On Tuesday 23 November 2021 the NHRA is to hold a Special General Meeting to consider an amendment to its Constitution regarding the composition and functions of the Nominations Committee.
A key element of the amendment would be the inclusion on that Committee of an elected representative from the ranks of trainers and jockeys. The arguments are inclusivity and democracy.
C John Smith MBE. Owner & Steward of the Mashonaland Turf Club writes in the Sporting Post Mailbag.
Also in the resolution is a clause which would lead to the demise of the Racing Control Executive – the NHA function which is charged with maintaining and enhancing the integrity of racing and currently headed by Arnold Hyde.
The arguments are rationalisation and economy.
Whilst the NHRA and SANTA may well have had meaningful and constructive discussions to arrive at the position they have – and are calling for members to vote positively for their proposed outcome, they are wrong.
There can be no doubt that most trainers know more about racing, rules and regulations than the vast majority of owners – and thus have a powerful influence over the opinion of their patrons – however, their opinions can at best be described as parochial or at worst, grossly partisan.
I am comfortable that the views and opinions of trainers and jockeys should be considered by the NHRA in their deliberations and policy formulations – but I am equally certain that those decisions should not be defined by those views and opinions.
Owners need to be protected (Pic – Candiese Lenferna)
In my view, the fundamental purpose of the NHRA is to staunchly protect the interests of owners and punters – that is the integrity of horse racing. Any attempt to modify, reduce or meddle in that functionality of the NHRA must be resisted at all costs. This isn’t rocket science.
The NHRA must formulate and implement the rules of racing without fear or favour. OK it must be open to constructive suggestions and rule modifications but at its core the NHRA operates a set of rules which are largely the same as those of all the world’s major racing authorities.
Trainers and jockeys are fully aware of those rules and regulations before they are issued with licences – if they don’t like the rules, they have two options – accept them or leave the industry.
Including those who have the potential to disregard or compromise the rules, directly or indirectly, on the Board of the NHRA is fundamentally flawed as an idea – not to mention what such inclusion would have on the sentiment of punters.
I repeat – the idea of inclusivity and democracy in this matter is a red herring.
When it comes to the role of the Racing Control Executive, this is currently the team that monitors and enforces the NHRA rules on behalf of the owners and punters.
Resolution 3 at the SGM implies that the ditching of the RCE is justifiable on the grounds that we can’t afford the current function as it stands and that it should be devolved back to the MD or a National Board Director of the NHRA.
I would argue most vehemently that we can’t afford not to have the RCE in place.
I shudder to think what conflicts of interest might emerge if a Director of the NHRA has to adjudicate on matters relating to the rules and regulations of racing, yet at the same time seek to support the interests of big industry players such as the big owners and trainers.
Can you imagine the potential for inconsistency in the application of rules, fines and other disciplinary actions? Can you imagine how the smaller players might feel if rule implementation gravitated in favour of the bigger ones – as likely would be the case?
The whole thing would become a nightmare – and very possibly a pre-condition for Government interference or involvement – or even state capture. This is dangerous territory we are dabbling in. Don’t go there.
And then you have to ask yourself if devolving the function back to a Director would see a reduction in coverage and effectiveness – the answer has to be yes – which is a big problem for me – and it should be for every owner and punter.
If it is no, then there can be no economies generated – the work is all about man hours, ideally experienced man hours of people of incorruptible character and reputation – those would be the current incumbents at the RCE.
For me, the RCE may appear to be a tough police force for the industry – but that is exactly what it must be if it is to have proper effectiveness, credibility and deterrent potential.
Arnold Hyde – current RCE
In a previous column I drew a parallel with a Lancaster Bomber – the closer it gets to its target, the greater the flak. It seems to me that Captain Hyde and the RCE must be right on target most of the time to be getting so much flak – albeit only from social media’s Flugabwehrkanone.
Any attempt to dilute the power of the RCE, rein in its activities and/or to undermine its potency can only be damaging to an industry already battling with viability and credibility issues – especially now when instances relating to doping with “difficult to trace substances” are on the increase.
Having said all these things, I would also say that there might well be deficiencies at the NHRA and some staff may need to pull their socks up or change their attitude – but such matters can never be a good reason to throw the baby out with the bath water – all that is needed is counselling, a size 12 boot or the sack.
So at the SGM I would urge all voters to vote, even if only by proxy – and to vote NO, NO and NO to the proposed resolutions. These are the right decisions.
Please click on the cover of the SPRINT to read more:
