Racing's Changing Room Crisis: Safeguarding Failures, Regulatory Conflicts and Potential Liabilities

The Persistent Problem

Nearly four years after British racing promised to modernise weighing room facilities across all UK racecourses, a troubling reality has emerged. As of December 2024, only 12 of Britain's 59 racecourses have met the minimum standards for weighing room facilities originally promised by October 2024. More concerning still, the remaining upgrades may not be completed until 2027-2030, leaving female jockeys—particularly young riders—in potentially unsafe and unquestionably discriminatory conditions for years to come.

The Professional Jockeys Association (PJA) has not minced words, describing the current facilities as providing "inadequate safeguarding and discriminatory facilities." Female jockeys continue to report being "required to enter the male changing room at the majority of racecourses in order to do their job"—a situation that raises serious concerns about equality, dignity, and legal compliance.

Beyond the basic layout issues, the physical condition of many facilities is alarming. Jockeys report mould, persistent drainage odours, flooding, and overcrowding in female areas. One changing room was described as "disgusting," while others featured unstable benches, damp conditions, and in some cases, no hot water. These conditions would be unacceptable in any workplace but are particularly problematic in a professional sporting environment.

The Safeguarding Implications

For young female jockeys under 18, the situation is particularly concerning. Former Grade One-winning jockey Lizzie Kelly articulated the problem bluntly in 2021: "The physical layout of many weighing rooms can lead a young female jockey into potentially uncomfortable situations. That is a massive issue and needs to be addressed urgently."

Kelly's comparison to other sports highlights racing's outlier status: "Can you imagine the uproar if Emma Raducanu had to go into the men's changing room before a match at Wimbledon?"

The situation creates a clear conflict with the BHA's own Safeguarding Policy, which is "designed primarily to protect all participants under the age of 18 and Adults at Risk" in racing. While immediate safeguarding measures were supposedly implemented by February 2022, the ongoing requirement for female jockeys to enter male changing areas demonstrates the inadequacy of these reforms.

The Regulatory Failure

This persistent problem raises serious questions about the BHA's effectiveness as a regulator, particularly given its unusual governance structure. The BHA is 50% owned by the racecourses it regulates—creating an inherent conflict of interest that may explain the repeated delays and extended timelines.

When examining the BHA and its Horseracing Industry People Board (HIPB), a pattern of announcing aspirational strategies without effective enforcement becomes apparent. In February 2025, the HIPB launched a new workforce strategy acknowledging the need for a change in "culture" and "a more professional working environment," with specific targets to "prioritise gender equality" and to "encourage and support our female workforce by removing barriers to remaining in the sport."

Yet these statements ring hollow when set against the organisation's failure to enforce meaningful change in weighing room facilities over the past four years. The failure to maintain the original 2024 deadline, and the subsequent extension to 2027 (with some venues potentially not completing work until 2030), suggests an organisation either unwilling or unable to effectively regulate those who partly own it.

The Conflict of Interest Question

The BHA's structure creates a fundamental governance problem. How can a regulator effectively enforce standards against entities that have significant control over the regulator itself? This question becomes particularly pointed when examining the repeated delays in weighing room improvements.

While the Racecourse Association cites "significant financial headwinds" as justification for delays, smaller independent racecourses like Fakenham, Leicester, Pontefract, Ripon and Taunton have managed to complete their upgrades. Meanwhile, larger, better-resourced courses—including multiple Jockey Club venues—now project completion dates of 2028 or later.

This disparity suggests that the issue may be more about prioritisation than capacity. The BHA, partially controlled by the racecourses it regulates, appears unable to enforce its own deadlines effectively.

Legal Vulnerabilities and Director Liability

This situation creates significant legal vulnerabilities for both racecourses and BHA directors. Under UK company law, directors have fiduciary duties that include exercising reasonable care, skill and diligence. For BHA directors, this would include ensuring the organisation fulfils its regulatory functions effectively and that it meets its safeguarding obligations.

Several aspects of the current situation could expose directors to potential liability:

1. Equality Act Compliance: The characterisation of current facilities as "discriminatory" is not merely rhetorical—it potentially describes a breach of the Equality Act 2010. Directors who knowingly allow discriminatory practices to continue could face questions about whether they are fulfilling their duties.

2. Health and Safety Obligations: Reports of mould, flooding, and electrical safety issues raise concerns about compliance with workplace health and safety regulations. Directors have responsibilities to ensure such regulations are upheld.

3. Safeguarding Duties: Most seriously, the continued exposure of young female jockeys to potentially inappropriate situations could constitute a failure in safeguarding duties. The BHA's own policy commits to "take all allegations of abuse seriously and respond swiftly and appropriately" and to "challenge conduct within racing that is, or might be, harmful to Young People or Adults at Risk."

4. Corporate Governance: BHA directors face a particular challenge in navigating the conflict between their regulatory duties and the interests of the racecourses that partially own the organisation. This conflict must be managed appropriately to avoid governance failures.

While individual director liability would depend on specific circumstances and actions, there are clear risks. Directors failing to adequately address known safeguarding issues, particularly those affecting young people, could face scrutiny from regulatory bodies or even personal liability claims if harm occurs.

A Sport Corrupted by Its Ownership Structure and Bookmaker Influence

This situation exemplifies a broader problem in British racing: a sport slowly corrupted by its ownership structure and wedded to bookmaker profits. The financial relationship between racing and the betting industry has created a system where commercial imperatives frequently override welfare concerns, responsible governance, and sporting integrity.

The racecourses, which own 50% of the BHA, are themselves increasingly driven by commercial pressures and betting revenues rather than the sport's long-term health or participant welfare. This creates a cascade of compromised priorities: racecourses pressure the BHA to maintain a demanding fixture list to satisfy bookmaker demand, while investment in basic infrastructure and welfare standards is deferred or minimised.

When improvements like changing room upgrades are consistently subordinated to commercial concerns, it reveals the true power dynamics in British racing. The RCA's citation of "significant financial headwinds" as justification for delays rings particularly hollow when examining the sport's spending priorities. Racecourses that cannot afford basic safeguarding upgrades somehow find resources for projects that enhance commercial income.

This distortion of priorities is a direct result of racing's governance model and its unhealthy dependence on bookmaker profits. The betting industry, while providing essential funding, has increasingly shaped racing's development with little regard for participants' welfare or the sport's sustainable future. Female jockeys' changing rooms are just one visible symptom of a deeper structural corruption of racing's values and governance.

The Need for Independent Regulation

The current situation highlights the need for more independent regulation of racing. The conflict inherent in having racecourses own 50% of their regulator creates a structural weakness that appears to be hampering effective enforcement.

While the BHA claims to be "committed to working collaboratively with the racecourses and the PJA to get the work done," collaboration cannot substitute for effective regulation when basic standards are not being met. The failure to maintain the original timeline, despite smaller venues successfully completing upgrades, suggests that stronger, more independent regulatory action may be necessary.

Conclusion: A Test of Racing's Values and Governance

The weighing room crisis represents more than a test of British racing's values—it is a spotlight on racing's compromised governance model. The sport appears caught between its stated principles and a commercial reality driven by bookmaker profits and conflicted ownership structures.

For female jockeys, particularly young riders just entering the sport, the current situation sends a troubling message about their value and importance. The persistence of discriminatory facilities reflects a sport where commercial considerations have been allowed to corrupt essential welfare standards. When inadequate changing rooms for female athletes are deemed an acceptable compromise for financial reasons, it reveals a profound distortion of priorities.

The BHA's inability to enforce meaningful change highlights the weakness of a regulator partially owned by those it regulates. This conflict of interest, combined with racing's dependence on bookmaker revenues, has created a governance system where participant welfare is too easily sacrificed for commercial gain.

For the BHA and its directors, this situation presents a pivotal moment: either strengthen regulatory enforcement despite the inherent conflicts, or continue to allow commercial pressures to override basic standards of equality and safeguarding. The latter path risks not only potential director liability but also the further erosion of racing's social licence and long-term sustainability.

As Julia Tyson, chair of the Horseracing Industry People Board, correctly observed, "the workplace is not what should be expected in the 21st century." The question now is whether racing's leadership has the independence and authority to challenge a system corrupted by its own ownership structure and commercial dependencies—or whether female jockeys will continue to face conditions that reflect the sport's compromised priorities and governance failures.