Learning From Experience
Having caught a belated flight to Palm Beach,
Alec Hogg reflects on what the RA should take from the attempt to fire its directorate.

During the past few weeks, I’ve been immersed in the Pulitzer Prize-winning autobiography of US publisher Katherine Graham. Although best known for her stewardship of the Washington Post during the Watergate years, that global event was only one of many enormous challenges this courageous woman faced in her eventful life.
Graham devotes as just many pages to bitter clashes with the trades union during the 1970s as she does to her paper’s tenacity in uncovering a story which forced President Richard Nixon to resign (and introduced the term “….gate” for any would-be scandal worldwide).
From today’s perspective it’s hard to believe the outrageous behaviour which was taken for granted in that era of industrial strife. Union members, who were otherwise law abiding citizens, felt entirely justified in willfully sabotaging or smashing equipment; beating up managers and scabs; and blatantly lying to management when they needed to.
Hopefully when we later look back on events of the past few weeks in South Africa racing, there will be a similar sense of surrealism to Americans reflecting on the labour unrest of the 1970s.
With the big vote scheduled for Wednesday, by the time you read this the matter which has occupied so much time and energy of the Racing Association board members – and their critics – will be behind us. It hasn’t been a picnic. Hopefully there will be a positive side; that it will introduce a new chapter of co-operation and progress.
Late last week, the leaders of the “Concerned Owners” group informed the RA in writing that they wanted to withdraw their motion to eject the directors. The process, they said, had brought to light many facts of which they had been unaware.
Although the law meant the vote had to go ahead anyway, it’s clear the rebels now believe the board which was so readily maligned is not doing such a bad job after all.
Their attack, it now transpires, actually stemmed from unhappiness at the operating culture of racing operator Phumelela. It was the result of small niggles accumulating into too many straws on the proverbial camel’s back.
Larry Wainstein and Joe Soma, the leaders of the rebel group, are to be applauded for their belated adoption of a mature approach. In emotion-charged confrontations like these, it is never easy to change your mind. Tougher still when your banner had attracted malcontents determined to use the opportunity to settle their own scores.
My own relief at Larry and Joe’s decision to withdraw is not entirely altruistic.
The end of hostilities meant after a few calls to our efficient travel agent, I was able to resurrect the second leg of a long-planned trip to the North that had to be postponed by the fracas.
The rebels’ timing was also impeccable. They’ve made sure I’m happily soaking up the paradise of Palm Beach – and later the brilliance of Warren Buffett - without having wasted hard cash witnessing last week’s humiliation of the Proteas.
As the Washington Post did 30 years ago, we at the Racing Association have learnt a great deal from the events of the past few weeks. Primarily that an organization with such a pivotal role in horseracing cannot be run by a tiny staff and a voluntary directorate.
The recently departed General Manager Colin Gordon struggled manfully against huge odds. His successor inherits a hard-working but badly overloaded team. They must have much more on-the-ground support.
Spare a thought, too, for the Acting GM Lionel Lindsay who good naturedly agreed to help the RA in an “acting” capacity as he wound down after a career with a major corporate. It landed him with the highest pressure role of everybody. Some temporary “retirement job”!
Mrs Graham writes that the Washington Post’s management learnt from the strikes of the 1970s there is no such thing as too much communication, or too many channels.
That’s a lesson we now at the RA have shares.
During the two and a half years I’ve been on its board, my impression is the RA directorate is most comfortable when hiding its light under a bushel. Its members’ efforts are focused on simply getting on with the job. Much of it has been the time-consuming and often tedious implementation of appropriate structures and, at a Phumelela level, gathering the facts and, patiently prodding management.
In this time, the RA has relied on too many traditional communication tools – newsletters, a static website, printed newsletters, rare updates in Sporting Post/Racing Express – and paid a heavy price. This hands-off approach has stimulating racing’s already well established rumour mill that already generates an overload of false, malicious gossip.
A new approach to communication is needed. That is sure to be the top priority of the new General Manager. Only in so doing will he or she ensure RA members need never again resort to such a destructive approach.
Alec Hogg, a media entrepreneur who has held colours since 1986, is an owner, breeder and director of the RA and Phumelela. He writes in a personal capacity.

Every Vote Counts
Alec Hogg’s urges racehorse owners to exercise their right to vote – or risk losing their association forever.

Next Wednesday, 1 800 members of the Racing Association will decide whether to eject their entire board, myself included. I’m convinced it would be a disaster for racehorse owners and the South African industry, should RA members support the call to replace us.
But that’s democracy. It allows us to make mistakes. And then wallow in the consequences.
Since the dawn of civilization, democracy has been the battleground between emotion and logic. Usurpers from the time of the Greeks through to today, often turned to populist weapons of half-truths and gossip to challenge the status quo.
In essence, that’s been repeated in the fight for the board of the RA this past month.
The May 2 Special General Meeting, to be held at the Thoroughbred Breeders’ Association at 3pm, was requisitioned by a loose alliance of malcontents. All the law requires is for 100 members to express their support. Though loaded questions (“Could racing be better?”) it’s easy to sign the names.
That many of those who signed the requisition have changed their minds since being availed of the facts, is not the point. What the rebels started opened the way for a destructive campaign of defamation and wild accusations.
They refused to discuss their grievances in a mature forum, gambling instead on winning the vote from members. Their campaign was driven through personal attacks against individuals who serve on the RA board, a directorate which members now realize is the strongest a voluntary organization like this could possibly hope for.
With the day of reckoning fast approaching, the rebels last week finally showed their hand. This came through a rambling Manifesto published in this newspaper. A Manifesto which, together with a public statement on television, unveiled their true agenda.
The rebels, clearly, desire the Racing Association to be dominated by bookmakers, trainers, breeders and jockeys. Cut through the noise and this looks to be an attempt to hijack the only body that represents the racehorse owner – a bunch of people whose R200m a year voluntary “investment” makes them the true funders of South African horseracing.
It may not have dawned on the rebels that bookmakers, trainers, breeders and jockeys have their own associations which serve their interests. Or that by the very nature of the different beasts, there are obviously times when the interests of owners will be very different to those of racing’s other stakeholders.
Last year’s strike by the jockeys is an example.
The race riders demanded the annual increase in their earnings to be over 50%. Racehorse owners cough up more than half of the jockeys’ remuneration directly. So it was a demand which, obviously, had a direct impact on the interests of RA members.
The RA took a tough stand against what the board regarded as an outrageous demand. The jockeys disagreed. Like the requisitionist rebels, they gambled on facing down the RA board. Their power play failed, the strike fizzling out without any serious disruption to the racing industry.
It boggles the imagination how a dispute of this kind would handled by an RA directorate manned by the rebels. The massively conflicted loyalties of their proposed representatives would turn such discussions into a circus.
Only God has sight of the future. But from the feedback we have received, the vast majority of the RA membership supports the existing board. Indeed, most members I talk to believe it will be no contest. I hope they’re right. That kind of result would encourage current board members their efforts are appreciated by the majority.
But the prediction of a landslide is in itself a major threat.
In complacency are sown the seeds of disaster. By thinking their support won’t really matter, the silent majority in the RA might not take the trouble to vote. Why worry, they may reason, if the result is a foregone conclusion?
One hopes that kind of thinking does not prevail. This wouldn’t be the first important vote lost through the overconfident lethargy of the electorate.
Every vote counts. If you have one, please be sure to use that right. The future of the RA, and the continued involvement of many racehorse owners, depends on it.

Alec Hogg, a media entrepreneur who has held colours since 1986, is an owner, breeder and director of the RA and Phumelela. He writes in a personal capacity.

Who Needs A Paying Job?
Alec Hogg’s account of the latest in the battle for the RA boardroom.

Whoever said racing administration was boring never experienced Johannesburg circa 2007.
The past week was another reminder never to disappoint a Chinese hawker. The old Chinese curse of living in “interesting times” must have been issued on me a few times during last December’s visit to Beijing.
In the past week, these “interesting times” continued.
The decision by Larry Wainstein’s rebel group to go to war with the RA directorate turned my diary on its head. Business and personal commitments were wiped out. Especially during the past few days as a deluge of calls came in from fellow racehorse owners.
The phone started ringing after an early morning Teletrack discussion with Markus Jooste and Robin Bruss. They continued as eyeballs hit my piece in last weekend’s Sporting Post in which I articulated concerns about the way the saga was developing.
This hasn’t been fun. But fortunately, it wasn’t all destructive. And some timeous reminders have been provided, especially about the power of established communication vehicles.
No matter how much people love to criticize Teletrack, jusding by how many people watched our discussion, the dedicated TV channel it is clearly doing a lot right. And if you want to reach the racing industry, Sporting Post has enormous reach.
The reaction also suggested that many in the racing industry need to be reminded of the Roman legal term Caveat Subscriptor – “let the signer beware”. From what I’ve been told in the past week, many who supported the rebels didn’t think through the implications of signing that call for a Special General Meeting to eject the RA directors.
Those who forgot about “caveat subscriptors” are in good company. Breeder David Southey and owner Greg Blank are among the more prominent racing personalities who admitted to me they didn’t fully appreciate their signatures supported.
Greg thought he was expressing concerns against Phumelela, not the RA. He will definitely be voting against the May 2 motion calling for the replacement of the RA board.
David Southey was more specific: “I am embarrassed and ashamed to say that I acted in complete ignorance of the true situation. I received the request from Wainstein for support and I, in my ignorance, presumed that this was a general request from the ‘floor’ for the resignation of the board. I watched the interview on Teletrack with Robin Bruss and was totally horrified at my impetuous reaction to give my vote to the rebel group without knowing anything about the facts.
“Having watched both interviews on Teletrack I am even more convinced that the current board must be retained. I found the ‘rebel group’ to be rather uninformed and most unconvincing. The conflict has, however, revealed the urgent need for better communication and transparency.”
On a more positive note, the saga has been a trigger for the RA board to improve communication. It’s also a timely reminder of the expertise and knowledge that racing could and should call upon.
It was heartening for me to receive spontaneous offers of support from a number of racing’s new generation of heavyweights including our globetrotting Champion Trainer Mike de Kock; owner extraordinaire Robert Bloomberg; and SA’s world class thoroughbred researcher and publisher Charles Faull.
In amongst all of this, I also received a call from Ronnie Napier who together with Laurie Jaffee, had approached the rebels a fortnight back to broker a truce before – as has since happened – things turned nasty.
Ronnie says he had been called by Larry Wainstein to complain that a sentence in my contribution to last week’s Sporting Post was misleading. I said the rebels turned down two peace-offering proposals from the RA board. Apparently they never heard the proposals.
I was under the impression that having been mandated to do so by the RA board, the proposals would be a key part of these peacemaking discussions. But Ronnie tells me although the meeting with the rebels took two hours, the RA board’s offer was never raised. Why not, I asked? Because he treated the meeting as ground work to convince the rebels to jaw not war. Hmmm.
Obviously it didn’t work out the way Ronnie had hoped. The rebels’ campaign has been accelerated since that meeting, relying heavily on slander and defaming elected RA board members.
That this libelous approach could have serious legal consequences is not the point. Rather, it makes one wonder about their true motives. As any reasonable person must when confronted with a party which believes in shooting first and, only if they miss, then think about discovering the facts.

Alec Hogg, a media entrepreneur who has held colours since 1986, is an owner, breeder and director of the RA and Phumelela. He writes in a personal capacity.

No Winners In This War

In a new feature RA and Phumelela director Alec Hogg offers his personal perspectives. This week he looks at the attempt to fire him and other RA board members.

Around two and a half years ago, a couple of long serving racing gents encouraged me to “get involved” in the Racing Association, the body which looks after the interests of racehorse owners nationally except the Western Cape and KZN.
Both fretted that since Government-enforced corporatization, the industry was on a slippery slope. And as they had long since passed the retirement age of 70, neither of them were able to become personally involved.
Mostly, they despaired at how the operating company Phumelela seemed to be chasing every buck to generate profit for its shareholders at the expense of racing itself. Like a farmer overgrazing his paddocks, the sport seemed to be slowly slipping into an abyss.
There’s no doubt the vocal support by these two – Laurie Jaffee and Ormond Ferraris – ensured that my nomination was successful in 2004’s Racing Association election, the last of the annual elections to have been contested.
Serving on the board has been a fascinating although time consuming experience. But considering what has happened in the past couple of months, perhaps it would have been better had members decided one of the other candidates in that election, Larry Wainstein, been voted onto the board in my stead.
Wainstein is the public face of a “Concerned Owner’s Group” which gathered 114 signatories in calling for the heads of the entire RA directorate, myself included. It saddens me that a number of those who signed didn’t have the courtesy to call me first. But that’s life.
As for Mr Wainstein, one cannot fault his enthusiasm. Larry says he is on a mission to “fix” the sport. Apart from flyers distributed at the races and emails sent to RA members, he’s employ ladies to use tele-sales tactics posing leading questions about the state of racing and ask whether members would like it changed.
What bothers me about all this is not the prospect of being relieved of a voluntary and, let’s face it, thankless position. Or that in arguing its case the “Concerned Owners Group” steadfastly ignored the facts, switching targets every time their most recent rallying call proves to be without merit.
Rather, it’s because this is based on gossip and emotion, not facts. This has been fuelled by those who find a perverse pleasure in attacking others prepared to make a contribution. Emotion and the truth are poor bedfellows. Predictably, allegations have morphed from the reasonable to baseless personal attacks.
Some of the concerns that had been raised are precisely issues which worried me before my election to the RA board. Once in that position of trust, however, I was forced to invest in finding out what really gives. The facts painted a different picture, one where much of the talk proved to be just that.
I guess those of us on the board should be welcoming the opportunity to communicate the RA’s work to an apathetic membership (less than 1% bother to attend the AGM) that’s now suddenly receptive to a flow of information.
But on deeper reflection, this is cold comfort. The way the whole thing has developed, no matter which side wins the vote, racing will lose.
Laurie Jaffee, Ronnie Napier and other wise heads understood this and tried to facilitate a truce by calling a meeting with Larry Wainstein’s group. They carried a mandate from the RA directorate to jaw, not war.
Why not co-opt some of Larry’s group onto the RA board where they would be forced to confront the facts? Or, as their beef is mainly with the three who are both Phumelela and RA directors, offer that Markus Jooste, Chris van Niekerk and myself immediately step down as RA directors and stand for re-election against the Wainstein group’s nominees.
These proposals were rejected. Team Wainstein say that a process has started which they don’t want to call off now. They’re gambling on winning the vote on May 2. What they intend doing thereafter is anyone’s guess.
There’s absolutely no doubt in my mind that the 1 800 members of the RA will reject this emotional attack. As they avail themselves of the facts, racehorse owners will realize – as I did - that this is probably the strongest and most committed RA board they could ever have hoped for. It’s a board whose only flaw, perhaps, is being low on self-promotion.
But the membership’s rejection of Wainstein’s proposal will only arrest, not reverse the damage it is causing.
Positions have been taken. Egos are being inflated and attacked, inflicting deep wounds. Precious relationships between trainers and their patrons; buyers and breeders, are being tested. All of this over an issue driven by emotion, not facts.
Whichever way the vote goes on May 2, racing will lose more of its true funders – those couple thousand owners who, as Robin Bruss’s research shows, write-off more than R200m a year through their “investment” into the sport they love. They will spend their money somewhere else. Somewhere less intent on self-destruction.
At a recent meeting fellow RA director Peter “Tyson” Naidoo expressed it best. If only, he said, more heeded the Mahatma’s advice that any challenge can be overcome by Discussion and Compromise. Unfortunately in this case, the wisdom of a Gandhi is only noticeable by its absence.
Alec Hogg, a media entrepreneur who has held colours since 1986, is an owner, breeder and director of the RA and Phumelela. He writes in a personal capacity.