A lack of detailed information in the National Horseracing Authority’s official Stipes reports often leads to more questions than answers.
The Sporting Post receives regular calls from curious stakeholders, often asking obvious questions, to which we don’t always have the answers.
Is it logistically practical to ask the NHA that that we get provided with more detail in the daily Stipes reports?
We appreciate that there are time constraints in preparation of the Stipes reports, and these days they are turned around before the next meeting, mostly.
And are certain matters just plain confidential and not in the public interest?
Take the report emanating from the Fairview racemeeting on 23 August 2024.
It was advised that an inquiry would be opened into a possible contravention of Rule 56.2.4 surrounding certain of the jockeys having in their possession communication devices in the Jockey room, less than an hour before the start of the race meeting:
The jockeys named are:
- CF Dicken
- P Mxoli
- D Schwarz
- M van Rensburg
- S Veale
- M Yeni
The Stipes reported that on pursuing the matter pertaining to the above-mentioned jockeys, the Board established that there were circumstances surrounding this matter and that in the interests of fairness, the Board was of the view that it would not be able to sustain charges against the above-mentioned jockeys and decided to take the matter no further.
Jockey K Minnie was in fact charged with the contravention of Rule 56.2.4 in that he had in his possession a communication device in the jockey room. Jockey K Minnie signed an admission of guilt and was fined R2 500.00.
As a consequence of the above circumstances, with regards to Jockey K Minnie, the Board has rescinded his fine.
This is a good example of creating more questions than answers. If the jockeys weren’t ordering Checkers sixty 60, or changing flights, then why would so many need to have their phones in breach of the rules?
Why is it a secret?
