Uneasy sleeps the head that wears the crown. This has never been truer in South African horseracing as the spark of the Maselle – RA Bonus challenge spirals into a raging inferno that threatens the very credibility and existence of some of our major role players.
We believe it incumbent on both Phumelela and the National Horseracing Authority to issue statements before close of business today and clarify their positions in the matter.
The harsh reality is that no matter what those in power may believe, no man or single group of individuals owns the sport of horseracing. But who can really blame those in authority from thinking otherwise? After all, the divide between the boardrooms and the coal-face is wider than the Grand Canyon and entitlement, complacency and assumption are toxic bed partners.
The fundamentals in this case have switched from the essence of the RA Bonus challenge to a matter of principle. It is surely the almost arrogant dismissal of Maselle’s original petition that irks and motivates right now, more than anything else?
Chairman of the National Horseracing Authority, Jonathan Witts-Hewinson has a second chance to make good and show that the organisation he represents is not just a toy remote-control fish in a giant pond of bottom-feeders. The answers and transparency that have been requested for so long are well past their sell-by date and the game’s stakeholders and investors will be demanding the action that is due to them.
It is also evident again that for too long now, the potentially positive and constructive role of the media in educating and informing Joe Public has been stymied by an arrogant stonewalling and lack of recognition by our industry leaders towards one of the basic cornerstones of good public relations and bastions of credibility, communication.
So true also when one reflects on Leonardo da Vinci’s suggestion that all our knowledge has its origins in our perceptions. Most of the time we are forced to second guess and nibble on half-baked slices of a poisonous cake.
The question on many people’s lips, will no doubt be whether the Maselle expose’ is the final straw that breaks the camel’s back and shatters the unholy silence and power games of the sinister ‘old boys club’ that controls the light switches in the corridors of power?
Or are these simply those nasty home-baked Da Vinci perceptions that we refer to earlier? After all, should we not be thinking on these lines?
There is no question that the Racing Association have improved the on-course experience and done plenty of good. Their winning owner bonus scheme was also a well- intended effort to create positivity and hype up the winning experience. We have all seen the smiles and happiness around the big cardboard cheque, the gifts and the pretty dolls in the post-race formalities. But was it done legitimately and did it discriminate and infringe upon the rights of those who chose not to participate? Or was it maybe really just a grand scheme to swell the coffers of the Racing Association?
We also have had sight of an email allegedly from the CEO of South Africa’s biggest horseracing operator, which shows an alarming lack of comprehension and acceptance of the role of the National Horseracing Authority in relation to its supervisory and policing authority over the operator.
The NHA is tasked with maintaining the integrity of the sport. How does it do that if Phumelela doesn’t play ball?
What a different ending this story may have had if Messrs Du Plessis and Wainstein had chosen rather to have reacted like men with nothing to hide? Men that just wanted the best for horseracing and who were willing to embrace the opportunity to clear the air and offer the olive leaf?
Instead they chose to take the high moral ground and the advice of their highly paid lawyers. The same lawyers that no doubt advised and assisted in the recent application to the Competition Commission with the takeover of Western Cape Racing?
Oscar Wilde said : “The optimist sees the doughnut, the pessimist sees the hole.”
Are we taking in calories or just falling deeper?
Time will tell.
Well said!
Thanks Kurt. Just stating the facts in essence!
If Phumelela and the Racing Association do not fall under the NHA’s jurisdiction, who are they answerable to?
The concern with the regulation of racing has to be that the board that control the NHA consists of persons representing other positions within the industry rather than due to any knowledge or aptitude of what needs to be regulated,and how to implement it.
This shortcoming is exposed by the E-Mail drafted by Riaan Du Plessis,a NHA board member, who is clearly unaware of the rules of the body he represents.
The arrogance has reached the proportions that he no longer feels the need to disguise the fact that the NHA and the RA are in the pocket of Phumulela!
In the interests of fairness,I have discovered that the RA,represented by Larry Wainstein,did in fact attend a meeting at the NHA and I therefore retract my comments insofar as the RA are concerned.
The concern with the NHA and Phumelela,and the regulation of racing, remain unchanged,however.
EXtracts FROM TRANSCRIPT
first day
MR WAINSTEIN If I may just say something from the RA’s point of view, no Rule has been stated, so I don’t have legal representation. I’m sitting amongst legal men who understand the legalities, I just need to see where it is that the NHA can call this inquiry, otherwise, I need to take a view, because I think it’s a –
THE CHAIRMAN Well –
MR WAINSTEIN The only reason why I’m here, if I can finish, is because I am a Director of the NHA and out of my fiduciary duty to the NHA, that is why I’m here. Otherwise, if they could not get us an article or a rule that states that this inquiry would take place, I wouldn’t be here. So I just want to put that on record.
AND
JUDGE LEVINSOHN You see what also trouble me here is that although Mr Wainstein is present, it seems to me he should be entitled to reserve his rights to get legal advice about the various things that you’ve talked about, and speaking for myself, I would not like him to start answering things before his taken legal advice. He may you know, it may just prejudice the RA and Phumelela for that matter, so I think that we are a little bit handicapped to use a racing phrase. THE CHAIRMAN Now it may be that the best expedient now, is to get you the document, postpone this inquiry to a later date. Mr Wainstein you could go away and digest the record of today’s proceedings and take it to your board; take it to your Board, take it to your attorneys and decide whether there’s anything you want to do about this, and then we will convene again at a later date.JUDGE LEVINSOHN That would be the most expedient and equitable thing to do, because we don’t want Mr Wainstein who has not taken any legal advice to do something or say something that might just prejudice his case.THE CHAIRMAN Unless you are happy to proceed Mr Wainstein, the option is yours obviously.MR WAINSTEIN Mr Chairman, as I said before, and that was one of the pre-requisites that I said, I don’t know under what rule, it’s come out which one Advocate Maselle is looking to hang his hat. JUDGE LEVINSOHN Well we know what he’s staying now. You have heard what he’s said.MR WAINSTEIN Yes, I have and I must say, we have all the answers and we have everything that we have that I believe that the RA has done, is in the interest of horseracing and have not prejudiced the game. JUDGE LEVINSOHN Well they – yes.MR WAINSTEIN So –THE CHAIRMAN It may be Mr Wainstein that regardless of what your argument is, as to the jurisdiction of the NHA to inquire into this complaint that you may want to put what you have just said before this Inquiry Board; you say the RA has acted honourably and properly at all times. You may want to put that information before us, you may not want to put it before us. But it seems to Judge LEVINSOHN and it seems to me too, that perhaps the better alternative now, is to give Mr Maselle the stakes document, stakes agreement and to postpone this matter for everybody to go away, digest the record of today’s proceedings and then convene again at a later stage.MR WAINSTEIN So do you just want to leave everything and do what I have to do? THE CHAIRMAN Reserve your rights.MR WAINSTEIN I’ll reserve my rights.THE CHAIRMAN And you’ll come back and tell us at a later point in time.MR WAINSTEIN That’s fine. I just think it’s a waste of time but anyway.
resumed hearing
CHAIRMAN This is the resumption of an Inquiry which commenced on the 18th of November 2011. It’s an inquiry into a complaint by Mr Brett Maselle, into a practice which he regards as discriminatory, namely that in certain Maiden Races, owners whose horses win and who are members of the Racing Association receive a bonus, whereas people such as he who are not members of the Racing Association do not qualify for that bonus.
Mr Larry Wainstein was here the last time representing the Racing Association, and after we heard certain evidence and had various debates, we postponed the inquiry specifically to enable Mr Maselle to be given a copy of the stakes agreement between the Racing Association and Phumelela. Mr Wainstein said that he would make that agreement available.
We’ve subsequently been told that certain parts of the agreement were made available. Certain parts were not. Mr Maselle has called for the further missing portions of the agreement and various annexures to the agreement; they have not been furnished. The Racing Association between last time and now has decided that it will attend no further. Phumelela was not here last time. It has decided not to attend. Both organizations, the Company and the Association take the attitude that the National Horseracing Authority does not have jurisdiction to inquire into the complaint raised by Mr Maselle and they say that they will not participate into what they have characterised as a fishing expedition by you Mr Maselle.
So they’ve refused to make the balance of the agreement available. They’ve refused to participate any further. You would have seen from the exchange of emails between the NHA and Phumelela and the Racing Association and between me and the Racing Association and Phumelela that we have urged them to be present. We’ve urged them to make the stakes agreement in its entirety available. They have refused to do so. I think we must debate what we do about that if anything and how much further we can go with this inquiry in the absence of the full agreement being made available. But against this background, it seems to me (and I haven’t debated this with Judge Levinsohn, I intended to in the car but I forgot about it quite frankly) that there is little further we can proceed. In one of the emails received recently from Phumelela, it appears to have adopted the attitude that the Racing Associaiton is good for racing and that anything that it can do, to promote the interests and the well being of the Racing Association, it will do and that the stakes bonuses are part of what it perceives as a means of assisting the Racing Association in its objectives. I think in these circumstances (I shall ask Judge Levinsohn to comment now) we can accept as a given, more specifically by virtue of what you explored with us the last time Mr Maselle, we can accept as a given that the bonuses which the Racing Association purports to pay on the Maiden Races which qualify for bonuses, are in fact, either paid by or received from Phumelela. So I think, Judge Levinsohn, are you happy with that?
JUDGE LEVINSOHN Well as I understood the evidence the last time, the Trust is the recipient of dividends from Phumelela and it in turn donates back to Phumelela a certain proportion of those dividends and part of that, the proceeds of which are used for these bonuses in the name of the Racing Association.
That’s as I understood it last time.
THE CHAIRMAN So I think we can accept…
MR ROODT Mr Chair, may I ask just to apropos your opening statement, just to clarify something…
THE CHAIRMAN Sorry I should have mentioned Mr Roodt at the outset, that in view of the attitude taken by Phumelela and the Racing Association, the NHA decided that it should get involved in this inquiry to assist us to the extent that its able to do so, and this is the reason why Mr Roodt is with us today.
MR ROODT Mr Chair, if I can just perhaps and I’m a bit of a “Johnny come lately”, but I was given a copy of the transcript and I see that the, as you correctly put it, the complaint that you were to be investigating is regarding the alleged discriminatory and dishonourable practice. In particular that bonuses are paid to members of the Racing Association in certain circumstances. That is how I understood was the compliant that lives before you.
Mr Chair, when this inquiry was initially convened, one of the things that troubled the NHA was whether in fact the NHA in these circumstances has jurisdiction to entertain the matter. That obviously has come home to roost because that is the attitude that the RA and Phumelela have taken. They are saying that in regard to the circumstances that Mr Maselle is complaining about, the NHA does not have jurisdiction and I think Mr Chair for that reason the very first issue that was placed before you and before the Judge was to decide whether in fact you have jurisdiction, if you believe you have jurisdiction, then obviously we have to identify what possible breach of the rules are in question and take it from there. But the fundamental question which is now being square put before you by the Racing Association and by Phumelela, is that they say we don’t have jurisdiction. I also know from the transcript that there was an invitation extended to Mr Wainstein to go and seek legal advice, I think he on a number of occasions said look I’m not a lawyer and I don’t quite know what’s happening and I don’t know which rule, etc etc. He certainly did take you up on that offer and we received a letter from his attorneys which I think has been made available to you and Mr Maselle, where they have taken the attitude that as far as the Racing Association is concerned, you don’t have the jurisdiction to entertain it, and it seems Mr Chair because I did phone the attorneys to try and persuade them to, because I understood that the whole stakes agreement had not been made available to ask them whether they were prepared to make it available to advocate Maselle. The attorney has authorised me to place on record that they won’t do so. They have advised their client that it is not subject to the jurisdiction of the NHA in these circumstances. That it will not be participating in the inquiry. No one will come to the inquiry. They said insofar as Mr Maselle wants to get a copy of the stakes agreement, he is welcome to approach any of the members of the RA, and they will make a copy available to the member who in turn, if he then so wishes can make a copy available to Mr Maselle.
So their attitude as I say, as was anticipated at the outset, is that they were going to adopt that attitude and as I say it’s come home.
THE CHAIRMAN Yes, the letter is the letter of the 14th of December, is that right?
MR ROODT Yes, where the Attorney Hazel de Souza…..
THE CHAIRMAN de Souza.
MR ROODT And I believe that she, so that’s the advice that they have given and they informed me to come and tell this inquiry Board that they are not participating until such time as we, you the Inquiry Board makes a finding that you have jurisdiction, which is something that troubled us right from the start Mr Chair and Judge, and that’s why when we initially, when Mr de Kock initially convened this inquiry, it was with that proviso we were very concerned that we don’t have the necessary jurisdiction to entertain what is essentially so of what is happening within the RA. I see that it has been contended that because Mr Wainstein sits on the NHA Board, that that gives us jurisdiction, it doesn’t give us jurisdiction over him in his capacity as a member of the RA and that’s what troubles us.
I see that it has been contended that because Mr Wainstein sits on the NHA Board, that that gives us jurisdiction, it doesn’t give us jurisdiction over him in his capacity as a member of the RA and that’s what troubles us.
The silence is deafening !
I note that du Plessis has a lot to say about Charles Savages letter. Let him come on here and explain how he believes he ( Phum ) are not bound to the NHA rules. I have no doubt that should he bother to respond, the answer will go along the lines that he was quoted out of context or the like.
Dimitri, i dont believe that Phumelela CEO, Rian du Plessis will get away with the tired “quoted out of context” excuse.
Its there in black and white, there can be no grey area, and can only be construed one way, as his e-mail in “The guns are drawn” article, states :
From: Riandp@phumelela.com [mailto:Riandp@phumelela.com]
Sent: 23 March 2012 18:38
To: Guy Hoffman
Subject: RE: Resumption of Hearing – Adv Maselle
Dear Adv Hoffman
We hereby formally submit to you that the NHA only has jurisdiction over its members and does not have jurisdiction over Phumelela. Accordingly we shall not be attending the hearing………
……………….
Yours sincerely
Rian du PlesSIS