Rules are the backbone of most every function performed by the National Horseracing Authority.
In a move in the right direction some four years ago, our racing regulator adopted a more necessary and admirable approach following representations made by a legal representative in the industry.
The Sporting Post has sight of an email dating to 17 May 2017 wherein the then CEO of the NHA, Lyndon Barends stated that ‘in our quest to improve our consultative approach the National Board of the NHRA made a decision to include licensed representatives from the following on our Rules Committee: – trainers; jockeys; owners’.
Trainers, jockeys and owners thus earned a permanent voice on the NHRA Rules Committee, which is tasked with implementing, amending and ratifying a diversity of rules.
The wide spectrum of stakeholder input is invaluable, as certain rules are technical and some require legal knowledge and professionally informed input due to the obvious ramifications that stem from such amendments.
Prior to the assistance of owners, trainers and jockeys we are informed, there were a number of rules that were overturned and removed due to a lack of foresight and non-ability to be adequately policed.
The Sporting Post has perused the agenda for a meeting of the Rules Committee on Tuesday 29 June and note that the Racing Operators are also now represented, although we are uncertain as to whether this has in fact been the case for some time.
The committee includes Chairperson and leading breeder, Dr Ashley Parker, Racing Control Executive Arnold Hyde, NHRA CEO Vee Moodley, NHRA Chair Susan Rowett, and NHRA Board Members Rikesh Sewgoolam, an attorney, and Adv C F van der Merwe SC.
We are also led to believe that the NHA attorney Nic Roodt of Fasken, Martineau is invited, as he always is, to all Rules Committee meetings, and presumably not on a gratuitous basis, notwithstanding that his name is not listed as a member of the Rules Committee.
Also listed, by invitation, are trainers Mike de Kock and Tony Rivalland (Alternate), and jockeys Piere Strydom and Greg Cheyne (Alternate). Although in light of the official appointment as quoted from above, it is mystifying as to why it is stated that they are now only invitees.
It is however of more than passing interest, given the current climate of industry uncertainty and pressure, that no invitation has been extended to an owner representative normally appointed by the Racing Association and that such exclusion appears at face value to have been deliberate, as will become apparent.
On an enquiry from the Racing Association as to why owners had not been invited, the NHRA responded by stating that ‘The Rules Committee includes one Trainers’ representative, one Jockeys’ representative, Racing Operator representative and one Owners’ representative and by invitation only. I (sic) have confirmed with the Chairman of the Rules Committee (Ashley Parker) that one Owners’ representative shall be invited only when specific rule(s) may affect Owners and their input may be required.’
The Agenda for the meeting clearly suggests that owners could inevitably be affected in some or other manner by almost all of the intended rule changes.
The majority of the seats on the committee being filled by the NHRA ‘power team’, the absence of a voice for owners, and the fact that the stakeholder representatives are at the whim of an invitation, surely suggests a perpetuation of the recurring theme of a potential unhealthy imbalance of control?
This is also evidenced by the fact that the NHRA has a plethora of legal eagles supporting them, whilst owners, trainers and jockeys have none.
And again – why are the major investors, the owners, without a voice when the proposed rule changes could clearly have consequences across the board for them?
