which engage in unpopular practices, such as relocating production to countries with poor working conditions, adopt “diversity” as means of deflecting criticism.12

DiRSG also failed to acknowledge that, prior to the diversity policy, British people had been able to organise and produce:

• racecourse venues, tracks, and stables;

• silks, helmets, boots, saddles, and whips;

• handicapping and stewarding systems;

• systems of ownership and licensing;

• veterinary services;

• as well as the breeding, training, and riding of racehorses.

For all the claims of diversity being a strength, no research had been produced to explain how diversity would improve upon what had been achieved in British horseracing over the past 250 years.

Appointment of Head of Diversity and Inclusion, October 2018

The final event of 2018, in October, was the BHA’s appointment of a Head of Diversity and Inclusion. This was a salaried position, intended to:

… fulfil British racing’s ambitions to become more diverse and inclusive [and to work with DiRSG] to co-ordinate and implement the recommendations of the Action Plan and to work with the Racing industry.13

This position was not comparable to, say, a Head Veterinary Officer, or a Head of Finance, which dealt with functions; it was an ideological position that would soon import into horseracing LGBT+ and “anti-racism” orthodoxies.

The BHA’s policy of “diversity” was announced on 17 May 2017; it took the form of a press statement,1 responding to a study by Oxford Brookes University into women’s representation in horseracing; here is an excerpt from the BHA’s statement with my emphasis:

The BHA welcomes publication of the first-ever research study of women's representation and diversity in racing. While this confirms that progress is being made on gender diversity, racing faces similar challenges to other sports in ensuring that people from all backgrounds are represented at all levels of our sport.

Focusing on the issue of gender diversity, the survey acknowledges that women are increasingly prominent in British racing, but it also confirms they remain under-represented, where just 16 per cent of people on Boards are women. Along with gender, age was raised as the most common factor for experiencing less favourable treatment, especially when people apply for promotion. Many people expressed more concern that our industry is not ethnically diverse; regrettably there were few people with a BME background who completed the survey. The number of men and women reporting discrimination or inappropriate behaviour in their responses to the survey is clearly a concern as there can be no place for this anywhere in racing.

… While we can be proud of a sport where women and men have the opportunity to compete on equal terms, we know from our own analysis that there is more to do to ensure that women are given the necessary encouragement, support and opportunities to be the best they can be.

The BHA produces press statements regularly and it didn’t seem unreasonable to me, as an employee, that steps should be taken to ensure women had a fair crack at the whip. What did seem odd, however, was the sentence: “we can be proud of a sport where women and men have the opportunity to compete on equal terms”.

Why should this be a source of pride as opposed to, say, delight? Men and women compete separately in most sports because men are on average stronger, but the situation is less clear in horseracing; in France, racing authorities provide a weight allowance for female jockeys, but in Britain, the view is there is no inherent difference in male and female jockey performance, i.e. riding is a matter of skill rather than strength. The British view may well be the correct one, but pride implies something more fundamental, that perhaps nature had erred and differences between men and women were undesirable; hence, the BHA’s “pride” in horseracing being an exception.

Kempton racecourse, January 2018

The second time diversity was referenced was eight months later on 11 January 2018, in a speech by BHA chief executive Nick Rust to eighty or so staff at Kempton racecourse. This event was one of three roadshow events for BHA staff; the following week, the roadshow went to Leicester racecourse, and then Newcastle where, presumably, the same speech was made.

Nick Rust said the Oxford Brookes report had exposed a major problem, the lack of diversity. Mr Rust said it was a disgrace (his word) that Kempton racecourse, on the outskirts of London, did not represent London’s racial demographics, and he called for a change in attitudes. He said “diversity is a strength”, and claimed the existence of two cases for diversity: a moral case, and business case. He reiterated more or less what was said in the May 2017 press release:

The business case for diversity is clear and unequivocal … not only is it fair, but study after study has shown that organisations take better decisions and perform better with diverse teams, and that tackling diversity issues has the scope to unlock huge amounts of potential, untapped talent.

The speech had the whiff of propaganda about it, and it also contained an incongruity; Mr Rust’s speech extended to racial diversity, whereas the Oxford Brookes report was about women's representation. So we need to back up and take a closer look.

Subscribe now

The Oxford Brookes University survey and report

The Oxford Brookes report was based on a survey undertaken in 2016 by the university’s Centre for Diversity Policy, Research and Practice, led by one Professor Simonetta Manfredi. The survey and report were commissioned by Women in Racing, a group that sought female appointments at Board level;2 funding came from racing’s charitable arm, the Racing Foundation.

The trigger for Women in Racing’s approach to Oxford Brookes University appears to have been the Grand Women’s Summit, held at Aintree Racecourse three months prior in April 2016 to “celebrate the diverse roles women play in sport”. The event had the support of Nick Rust, who was quoted as saying, “I believe in gender diversity to help achieve success within any business and wish to gain broad support, from men and women, for women working in horseracing”.3

The survey was run online from 4 July to 15 August 2016, hosted on Women in Racing’s own website and consisting of 24 questions. Participants were told the survey “should take no longer than ten minutes to complete”, and questions revolved around matters such as whether women felt they had support in their career, access to training, whether they believed they’d been held back due to childcare responsibilities, positive and negative experiences, and so on. The survey had 393 responses followed by 16 telephone interviews, and findings were released nine months later in May 2017, in a 60-page publication entitled Women’s representation and diversity in the horseracing industry;4 this formed the basis of the above BHA press statement.

The aim of the report was to examine whether gender was a disadvantage in terms of career progression, with specific emphasis on leadership roles (p11). It’s evident on reading that the report reflected modern feminist thinking, that differences between men and women were a product of gender stereotyping and should be overcome. The report stepped over the question of “nature vs nurture”, whether women and men are drawn to certain roles because they are nurtured by society, or because of natural female and male inclination. The study’s modus operandi was to seek out differences between men and women in horseracing roles, and describe women as under-represented.

Trojan Horse

But why did the BHA’s statement of May 2017, and Nick Rust’s speech of January 2018, refer to ethnicity when the Oxford Brookes report concerned women’s representation? Of the Oxford Brookes report’s 60 pages, there was a short section entitled “Other areas of diversity” and one-half page of this referred to ethnic minorities; it said: “the rural nature of the industry is a barrier, given that the majority of people from minority ethnic backgrounds who come from the UK live in urban areas” (p42). The report added that “some” respondents expressed concern that the workforce was not ethnically diverse.

The significance of this half-page is that a survey concerning women’s representation had ethnicity tacked onto it, opening a door to matters the study was not capable of commenting upon. Let’s take another look at the BHA’s May 2017 press statement:

The BHA welcomes publication of the first-ever research study of women's representation and diversity in racing. While this confirms that progress is being made on gender diversity, racing faces similar challenges to other sports in ensuring that people from all backgrounds are represented at all levels of our sport … Many5 people expressed more concern that our industry is not ethnically diverse; regrettably there were few people with a BME background who completed the survey.

In this way, a report on women’s representation offered itself as a Trojan horse for ethnicity and race. And the term “diversity” is stretchable; LGBT was not mentioned in the “other areas of diversity” section at all, yet would go on to form a large part of the BHA’s diversity push.

What else do we know about the Oxford Brookes report? To find participants for its ten-minute questionnaire, a one-page promotion was placed in the Racecourse Association newsletter in July 2016, and presumably elsewhere.6

The promotion introduced the survey as a means to understand diversity in racing, but went on to say something else:

The study will start to align horseracing with other sports, particularly those funded via Sport England, and in the corporate world where similar research has previously and successfully been executed. Previous research in other sectors has demonstrated the benefits generated by diversity in groups versus homogeneity in groups.

The paragraph suggested an agenda that went far beyond women’s roles in racing, one that involved, for some reason, “alignment” with other sports and the corporate world. Simonetta Manfredi was quoted as saying:

“I am really pleased to be possibly the first academic to be investigating diversity issues within the horseracing in Great Britain. I hope that the findings will be informative and produce evidence-based recommendations to increase diversity and develop good practice in this important sector”.

This statement indicates that a finding in favour of “diversity” was intended before the survey had been conducted! Ten months later, when the report was released in May 2017, Simonetta Manfredi said she “… hope[d] the findings provide the strong evidence and recommendations that British horseracing needs to achieve greater diversity across its different functions”.7 This implies that Prof. Manfredi saw her research as promoting an agenda, rather than undertaking an enquiry.

Sally Rowley-Williams, the honorary president of Women in Racing, the body that commissioned the survey, said:

“Women in Racing will do all it can to facilitate change and make sure this research is just the starting point for taking forward the diversity agenda within British horseracing”.8

Women in Racing’s and Oxford Brookes’ statements revealed the 60-page publication as little more than a vehicle, enabling BHA chief executive Nick Rust to proceed with a policy that they had all seemingly agreed from the outset. Despite the fact that the BHA had not commissioned the report, Nick Rust adopted its findings the same day as its public release.

The BHA consultation

Let’s return to the BHA’s May 2017 press statement; what else did it say?

The BHA clearly has a role to play in leading the sport on the diversity agenda, but it cannot act alone. The business case for diversity is clear and unequivocal and everyone needs to buy into it.

The Oxford Brookes report was not a business case; it was a discourse on women’s representation. So, right out the stalls, we have a discrepancy as to the reason for the diversity policy; was it the Oxford Brookes report; or was it the “business case”? This discrepancy will be revisited in a future essay.

The May 2017 statement went on to announce a consultation, to get things moving:

As the survey report highlights, to be successful, this requires a cross-industry effort, so we will now consult with racecourses and horsemen on additional actions we need to take, including the recommendations contained in this report.

Given Nick Rust had just said “everyone needs to buy into it”, with actions “we need to take”, the consultation was little more than a rubber stamp. The press statement listed nine recommendations based on suggestions from the Oxford Brookes report. Some recommendations were so benign that no-one could possibly object; “successful role models”; encouraging everyone “to reach their full potential”; mentors to provide “support and guidance”. Other proposals lent themselves to mission creep: “exploring the need” for regulatory changes; “advisory targets” for representation on Boards; “unconscious bias” training.

The consultation’s main significance, however, was that it enabled the amorphous concept of “diversity” to be slipped in as BHA policy; I say “slipped in” because the consultation asked views on individual recommendations, not whether “diversity” should be adopted as policy. Just as the Oxford Brookes report sought to justify views already held, the consultation implemented a decision already made.

It should be stressed this isn’t the way the BHA normally operates; its 2021 review into the whip, for example, was conducted in a serious and detailed way; the consultation, which had its own steering group, was conducted first and then the report with recommendations was written. The BHA’s diversity policy was reached in the reverse order, and in a manner that was clownish: a women’s pressure group approaches feminist academics to produce a pro-diversity report, which the BHA’s chief executive instantly adopts as policy; that policy is then extended to diversity categories not covered by the report.