So the publication by British Horseracing Authority of a new Handicapping Appeals Panel - put together to hear the gripe of an owner or trainer who feels a horse his harshly treated - raises several interesting questions.

The rule banning the BHA number crunchers from punting derives from the old legal maxim - and please bear with me - ‘nemo iudex in causa sua’.

The Latin phrase means that nobody may be a judge in their own case.

The beak and the accused cannot be one and the same. If they were, and you were up on a charge, the chances are that you would throw the case out and walk free without a stain on your character.

Even if you were as guilty as sin.

And so it is with handicappers and vested interests. They can’t place bets because they are the ones who decide what rating a horse should get - and therefore what weight it carries.

(
Image:
Action Images)

An unscrupulous official could come up with a figure for the impressive winner of a Newmarket maiden, then lop 7lb off before publication - and, safe in the belief the charge in question is carrying less weight than it is entitled to shoulder - have his (all Britain’s assessors are currently male) conkers on when the horse runs in a handicap.

Job done.

At first glance, the concept of the independent Handicapping Appeals Panel might seem attractive, with BHA spin doctors no doubt keen to paint this is as an important step in making its processes more inclusive, accessible and transparent.

Cynics would no doubt counter that this is little more than a PR exercise intended to show racing’s governing body is ‘down with the kids’ (I know people no longer say that) and that the decision whether a horse should be rated 84, 85 or 86 should lie in the gift of an expert - professional - handicapper, rather than someone who is merely an interested party.

Why don’t we go the whole hog and get Stuart Williams (for example) to state his case on Michael McIntyre’s Big Show, and have a phone poll?

The skeptics might also note that more than half of the 14 appeal panel members work in the media - the Racing Post, Racing UK and At The Races each have more one representative.

Might those individuals be inclined to ‘soft pedal’ in print or on camera the next time - assuming it happens again - a BHA official makes a balls-up?

It’s well established that racing’s constituent groups struggle to agree on the day of the week, but I think we are as one in believing that integrity is paramount.

Handicappers can’t be because they have a direct influence over handicap ratings and weights.

But so do the members of the Handicapping Appeals Panel, some of whom are tipsters and gamblers.

If integrity really is sacrosanct - outweighing beyond measure considerations of public relations and window dressing - then surely those who judge appeals should be subject to the same laws as the handicappers?

I put this to the BHA and they responded that Handicapping Appeals Panel members can still bet, but must make their phone records available.

That’s a fudge to address a flaw in the system that the top brass should have spotted, but didn’t.

If the system is to have watertight integrity, all betting accounts must be closed.

Nemo iudex in causa sua, as my old gran used to say.