Finally, a senior figure in British bloodstock has outed “blatant cases of malpractice” in his workplace. The industry is not reeling in shock. The only surprise is that, unlike America, where it took bold new blood to upset the status quo, over here they have been turned on by one of their own. Someone they cannot ignore.

That man is Michael Goodbody, for 25 years one of the Maktoum family’s senior advisers. He retired last November as managing director of Gainsborough Stud but last week made an outspoken start as president of the Thoroughbred Breeders’ Association.

“I have been involved in the buying of horses on both sides of the Atlantic,” Goodbody said. “I have seen blatant cases of malpractice, which can only be to the detriment of the industry.”

His comments recall those of Satish Sanan, the big-spending newcomer to US bloodstock, almost three years ago. Goodbody must hope that damaging end-game will not be replicated this side of the Atlantic, but initial signs are already eerily similar.

Back in 2004, Sanan wrote to The Bloodhorse: “Kickbacks and other fraudulent behaviour are something the industry professionals know about, participate in, and encourage, but turn a deaf ear to when someone brings it to their attention.” He created the Alliance for Industry Reform, seeking full disclosure of ownership and purchasers, as well as total transparency of a horse’s surgical and veterinary past.

The Alliance was shelved when US owners and breeders responded with the Sales Integrity Task Force, yet their report wriggled out of most of Sanan’s proposals. They drew up a code of ethics, a model buyer-agent disclosure agreement, guidelines for veterinary matters and buyer-education plans. In practice, even these limited ideals were not applied.

In Britain, bloodstock malpractice last made the news that same year when a judge labelled the dealings of trainer David Elsworth and agent Charlie Gordon-Watson as “illegal . . . bribery and secret profits”. In 1999, another judge had awarded an owner £51,000 damages after finding trainers Paul Webber and Oliver Sherwood guilty of “collusive bidding”.

The then Jockey Club responded with its own code of ethics in August 2004. Yet, as in the US, the code was modest in ambition, impotent in authority and — relying on complaints — fatally flawed. Most victims do not know they have been conned or do not dare to speak out for fear of embarrassment or ostracisation from the small world of racing. They have stumbled into an environment that does not recognise such dealings as corrupt.

In the US, things have since turned nasty. In September 2005, Jess Jackson — another deep-pocketed industry novice — filed a lawsuit, the latest motion of which seeks more than $8.5 million (£4.3 million) recompense. It claims that Jackson’s former agent, Emmanuel de Seroux, secretly kept the difference between the price he paid vendors and the amount he charged Jackson for the same horses. De Seroux denies the claims and his company has counter-sued.

Yet Jackson has already won a significant victory in the global epicentre of bloodstock sales, Kentucky, where legislation now outlaws some industry practices. Undisclosed dual agency — when a single agent represents both buyer and seller — and secret commissions (kickbacks or luck money) above $100 are now illegal in that state.

Some British trainers and agents will recognise this conduct as their own. They should understand a new broom is sweeping through British racing, typified by the response to Goodbody’s speech of Paul Roy, incoming chairman of the Horseracing Regulatory Authority.

Promising a “reviewed and refreshed” code of ethics, he advocated the same rules and levels of disclosure to apply in bloodstock as in the financial world. Pivotally, he also called for “a less self-denying response to negative issues”.

Integrity is founded on individual responsibility

Paul Roy was spot on when he said “integrity begins with individual responsibility and needs to exist across the whole industry”. It is not merely jockeys, trainers, owners, stable staff and bloodstock agents in the sights of the modernising Horseracing Regulatory Authority (HRA).

It is journalists like me, spokesmen and other professionals with access to inside information, too.

When rules on inside information are introduced by racing’s new-look authority, probably in April, any foul play could result in HRA charges. From August, with the institution of the Gambling Commission, it could result in police charges under the new criminal offence of “cheat” — that is, betting on a known outcome.

Cheating includes seeing a horse suffer an injury then laying him (backing him to lose) in a race before withdrawal is officially announced.

Alongside these rules, a requirement to declare all interests would aid transparency.

When the same person is, say, journalist and PR man, broadcaster and jockey’s agent, or owner and steward, conflicts of interest — actual or perceived — can occur.