The National Horseracing Authority has responded to the Sporting Post’s request for clarity on the abolition of a rule that effectively denies further funding from the regulatory body to the Trainer’s and Rider’s Benevolent Fund.
Rule 95.4 reads that ‘ Twenty percent of all fines imposed and deposits forfeited shall be transferred from the general funds of the NATIONAL HORSERACING AUTHORITY to the funds of the Trainers’ and Riders’ Benevolent Fund’.
Lyndon Barends (photo: hamishNIVENPhotography)
Comments made by Messrs Steve Reid and Paul Rose on www.sportingpost.co.za in regard to the scrapping of this rule, which announcement was published in the National Horseracing Authority calendar on 8 July, were forwarded to NHA MD Lyndon Barends for a response.
Barends, who has been a media friendly breath of fresh air since his appointment on 15 March this year, said that after much thought he had decided not to respond to individual comments made about the NHA ‘but rather to address the substantive issues at hand’.
He said that at the meeting of the National Board which took place on 30 July 2015, the Board took the decision to wind down the Riders’ and Trainers’ Benevolent Fund.
This decision followed lengthy discussions regarding the core functions and responsibilities of the NHA.
He went on to say that the Board took into account that there are currently a number of Benevolent Funds which serve the same, or a similar, purpose.
KZN, Western Cape and Gauteng have a benevolent fund in place already and therefore in some instances there was a degree of duplication.
Barends confirmed that in terms of the decision taken by the National Board, no further amounts would be paid into the Fund. He said that once the Fund was exhausted, the beneficiaries would be paid from the NHA’s general funds.
In other words, those persons who were currently receiving grants from the Fund would continue to do so.
Incoming beneficiaries will be covered by the other Benevolent Funds.
Although the decision to wind down the Benevolent Fund was taken nearly a year ago, the Rule which requires that 20% of all fines be paid into the Benevolent Fund was not amended at that time.
The Rule has therefore now been amended.
“The NHA will continue to support those who are on the current Benevolent Fund but would rely on the other Benevolent Funds for any new needs of support,” he said.
He closed our interview with a courteous request regarding posters on the public forums.
“I would like to call on your readers to first take concerns up with the NHA before making derogatory comments on a public site, which might or might not be true. First action should probably always be to contact the organisation in question and, if there’s no response, they can consider their options with due respect to the that organisation,” he suggested.
The comments which were forwarded by us to Mr Barends, and which formed the basis of this interview, are listed below.
On 10 July, Steve Reid said:
On Friday the NHA quietly scrapped rule 95.4. This rule originally allowed for all monies received through fines, being allocated to the trainers and jockeys benevolent funds. It was changed to only 20% of the monies received in 2014, and now every cent received goes back to the NHA. Taken from the minutes of the 133rd AGM:
“Adv Maselle pointed out that the Rules had previously stated that all fines paid and deposits forfeited had to be paid to the Riders’ and Trainers’ Benevolent Fund. The Rules had then been amended to state that only 20% of the fines and deposits forfeited should go to the Fund. The 2014 Financial Statements showed that only 14 or 15 percent had been paid to the Fund.
The query was referred to the auditors present at the meeting, who responded by saying that it would have to be investigated to establish how the amount was determined. It was possible that this was as a result of timing differences. Adv Maselle said that it was unacceptable that the Directors had approved the Financial Statements when a simple calculation would have shown that the amounts paid into the Benevolent Fund was incorrect. The Chairman said that this was an auditing issue and that the auditors had suggested it may be a timing issue.”
It is not hard to work out what is happening. The NHA are now trying to balance their embarrassing financial situation and dependence on the operators for survival by hiking the fines for their financial advantage. It is no longer an impartial exercise as the NHA are the only beneficiaries. This organisation can no longer be termed independent, and most definitely cannot be seen to promote integrity as a core value. Good luck to all members who are called before an inquiry board. Their will be a budget number hanging over your head before you open your mouth. The NHA is an embarrassment.
On 10 July Paul Rose said:
Will the Sporting Post please ask the National Horse Racing Authority to explain why rule 95.4 was deleted to be favor the back pocket of the National Horse Racing Authority instead of those needy riders and trainers and their families?
If Steve Reid is correct in what he has said about the National Horse Racing Authority’s financial situation it shows that the absence of Western Cape racing, Phumelela and Gold Circle on the board of the National Horse Racing Authority was planned by these megalomaniacal companies. I am sure they are waiting for the National Horse Racing Authority to come to them cap in hand and for that it will have to beg and give these companies whatever they want. Goodnight horse racing.
