Setting the record straight

Having been called a liar on social media without any context to back up the argument by a senior horseman I had until recently enjoyed a positive relationship with, I feel it is paramount to respond to such claims.

The original article published two weeks ago on Harnesslink in my name, while very much opinion based, was overly passionate and, at times, fell outside the lines of responsible journalism. I am not too proud to admit when I have gotten things wrong.

There seem to be only a couple of somewhat misguided areas of truth, which I would like to redact and clarify.

Disqualified license holder Nigel McGrath’s application did not include the provision to “pre-train” horses. It is a grey area of where breaking and gaiting stops, but the nuance is not defined and has ultimately been proven to be incorrect. It is my job to deal with facts and will seek to do and be better.

I was also wrong that a faction of HRNZ met with McGrath at his own property.

The chair, deputy chair, and a former chair met with McGrath at a café. Why the former chair was there, I have no idea? But they did meet offsite.

The other point of contention besides the chair owning a pair of soccer boots is whether the rule that allowed for McGrath’s application has, in fact, been in place for over three decades.

There has been a narrative coming out of some corners that due to the fact a disqualified license holder was allowed back into the industry under similar circumstances some 30 years ago (how much has the world changed since the 90’s???), that I was wrong and misguided in declaring any rule had been changed.

They might be referring to rule 1205 which HRNZ’s rules and constitution claim to have come into effect in 2015 whereby:

A person who has been disqualified for more than 12 months or who owns a horse which has been disqualified for more than 3 months may apply in writing to the Appeals Tribunal for a cancellation of the remainder of the disqualification.

My understanding is that the applicant never applied to have his disqualification cancelled.

It is pretty black and white that while a historical example may have occurred for re-entry by a disqualified person, it doesn’t change the fact that in October 2021, Rule 1303, which relates to disqualified license holders, was amended via a remit at the AGM with the clubs and kindred bodies via zoom.

This is the exact wording of Rule 1303 in the 2019/20 HRNZ Rules and Regulations.

A person who is disqualified may not during the period of disqualification:(b) train any horse, assist or be involved in any capacity in the training of any horse or assist or be involved in any capacity in the breaking or gaiting of any horse, or without the written consent of the Board assist be involved in any capacity with the preparation or presentation of a horse to race at a race meeting, picnic meeting, trial workout or gymkhana

This is what the rule/wording was amended to in the October 2021 AGM:

A person who is disqualified may not during the period of disqualification:
1 (C) Assist or be involved in any capacity in the breaking or gaiting of any horse without the written consent of the board.

The word change is there in bold, giving the board discretion to make special allowances.

The remit was passed lawfully by the clubs and kindred bodies at the Oct 2021 AGM, however, one could argue it is asking an awful lot of club and kindred body volunteers to interpret changes to legalese without the context of: a) what the previous wording said, and b) without having a change like that explained to them.

I understand from individuals involved on the zoom call that this particular remit was one of the final topics of a day that included 25 remits.

I have asked for minutes to show whether or not the board of HRNZ received an application from McGrath in December 2021, only a few weeks after the ruling had been amended.

I’ll leave it for you to interpret whether it is merely a coincidence that an application was received only a few weeks after the word change, pertaining specifically to the circumstances McGrath was seeking permission for.

While I have not been provided with the minutes, it is my understanding they did, and at the time, it was voted down. I am happy to be wrong about that, but I don’t believe I am given the sources.

There is no contesting that McGrath is not at fault here and was taking the avenues afforded to him within the rules of harness racing in this country.

Realistically this is not an issue centered around the individual but more so around good governance and whether the integrity of our industry is being upheld in a professional manner by our elected officers.

I take heavy umbrage, however, at being called a liar and, subsequently, the narrative that historical provisions to accept disqualified license holders means that the rule change never took place.

It is black and white that under the 2019/20 rules, the board of HRNZ had no ability to give discretion in the first place.

It has been communicated to me that a possible solution or outcome to this saga is that any use of the Rule 1303, board discretions, should be publicly notified for around 28 days prior to board consideration.  Just the same as the Parole Board does when considering early release.

The purpose of any justice system is centered around punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

While I am not aware of any restorative processes from the individual made prior to the application being approved, it does make a lot of sense going forward as a possible solution.

The other narrative that I seek to clarify is that I am a disgruntled former employee who is enjoying operating from a ‘soap box’. Anyone who thinks its enjoyable putting your head above the sand like that wants their head read.

I don’t need to get into my previous employment other than to say I left on good terms, something that is minuted in the July 2022 board meeting. Taking an opportunity to work from home, where I have a one-year-old son at is something I am proud to have been in a position to accept.

But point scoring against my former employees, I was not, and I have written several pieces in a short space of time at Harnesslink, giving credit where it is due to the governing body.

Like anyone with a good conscience and moral compass, the desire to operate and participate in an industry that values transparency and integrity should if anything, be what we all strive for.

HRNZ were provided with an opportunity for a right of reply, something they chose not to accept. Aside from having the opportunity to provide transparency and facts around their decision, it was also an opportunity (lost) to show some leadership and possibly set the record straight.

If I can ultimately hold my hand up and accept accountability for my actions, hopefully, one day, the industry can too.

by Brad Reid, for Harnesslink