Leading the field

As the flat season gets under way, Lucy Hickman talks to the solicitors with the tough task of advising the British Horseracing Board on issues from media rights to the betting levyCity firm Theodore Goddard has been acting for the British Horseracing Board (BHB) - the racing industry's governing body - since its inception in 1993, when it was decided that the Jockey Club could not continue carrying out regulatory, disciplinary, and lobbying functions.

While the Jockey Club continues to act as the sport's disciplinary body, the BHB's role includes strategic planning for racing, raising funds, lobbying the government, co-ordinating the fixture list, race planning, liaison with the betting industry, training and education, and the collection of funds required for the administration of racing.Theodore Goddard's team has not been asked to advise the BHB on foot and mouth, which is being handled in-house.

But with data protection, media rights and the annual levy to the fore, it is an exciting time to be acting for the horseracing body, as e-commerce head Paul Renney explains.'We act for them on all legal aspects,' he says.

'They are an interesting client and this is a particularly interesting time to advise them.

An awful lot of change has taken place in the last two years.

It's an evolving body and we are going to see a lot of developments in the next year, particularly with new Internet products.'A core team of six Theodore Goddard lawyers regularly advises the BHB on competition law, public law, corporate, commercial, and e-commerce matters.

A litigation team is also provided when required.Though not a public body, the BHB it is required to act reasonably and according to the law because it has responsibility for thousands of people - hence the need for a public law adviser.Mr Renney says: 'The amount of work changes.

A lot of it is driven by the chairman, Peter Savill, who has been actively looking to put the BHB in the best commercial position since he took up the position two years ago.

The place is now run by an executive of full-time professionals rather than country people who like riding.'The BHB has a managing director, a marketing director, and Paul Greeves as director of racing planning.

Mr Renney describes him as 'a racing man through and through - he's the one who has been dealing with the foot-and-mouth crisis and course closures'.Mr Renney adds: 'The foot-and -mouth situation is being handled internally.

We have not been consulted on that, partly because the board is aware of its duties and responsibilities.'The executive has been meeting as and when required throughout the crisis to review the scientific evidence and decide on a position.'There was no ban on racing, only suspension of individual meetings such as last month's Cheltenham Festival - because sheep had grazed on the course within the previous 28 days.'There has been criticism that the board has not cancelled racing, but you can't cancel everything just because of public hysteria,' says Mr Renney.

'Bookmakers may be bottom of the list of public sympathy, but the livelihood of tens of thousands of people across the industry rely on horseracing.'The board has had to balance scientific and public concern with the needs of the industry - and they have done the right thing.' Tristram Ricketts, secretary-general of the BHB, explains that, board is maintaining a controlled racing programme within MAFF-endorsed guidelines.'Racing always takes place in a strongly regulated environment, which lends itself to the introduction of enforceable precautionary measures,' he says.Mr Ricketts says that the cooperation between the BHB, the Jockey Club, and government officials, in drawing up instructions for the staging of racing, ensure the risk of spreading foot and mouth remains negligible.

He says: 'Veterinary advice remains that racing can go ahead with these strict precautions in place.

If that advice were to change, naturally BHB would review the situation immediately.

BHB has a responsibility to all those individuals and businesses who are dependent on the racing industry, which would be very seriously damaged if all racing were to be suspended.'Meanwhile, Theodore Goddard's litigation team, led by partner Hamish Porter, worked on a case in which the BHB won a landmark judgment against William Hill.

The High Court ruled that the bookmaker was breaking the law by using information from the board's database - lists of runners in races without its consent.

The judgment, British Horseracing Board Ltd and ors v William Hill Organisation Ltd; ChD (Laddie J) 9 Feb 2001, was the first under new rules protecting databases.

The court rejected William Hill's defence that it should not be liable for payment because it used only a fraction of the BHB's data on its Web site.

Following its victory, the BHB plans to impose a charge of 1% of the revenue William Hill gains from on-line bets on horseracing, if the bookmaker continues to use its information.

The bookmakers has since appealed to the Office of Fair Trading.

The court ruling against William Hill has been seen as a test case, and a similar imposition is likely to be levelled on other alleged culprits.

The BHB wants to recoup the 4 million annual cost of compiling its authoritative list of fixtures, including details of runners and riders.

At present, it recovers only about 1 million a year.

Mr Renney says: 'It's a very important case.

The BHB took them to court because they spend millions of pounds updating this list throughout the day and other Internet companies were starting to follow suit.

Now the decision has come though, we are getting on side all the other users of the data which will be under licence.' The dispute comes at a sensitive time for the racing industry, which is looking for alternative means of funding before next year, when the annual levy paid by the bookmaking industry is scheduled to be abolished.

It marks a continuation of the long-running argument about the extent to which bookmakers should fund a sport representing its primary source of income.

Mr Renney explains: 'The government is proposing to abolish the Horseracing Betting Levy Board and hand over control of the levy to the BHB.

There have been some antagonistic responses about this proposal from the bookmakers and the Racecourse Association, so we have had to help work through the replies.'The bookmakers complain that it would be handing a monopoly to the BHB.

But the BHB knows about having a monopoly - it has one with the racing database.

It knows how to deal with it and be sensible in what it can and cannot do.

They are aware of their obligations and work hard to meet them.' Another issue facing the horseracing industry in which Theodore Goddard is actively involved on behalf of the BHB is the media rights deals, says Mr Renney.

Representatives from 59 racecourses are currently hammering out a deal worth 320 million plus 80 million marketing spend, with Go Racing which is made up of three parties - Arena Leisure, Channel 4 and BSkyB.

The deal will decide the coverage of race meetings on terrestrial and cable television, the Internet, and through technology such as WAP (wireless application protocol).

The BHB was initially excluded from the negotiations, but has recently joined the talks.

'It was a bit silly for them to be excluded - they are the industry's governing body and this deal will have a knock-on effect on the whole industry,' says Mr Renney.

The 59 racecourses were jointly represented by the Racecourse Association, although seven have formed a breakaway group.Theodore Goddard won the BHB brief through former partner William Rogers, a commercial lawyer and keen racegoer.

Mr Renney says: 'His habit was racing, so he knew the relevant people and was a good commercial lawyer.'We were invited to pitch for the work and William asked anyone who was interested in racing to come along.

'The BHB are one of those clients where you have got to have a particular knowledge of the industry.

It would be difficult to advise them just from what the law says - it's case of applying the law to the particular circumstances of the industry.' If you have no interest in racing whatsoever, and refuse to do so, it would be a difficult client to advise properly, he says.

Clearly, Mr Renney has no problems in this area - the day before he spoke to the Gazette, he picked the first and second horse home at the races.

Lucy Hickman is a freelancejournalist