Racing Digital Stumbles at the First Fence – Millions Spent, Still Nowhere Near the Finish Line
British Racing’s New Digital Platform Delayed (Again) – Owners and Trainers Ask: "Where’s the Admin Burden?"
HORSE RACING
Ed Grimshaw
1/29/20254 min read


British racing – a sport built on centuries of tradition, lightning-fast thoroughbreds, and, apparently, IT projects moving at the pace of an arthritic Shetland pony. The much-vaunted Racing Digital platform, a multimillion-pound attempt to drag the administration of the sport into the 21st century, has hit yet another delay. Instead of launching as planned in September 2023, it will now limp into operation in early 2026, assuming nobody trips over another server cable in the meantime.
This is, of course, deeply shocking news. Not because another major IT project has failed to meet its deadline—this is Britain, after all, where “efficiency” is a word reserved for queuing and passive-aggressive tutting—but because anyone believed a website designed by committee and funded by racing’s governing bodies would launch on time in the first place.
A Glorious Tradition of Delays
The story is as old as racing itself: a grand project is announced with much fanfare, funds are allocated, some meetings are held, a consultant buys a Range Rover, and then—inevitably—someone realises they have built a complex system that doesn’t quite work. In this case, Racing Digital, a joint venture between the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) and Weatherbys, was supposed to be a sleek, modernised replacement for the current Racing Administration website. The goal? To simplify ownership management, entries, declarations, and licensing, cutting through bureaucracy like a well-trained gelding through soft ground.
Instead, it appears to have tripped at the first hurdle, lost a shoe, and bolted into the car park, leaving racing professionals squinting at a half-finished portal that might, if all goes well, be operational before King George VII ascends to the throne.
An "Administrative Burden"—For Whom, Exactly?
One of the more curious claims from Racing Digital’s defenders is that this new system will “greatly reduce the administrative burden” for owners and trainers. Which, one assumes, means we can look forward to an AI butler filling out all those tedious entry forms while we sip brandy in the owners’ lounge.
Except, of course, that’s complete nonsense. Anyone actually involved in the sport knows that owners and trainers already do most of the data entry themselves. We register the horses, manage the ownership syndicates, submit the declarations, and input the information. The Racing Admin site is essentially a self-service checkout, and now we’re being told that Racing Digital will revolutionise the process by... making us do exactly the same work, just on a slightly shinier website.
So, one must ask: where exactly is this administrative burden? And if the BHA isn’t the one bearing it, what exactly have they been spending £2 million on? Because from the outside, this looks suspiciously like a badly run, inefficient organisation pouring money into a black hole and then acting surprised when nothing comes out the other side.
As the old business adage goes: underpromise and overdeliver. Racing Digital, however, seems to have opted for the opposite—overpromise, underdeliver, then act like everyone should be grateful.
Follow the Money (and the Excuses)
The BHA’s 2023 accounts show that nearly £2 million has already been ploughed into the project, which raises an obvious question: what exactly does £2 million buy in the world of website development? For context, Squarespace costs £12 a month, and even the most ambitious start-ups seem able to cobble together an online platform without requiring a special task force and a new chief operating officer.
But, as ever, when large sums of money and British sport collide, the results tend to be spectacularly inefficient. The Football Association, for instance, spent £757 million on Wembley Stadium only for it to have worse beer and acoustics than your local Wetherspoons. So perhaps we should count ourselves lucky that Racing Digital’s overruns have, so far, been relatively modest.
That being said, it’s still unclear exactly why Racing Digital has been delayed. The BHA’s statement is a masterpiece of bureaucratic vagueness, carefully avoiding any real explanation beyond a vague reference to “new, innovative technology” (read: something built on an outdated framework by a developer who’s since quit to become a mindfulness coach in Devon).
The Great Leadership Shuffle
Adding to the chaos, Steve Gibson, the project’s managing director, has abruptly stepped down, leaving his role with immediate effect. This is never a good sign. When a man responsible for delivering a major initiative suddenly decides to spend more time with his family (or, more likely, on LinkedIn updating his profile), it’s usually because said initiative is about as stable as a legless racehorse.
Into the breach steps Robert Glenister, formerly the programme manager, now promoted to chief operating officer. His primary job? To convince the industry that this time, the platform will actually launch, despite mounting evidence to the contrary. One can only imagine his office is currently filled with Post-it notes bearing phrases like “Must avoid total disaster” and “Don’t let this become HS2”.
What Happens Now?
For now, the existing Racing Administration website will continue to limp along, doing whatever it is that has necessitated a multimillion-pound replacement. The first phase of Racing Digital—the part dealing with ownership—will allegedly arrive in early 2025, just in time for another delay to be announced shortly after Cheltenham. The second and third phases, covering race administration, licensing, and declarations, have been kicked down the road to 2026, where they will presumably be reviewed, postponed again, and eventually scrapped in favour of an “exciting new vision” requiring yet another investment round.
Chris Batterham, chair of the Racing Digital board, insists that the new system will “greatly reduce the administrative burden” and offer “significant benefits” to owners and trainers. Which is precisely what people say right before those same owners and trainers are forced to call a helpline manned by one underpaid tech assistant based in a shed in Doncaster.
The Verdict: A Stuttering Start, a Predictable Finish
Look, nobody expects a project of this scale to be smooth sailing—especially when racing’s governing bodies are involved. But there is something almost poetic about the fact that an industry based on speed, precision, and timing cannot, for love nor money, launch a simple administrative platform on schedule.
Still, in racing, it’s not how you start, it’s how you finish. Which is just as well, because Racing Digital has barely left the starting gates.