NHRA - “a myriad of alarming concerns”

Delpech mentioned on Turf talk taking pain killers through his career. Yet the heroes want no help for equines feeling niggles, but it’s cool jockeys can race on opioids?

Dave Scott wrote:

Xxccccxxxxxxxxxxxxcxxxxxxxxxxxx

Why don't the breeders of those horses who have come to the end of their careers not buy them back?
After all they must be emotionally attached from seeing the foals born then growing into a yearling for the sales and then either setting the tracks alight or giving the owner sleepless nights.
Yep, especially when the MR has them caught up in a high.
Or would they prefer the abbatoir as the end result?

@EquinePedigrees

I will start by saying that I am not a fan of Peters nor the NHRA. Although I have backed almost 80% of the slow Cape Racing horses that relocated to the Peters stable when they won.

This is a social media platform and you may be confusing this platform with your expectations of the presence of the principles of just administrative action on this platform or on any other social media platform.

I find absolutely no flaws with the statement made by Bob. Its unclear to me how you can draw conclusions of speculation, conjecture, undue influence, claims of external pressure, conspiratorial, active meddling and unverified sources - from this statement.

With all due respect, the views presented seem to overlook key legal and ethical principles that govern the domain of horseracing, and more broadly, any professional sport. Your personal experiences with backing specific horses and your opinions about particular stables may indeed be valid from an individual perspective, but they cannot be considered as objective or authoritative evidence in a legal discussion.

Principle of Fair Administration: While social media platforms are indeed informal venues for discussion, the matters in question here pertain to professional integrity, ethical compliance, and the rules of horseracing. Expectations for just and fair administrative action are not confined to legal settings alone; they extend to any public discussion where reputations, careers, and the integrity of a sport are at stake.

Infallibility of Statements: Your assertion of finding "absolutely no flaws" with the statement might overlook the nuances involved in legal interpretation and evaluation. Law is rarely absolute, and claiming so may undermine the critical analysis required for a fair assessment.

Conclusions Drawn: While the statement may not overtly present speculation, conjecture, undue influence, and the like, it does provide a subjective interpretation of events that could be influenced by personal biases or incomplete information. The legal scrutiny of such statements must consider the broader context, available evidence, and the applicable rules and regulations.

Duty of the NHA: The NHA, as the regulating body, has a clear mandate to ensure compliance with the rules, protect the welfare of the horses, and maintain the integrity of the sport. This responsibility necessitates rigorous investigation and, at times, difficult decisions. Any claims of targeted or biased actions by the NHA must be substantiated with concrete evidence rather than personal opinions or anecdotal experiences.

Overall Balance: It is imperative to strike a balance between protecting the rights and interests of trainers and upholding the rules and standards of horseracing. While disagreements with specific decisions or procedures by the NHA are legitimate subjects for debate, they must be approached with a careful and comprehensive understanding of the law, the rules of the sport, and the overriding principles of fairness, integrity, and welfare.In conclusion, while the views expressed are acknowledged and respected as part of a robust dialogue, it is essential to approach such complex matters with the legal rigor, objectivity, and careful analysis that they demand.

A seasoned judge may struggle with this thread.
Anyone who earns a living through the patronage of others, should be subject to scrutiny from the same patrons. If there is uncertainty, people will speculate. Just be grateful people in the game are still interested. If people are not debating in this game, there is no game.
How many lawsuits would Roy Keane face for the comments he makes about players and managers without evidence?
It’s simple really, if there is objective evidence that a rule is broken, follow through with a sanction. If a frowned upon practice is prevalent then relook at the rules, consult and make a decision.

In the interest of Robust dialogue and I will start off with WITH RESPECT, it’s a flawed view that “just [and fair] administrative action” “extends to any public discussion”. This I conclude from my read of paragraph 33 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa as there is no procedural fairness that can apply to a public discussion.

I trust that you are also well aware of every persons right to an opinion as set out in paragraph 15(1). Furthermore, you should take note of paragraph 16 FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION and specifically

16. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes—
(a) freedom of the press and other media;
(b) freedom to receive or impart information or ideas;

The Constitution provides adequate guidance for its citizens to determine the tramlines for expressing opinions and freedom of expression.

Your references to “legal discussions” and “legal settings” and “legal interpretation” and “legal scrutiny” and "legal rigour” is an overemphasis on the word legal without contextualising anything.

Let me conclude by saying it is presumptuous of you to conclude that this is a complex matter without you presenting all the facts that illustrates the complexity of the matter. I have been involved in many cases of sampling, specimen collection, independent lab testing, enforcement and prosecution outside of the horseracing industry. This might be a complex matter for you, but certainly not for me if I have access to all the facts. Just saying.

PS. I have yet to encounter any regulator (across any industry or jurisdiction) that operates as an “unbiased arbitrator”. Also just saying.

Saint T wrote:

In the interest of Robust dialogue and I will start off with WITH RESPECT, it’s a flawed view that “just [and fair] administrative action” “extends to any public discussion”. This I conclude from my read of paragraph 33 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa as there is no procedural fairness that can apply to a public discussion.

I trust that you are also well aware of every persons right to an opinion as set out in paragraph 15(1). Furthermore, you should take note of paragraph 16 FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION and specifically

16. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes—
(a) freedom of the press and other media;
(b) freedom to receive or impart information or ideas;

The Constitution provides adequate guidance for its citizens to determine the tramlines for expressing opinions and freedom of expression.

Your references to “legal discussions” and “legal settings” and “legal interpretation” and “legal scrutiny” and "legal rigour” is an overemphasis on the word legal without contextualising anything.

Let me conclude by saying it is presumptuous of you to conclude that this is a complex matter without you presenting all the facts that illustrates the complexity of the matter. I have been involved in many cases of sampling, specimen collection, independent lab testing, enforcement and prosecution outside of the horseracing industry. This might be a complex matter for you, but certainly not for me if I have access to all the facts. Just saying.

PS. I have yet to encounter any regulator (across any industry or jurisdiction) that operates as an “unbiased arbitrator”. Also just saying.

Xxxxccxxxcxcccccxxxxxxccccxxxx
The earlier connections of LEGAL EAGLE..... eish.... where was all the Legal jargons and the deafening silence when those connections were spinning a web of legality illegally. :whistle:

alterego wrote:

A seasoned judge may struggle with this thread.
Anyone who earns a living through the patronage of others, should be subject to scrutiny from the same patrons. If there is uncertainty, people will speculate. Just be grateful people in the game are still interested. If people are not debating in this game, there is no game.
How many lawsuits would Roy Keane face for the comments he makes about players and managers without evidence?
It’s simple really, if there is objective evidence that a rule is broken, follow through with a sanction. If a frowned upon practice is prevalent then relook at the rules, consult and make a decision.

100%

Beware those that try to bamboozle with jargon

What about all the other Thoroughbreds at the Abattoir ? Maybe it is time that videos should be shown of how these once touted champions are treated before and during slaughter . There was a tv program long ago about 2 trainers and the one thig that stood out was when the one trainer blatantly sold his horses to the abattoir man that blew my mind and for many years I avoided racing all together and unfortunately later on I got involved in Racing and I got out because what I saw and what my horses experienced there, it was just too much for me . And how many trainers like Roux , Kaknis and others have had their licenses revoked and then given back to them ? Stop thinking that anything in racing is about the Horse and its welfare because it is not . The Peter yard obviously did do wrong , so why is everybody defending them and this is what is wrong with this sport . There are a Trainers that care but not enough .

I have just read this thread and am alarmed at the naivety of most racing people. I had a mother who saved thoroughbreds from the abbatoir, and on the odd occasion I went with her as a kid. It was the saddest day going to see all these horses being sent to their death.I was born on a horse and have competed in most equestrian sports.Racing is in my blood. I have always tried to help retire horses to good homes and i know plenty of those !
Here is the crux, people spend hundreds of thousands on their race horses but wont give them away to good homes after racing. They would rather sell the horse on a sale to butchers and all types of other buyers who will give the horse a miserable existence or death.
So here is my answer to your question, how do we rehome horses?
1. No horse gets sold on auction for less than R15000, that takes the abbatoir out of the equation.
2. Pay 2nd homes a retainer to reschool horses for sale onwards.Fund this by charging a fee at all yearlings sales to buyer and seller.
3. Have a list available of reputable riding schools, polo yards etc. This can be done by setting up a website of available horses.
4.An independent authority should be set up to control and run the above functions. The NHRA have their own problems and only give lip service anyway, as do most others in racing.
James Goodman

Love the idea James and as I know you so well I know you are serious about this.

Lest just factor in TIA. Who looks after the R15k, I mean look at how the RA and Phumelela functioned.

It's 1.01 that the funds will disappear or be reinvested poorly. I also feel that should this initiative take off the industry would again look within to find a CEO to run it.

I get what you want and what you stand for but I can't see it working.

We at The IRC and partners always make sure we do the right thing and find a sound safe 2nd career / home.

In fact a horse like Sabadel (look how long ago he ran) is still on the books costing Mike and Laura and team money every year.

Easy - was always my concern with the horses we have had, and the reason we kept slow horses racing ... We always have been lucky and found good homes for our x's

I think the majority of horses that end up getting mistreated are done so by the 3rd or 4th owners.. Which brings us to the question we don't want to ask or think about.