Cover image courtesy of TracksideNZ
It’s just gone 6 o’clock on the morning of April 25, the day we Australians and New Zealanders pause to remember an essential part of our history as ANZACs together.
No, I’m not down at the local cenotaph for the dawn parade; instead I’m in the office of my Matamata home, tuned into the live television coverage of our capital’s dawn service.
How timely therefore, that I want to discuss what I, along with others, see as the erosion of democracy in racing. My tribute to democracy and what it should constitute has been inspired by something I found myself in the middle of last week, but first some context.
This time last year my wife Lynn and I were packing our bags for an extended holiday, in which our travels were to take us to Lille in north-west France, within easy reach of the French and Belgian sites of the trench warfare of World War 1’s Western Front.
Mine was a personal odyssey, seeking the final whereabouts of my great uncle, Lance Corporal George Ambrose Quinlan, whose young life had ended in the trenches of the Somme in March 1918.
I was able to track my grandmother’s brother down – or at least his name on a commemorative wall – at the Grévillers soldiers’ cemetery near the village of Mailly-Maillet.
A generation later my own father served in the Pacific theatre of World War 2, while my wife’s father spent more than four years as a POW in Germany. Both survivors thankfully, but like so many others, valued contributors to democracy all the same.
Tucked away here in our corner of the globe, these days we’re mostly insulated from the conflicts taking place elsewhere, but that shouldn’t remove democracy from our minds, nor from the principles we live by as individuals.
Via this open letter, I therefore feel compelled to state my deep concern that democracy in the racing industry is becoming so dispensable.
Readers of this publication would be only too aware of Vicky Leonard’s fight against the authority that is Racing NSW and its CEO Peter V’landys. In my view, public-interest commentary about racing governance should sit within the bounds of a healthy democratic industry, even where those criticised strongly disagree.
Since stepping back to a life of relative leisure and no longer a slave to deadlines, I’ve continued to contribute on a freelance basis to a number of media outlets.
Until last week one of those was the gallop code’s governing body, New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing, for which I penned regular articles that appeared on Love Racing’s news page as well as being distributed to wider media.
That came to crashing halt last Wednesday when I was pulled up for suggesting an article about a young trainer, Kurtis Pertab. He had been thrust into the spotlight as the substitute trainer for another young member of our training ranks, Cody Cole, following his 12-month disqualification for not allowing a drug test.
Having prepared one winner from 60 starters this season up to last week, 24-year-old Pertab suddenly found himself with more than 30 acceptors at race meeting across Anzac weekend.
Sounds like a worthy story with immense public interest, wouldn’t you think? Wrong. NZTR made it clear to me that any article referencing Cole - even in a minimal, factual sense - would not be approved for publication.
Me being me, I saw red, notified NZTR that I would be resigning forthwith and penned communications to that effect.
The only response came from NZTR chairman Russell Warwick, on the phone to me first thing Thursday expressing his apologies at what had come to pass.
Meanwhile, Pertab trebled his season tally with a double at Rotorua last Wednesday, followed by another two at Otaki on Friday, including the Listed Anzac 1600 with Atmospheric, and a quinella at Te Rapa on Saturday.
The situation is made more sensitive by the ownership and management overlaps surrounding some of the horses affected by Cole’s disqualification. A number of runners subsequently appearing under Pertab’s name sat within a broader network of industry interests that intersect with senior figures.
I make no suggestion of improper conduct. But it is precisely in situations like this that transparency matters. Where a governing body restricts a legitimate racing story tied to a high-profile disciplinary matter - and where there are visible overlaps between governance and ownership - the industry is entitled to clarity around how any potential conflicts are identified and managed.
The better course would have been simple: allow the facts to be reported plainly, accurately and without embellishment.
For what it’s worth, my advice is why don’t you all draw breath and reset. Even if that requires some internal reflection at NZTR, the end result would be better for the organisation and its constituents.
That would be a beneficial start to rebuilding what are becoming increasingly fractured relationships.
This isn’t just about me. It’s about where media belongs and should be positioned with robust, balanced and unhindered commentary.
It’s also about an industry centered on horses and their people, that relies on a governing body that is seen to provide strong, well-informed leadership. That would also require transparency, an open forum where healthy and frank dialogue is permitted, where everyone is able to work openly with a common goal.
Maybe then we would have a community able to enjoy a landscape that encourages genuine and passionate contributors rather than one that drives them away.
It’s called democracy, something to be valued in our industry and something that must be allowed to not only survive but prosper.
