George Orwell
Picture it. Champions Day 2016. Although the exact details remain sketchy, according to eye witness accounts a senior racing authority was seen throwing a punch at a member of the public. That racing authority was Mr Larry Wainstein, CEO of the RA and until recently, a director of the NHA. An official complaint has been lodged with the NHA, although the alleged victim has yet to make himself known. Obviously there are two sides to every story – and the truth generally lies somewhere in the middle – so I make it a policy to afford people the benefit of the doubt before jumping to conclusions – no matter how tempting or deliciously gratifying those conclusions might be.
I did request official comment / feedback on the matter and have done so on three separate occasions since the alleged incident occurred. And each time Merle Parker responded politely, but firmly that the matter had not been attended to (which is not casting aspersions on Merle in any way – she is merely doing her job and relaying information). The incident occurred in excess of 3 weeks ago now and there has still been no official comment from either the NHA or the RA. As there is little the racing public loves as much the prospect of blood in the water (if not the parade ring), the deafening silence from the halls of power has only served to intensify the feeding frenzy. While the theories, claims and counter-claims grow ever more fantastic, it’s the industry as a whole that loses, as the scandal – alleged or otherwise – smears yet more muck on a community that some might argue is grubby enough already, thank you.
Although the matter clearly deserves comment, it is hard to decide on the correct approach. On the one hand, the incident is so absurd and the way it has been handled so poor that it practically begs for ridicule, but “WTF” is large bold letters would leave me well short of my required word count. On the other, it is yet another glaring example of local racing’s impotence (incompetence?) in the face of even the most basic PR exercise and therefore deserves a good, hard look.
While I have had a well-publicised run in with Mr Wainstein in the past in which retribution was swift, brutal and very public, passing comment on his actions from my point of view is perhaps not prudent. However, as a racing fan and member of the greater racing community, this incident touches me as much as it does the next person as it is a reflection of the regard in which bodies such as the RA, the NHA and even the Racing Trust hold the public. The Racing Association website proudly lists photos from Champions Day, an article on how to get Twitter and follow racing and even a report on last weekend’s RA Feature Season Awards, what is conspicuous by its absence is a comment / statement / anything on the alleged Champions day incident. No confirmation, no denial, in fact, no word of any sort. And much the same goes for the NHA.
The unspoken message seems clear, “We will deal with this as and when WE see fit.”
Why this is bad practice
Racing is a sport (or a business, depending on your point of view) that depends on public support – and more importantly – public spend – to keep the lights on. One might even like to call those members of the public ‘customers’. As such, it is interesting to view this incident from a PR point of view.
There are a plethora of recent incidents to compare it against and had an authority figure in any other business physically assaulted a customer, that individual would immediately have been suspended from duties while the matter was investigated, there would have been a swift public statement from the relevant business authority assuring the public that the matter was in hand, shortly followed by either a public apology and reinstatement of duties, or alternatively a dismissal. Yet, despite our foreign posturing and supposed desire to be part of the international racing community, local racing insists on operating under the premise that we are special and somehow exempt from normal practice. So while those in authority (hopefully) try and find some time to coordinate their diaries, the rest of the world can take a number.
Let’s be objective
Before deciding whether (or how much) to be outraged by that (if it is indeed true and the attitude is one of arrogance, rather than just pitifully slow administrative procedures), it’s always a good idea to start with some definitions in order to get to the heart of the matter. Firstly, is racing a sport, or is it an industry? As the cost of bloodstock spirals ever upwards and we discuss horses in terms of shares, returns on investment and dissect them in terms of bottom lines (I doubt most bother much with real anatomy these days), it seems we are teetering ever closer to the term ‘industry’. On the other hand, racing is referred to as a sporting event, the Kentucky Derby is the ‘fastest two minutes in sport’, our jockeys are referred to in revered tones as sportsmen and locally, we go to great lengths to host jockey internationals, going so far as to bestow national colours on the chosen few. We even have the sanction of SASCOC, who patronise our Triple Crown series and fill two seats on the Racing Trust.
So for the sake of argument (and for convenience – I am nothing if not mercenary) I am choosing to go with the sports moniker. If we take that a little further, then the internet helpfully defines a ‘sportsman’ as “someone who takes part in a sport, especially as a professional” or “a man who takes part in sports, especially of the outdoor type”. Another definition is
“a person who exhibits qualities highly regarded in sport, such as fairness, generosity, observance of the rules, and good humour when losing.”
In turn, ‘sportsmanship’ is defined as “ethical, appropriate, polite and fair behaviour while participating in a game or athletic event. When a basketball player plays by the rules, is fair to his opponent and is gracious when he loses, this is an example of sportsmanship.” Another defines it in the context of conduct as follows: “conduct (as fairness, respect for one’s opponent, and graciousness in winning or losing) becoming to one participating in a sport; fair play, respect for opponents, and polite behaviour by someone who is competing in a sport or other competition.”
Huh.
Of course, there is the argument that Mr Wainstein (or any other racing official for that matter) is not employed as a sportsman and merely in an administrative capacity and should therefore be exempt from the above. That is fair comment, but Mr Wainstein not only heads up the RA and takes pains to represent it in a very visible fashion on the podium, microphone and TV screen from all our feature race meetings, but is also (according to him) the administrator in charge of the fabled Racing Trust. As the guardian and representative of both these bodies, should this conduct be considered becoming or even appropriate? If yes, it’s certainly a novel approach. And if not, then why have none of these august bodies uttered a single word about it?
Apart from his administrative responsibilities, Mr Wainstein is also a colour holder and thus falls subject to the same NHA rules as the rest of us. If an official and / or a member attempting to brawl with a member of the public in the parade ring does not fall foul of the infamous Rule 71.1.26, then I really don’t know what does.
And as the NHA traditionally calls for an inquiry faster than you can say ‘public forum’, it’s rather odd that they have chosen to remain silent on this for as long as they have.
I tend to regard sport as a leisure pursuit and something to be done for fun, exercise and / or entertainment. But given the huge sponsorships, endorsements and revenue associated with sport these days, perhaps serious sport is more like serious business. If we are serious about our business, then it follows that we must also be serious about the people that relentlessly plough their hard earned cash into it on a continuous basis. If we are serious about clawing back support from other gambling options, sports and leisure activities, then we need to take a long, hard look at ourselves and decide whether we have any business even attempting that before we can look at the mirror and be proud of what we see. If we don’t and more particularly, if we don’t do it quickly, people are going to keep walking away until we remedy things. Or risk falling in a heap altogether.
George Orwell famously described sport as follows, “Serious sport has nothing to do with fair play. It is bound up with hatred, jealousy, boastfulness, disregard of all rules and sadistic pleasure in witnessing violence. In other words, it is war minus the shooting.”
Perhaps he is right. However, I recently came a cross another internet find which I rather like. It reads: “Not every day is a good day, live anyway. Not everyone tells the truth, trust anyway. Not everyone will love you back, love anyway. Not every game will be fair, play anyway.”
It will be interesting to see what the halls of power decide.
