Betfair Official Blog

Should racing journalists have a code of conduct?

Racing journalists wield a great deal of power. They have access to valuable information ahead of the rest of us and, in certain cases, the price of a horse can fluctuate purely on their recommendation. Shouldn't they be subject to more regulation? Jack Houghton thinks so.

What guidelines exist to ensure the proper conduct of racing and betting journalists? I've had a dig around, and can't find anything.

In the early stages of the Inside Information review, headed by the BHB's Director of Security, Paul Scotney, there was talk of a code of conduct being drawn up. But it didn't come out with the final report and I can't find mention of it on the website of the Horseracing Writers and Photographers Association (HWPA).

It seems to me it's badly needed. Above and beyond their salary, it's possible for racing journalists to make money as a direct result of the job they do. And yet, apart from their own conscience, there is no guidance available as to whether or when it is right for them to do this.

Let's get out of the abstract and talk about some examples.

A racing journalist is interviewing a trainer. The trainer says that, contrary to popular opinion, a particular horse will miss the Irish 2,000 Guineas and run in the Derby. This information is not yet in the public domain. Is it right for the journalist to get on the phone to his bookie and back said horse at fancy prices for the Derby?

Another example. A tipster with a large following is writing her column the day before a big race. She decides to back her selection before submitting her opinion, otherwise it might be difficult to secure a good price. Is this right and proper?

Let's take it further. Having backed her selection at [21.0] the day before, the horse shortens into [9.0] the next morning as a reaction to the support her column generates. She decides to lay the horse back at [9.0] and lock in a profit. Do we have any problems with that?

What about, having seen how easy it is, she decides next time to collude with other influential tipsters in tipping the same horse. Given their collective influence, the price swing - and associated guaranteed profit - will be even greater. Any problems yet?

These are, of course, hypothetical examples.

Actually, only some of them are hypothetical. Many tipsters are on record as having said they back their own selections. They argue, convincingly in my view, that punters expect them to have confidence in what they are writing. After all, if the tipster isn't following the advice, why should the reader?

And I know of a number of instances where racing hacks have acted on information before it is in the public domain. When you're stood at a trainer's press open day and hear which of the Derby entries will be ridden by the stable jock, it's amazing how many of the gathered throng suddenly need to make urgent calls.

Racing and betting journalists are in an incredibly privileged position. They frequently receive information before it's in the public domain and they exert a huge collective influence over the actions of punters and the millions of pounds they bet on a daily basis. So why aren't they subject to the same regulation and code as financial journalists?

Any financial journalist is bound by guidelines laid out by the Press Complaints Commission. The guidelines insist journalists do not use for profit, or pass on, information prior to its general publication; that they do not write about financial matters in which they or their family have an interest without declaring it; and that they must not trade in any companies they have recently written about, or intend to write about soon.

These guidelines may seem draconian and not easily applicable to racing and betting hacks, but as a starting point for a voluntary code adopted by the HWPA, they provide a catalyst for discussion.

I wonder if it's something the Gambling Commission will look at. Eve Salomon, a member of the Board of Commissioners, is also a member of the Press Complaints Commission and so would be, you'd expect, familiar with the issues involved. The Commission is all about making sure gambling is conducted openly and fairly, so shouldn't those who commentate on it, and exert such a massive influence, be subject to stringent guidance as to their behaviour?