JOCKEY G VAN NIEKERK

He is speaking as the chairman of Cape Racing and the same holding company which are soon to be owners of Gold Circle, unless I am missing something. Both of which were just about bankrupt before they stepped in, regardless of how little punters were spending on the tote or rather as a result of. 

Chairmen should  not appear to be making unilateral decisions. The Board may well agree with him, but their role is not mentioned in his letter. It's his tone that is concerning not the message. He comes across as a disgruntled owner of horseracing rather than a chairman of a board. He has every right to be unhappy given how much he has invested, however the protocol of good governance should not disregarded regardless of his stake in the game. 

He is being far more diplomatic than I would in dealing with an illegal strike which has massive financial implications. Unless you believe that illegal strikes set the right diplomatic tone. Remembering that these jockeys have their own professional association that should raise these grievances with the NHA. 

History has taught us that too much power in the hands of one invidual is not good for the game. Cancelling two other meetings to punish the jocks ? Its not only the jocks who will suffer. 

Whilst I agree that the jocks good have handled it better it is as someone (I beilive magi) stated before this is a symptom rather than the cause. The NHA does not do things in a fair manner there is no consistency in fines and rulings the same thing can cost some jocks more or some jocks less and it's not necessarily favoritism it's just on the day how they decide to implement things one way and another day on another. The moment anyone questions them they are silenced. One example of a major problem I think is they money aspect. Andrew Fortune got his license back and I have the utmost respect for him and have had the pleasure of meeting him twice at groups I attend as I have traveled a similar journey to him with my demons when granting his licence he had to pay 250 k fine for bringing thier name into disrupte to me that is an open and plain way of showing and saying that if you pay enough money we can change decisions. I don't beilive Andrew was wrong in paying at all.What would happen if hypothetically a jock who gets a suspension and is in running for the championship sponsor decides to offer the nha a certain sum of money to change thier decision? It's very hard to beilive the NHA would not take the money. No wonder some jocks feel aggrieved they handled it in totally the wrong way and Bortz has every reason to be angry but at what point do the industry stake holders stand together and actually get rid of or remodel the way the NHA works. How long have various people in the industry been complaining about those in charge at NHA and out of everyone who looses when a meeting gets canceled they are the only ones who still receive a salary most likely with an annual increase and bonus from groom to owner to punter and everyone in between make a financial loss

Thanks all for some constructive inputs. 

Imvho the NHRA could have done a lot more over the last couple of years, many examples but they have lost the required respectability with some erratic behavior and bad decisions. 

Racing really needs to sit down and come to an agreement the best way forward for all parties. 

Smallpunter, the NHA is a regulatory body which is a statutory requirement. I highly doubt the NHA is open to accepting money to overlook sanctions. I agree there must be engagement by all stakeholders with the NHA.

Regardless of what anyone thinks, the fact is that the NHA has to be approached through the correct channels. Most importantly the various stakeholders need to engage and not through threats and strikes.

I am glad you hold A Fortune in esteem however if I was in the NHA, I would not have granted the license.  250k was cheap at the price. Ask yourself why he didn't apply to ride in Australia, NZ or Hong Kong? SA was his only option if I had to guess.

I think Greg Bortz was very diplomatic and understanding with the jockeys on the day. Asking them to complete their contracted rides and to separate the issue with the NHA but no, they basically flipped all stakeholders the middle finger.

And they did this for a jockey who in one season in Hong Kong received the record amount of sanctions and was dismissed for his behavior off track.

 

lets be honest we have heard time and time again when people in racing have resorted to protest action people in charge always come out and say there are proper channels to sort it out unfortunately their track record says otherwise when you have me me people in charge you know they are going to do things their own way eventually people get frustrated and resort to desperate actions which they may regret in the future eg rassies famous video

My view on the matter :
Grant did the right thing ,he manned up and spoke his mind probably what many other jockeys were also thinking.
Rules of inconsistency:
If you are aggrieved then whipping another jockey with intent is still fine and you can carry on riding and earning .
You speak your mind then you get suspended with immediate effect .
Whilst the strike was illegal ,the question is did he have an argument that will be fact in law .The fact that the other jockeys supported him shows the unhappiness in their camp .This matter should be referred to arbitration and chaired by an independent attorney through the law society.
Grant is correct if he can prove favouritism in law or inconsistencies to the rules .
Mr Botz please look into substantive fairness of rules as adopted by the NHA.
 

Elmo wrote:

My view on the matter :
Grant did the right thing ,he manned up and spoke his mind probably what many other jockeys were also thinking.
Rules of inconsistency:
If you are aggrieved then whipping another jockey with intent is still fine and you can carry on riding and earning .
You speak your mind then you get suspended with immediate effect .
Whilst the strike was illegal ,the question is did he have an argument that will be fact in law .The fact that the other jockeys supported him shows the unhappiness in their camp .This matter should be referred to arbitration and chaired by an independent attorney through the law society.
Grant is correct if he can prove favouritism in law or inconsistencies to the rules .
Mr Botz please look into substantive fairness of rules as adopted by the NHA.


Thank you. I thought iI was the only person feeling such.

Without wanting to type more,  this is what makes a forum interesting where we share different views..



 

its simple. nha are really stupid and inconsistent. so are rugby refs especially when the bokke get froggies and auzzies. not to mention some of the urc calls - lions v cardiff last weekend and citations or lack thereof. football refs also get it wrong even with var as do cricket umpires. SO. inconsistent incompetent officiating is par for the course in all sports. participants have to respect the refs/umpires/stewards or else. gvn just found out what OR ELSE means and the rest of the jocks are about to as well. greg bortz is dead right to throw the book at these jocks and put them back in their box. they are way ahead of themselves refusing to ride at the first drop of rain etc etc. no one forces them to ride and they make on balance a pretty decent living

The Punter never gets a mention