Was Julie Harrington a good leader of British racing? It's complicated

The job of chief executive of the British Horseracing Authority is one where the ability to get things done is in inverse proportion to the expectations the sport holds for the bearer of the role. It is a job that many believe is imbued with absolute power, but in fact wields little more than moral authority over a Balkanised sport with dozens of competing powerbrokers.

Is it any wonder then that Julie Harrington, who on Tuesday announced she would step down as chief executive of the BHA, will like all her predecessors leave with her fair share of critics? It is a job that asks an almost impossible question of its holders. They govern the sport, but lack any real control. They are racing's leaders but enjoy no guarantee anyone will follow them. They cannot make unilateral decisions but must rule by consensus. The chief executive of the BHA has more in common with the Secretary General of the UN than with the President of the USA.

Yet if British racing is an experiment in applying the operating model of ineffective international organisations to the governance of a mid-sized domestic sport, it is not one anyone with sense would be in a rush to copy.