Chapter 3) The Racing Foundation's post-graduate research, 2018-2019
Horseracing authorities publicise research before it is published.
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”.
“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.