Outcome of complaint lodged by Adv Brett Maselle against the Chief Executive of The National Horseracing Authority

PRESS RELEASE



Outcome of complaint lodged by Adv Brett Maselle against the Chief Executive of The National Horseracing Authority



1. On 9 May 2011, Adv Brett Maselle lodged a complaint with the National Board of The National Horseracing Authority (“NHA”) against Mr Rob de Kock, the Chief Executive of the NHA (“CE”). Adv Maselle alleged that, when the CE agreed with the Racing Operators to allow the international jockeys to participate in the International Jockeys Challenge (“the Challenge”) during November 2010 by wearing the colours of the country represented by the respective jockeys, the CE acted incorrectly and unlawfully.



2. The complaint was tabled at the National Board meeting held on 19 May 2011 to be dealt with as provided for in Rule 6.10. The National Board decided to refer the complaint to Adv John Myburgh SC for investigation and finalisation and for this purpose the National Board delegated its powers to Adv Myburgh SC to do so.



3. On 25 May 2011, Adv Myburgh SC furnished the National Board with a report containing his findings. For the reasons set out in the report, he made the following findings:



3.1 he dismissed the complaint lodged by Adv Maselle; and



3.2 he ruled that he considered the complaint lodged by Adv Maselle to be unwarranted, and exercising the power provided for in Rule 6.10.3, imposed a fine of R2 500 on Adv Maselle.



4. Adv Maselle was furnished with a copy of the report on 25 May 2011, when he requested that the findings not be published. The National Board considered his request but decided that the NHA should not deviate from the norm of issuing a press release. Hence the delay in putting out this press release.



5. The Myburgh Report can be viewed on the NHA website.







Enquiries:

The Chairman

The National Board of

The National Horseracing Authority

Attached files Myburgh_Finding.pdf (186.1 KB)Â

What a shock. Not.

magiclips Wrote:

---

> What a shock. Not.


probably had a better chance of falling pregnant..."foul ! "

INFULLFLIGHT Wrote:

---

> magiclips Wrote:
>

---

>

---

> > What a shock. Not.
>
>
> probably had a better chance of falling
> pregnant..."foul ! "

Twice.

Pretty petty complaint in the first place,but i suppose rules are rules..

Yes it was a petty complaint imo - but rules are rules so please help a layman like me understand this:

1. Was the CEO in breach of the rules?
2. If not, why not? (Were the rules changed before his decision?)
3. If so, how can the complaint be dismissed and the complainant fined?

The same questions occur to me Frodo.
I personally did not care about the issue that was in dispute and I can understand that the complaint has been treated as mischief.........BUT ...............

when you fight CITY HALL, you normally come off 2nd best, and that's whats happened here. Why the fine ? why not just throw it out. Was it deemed frivolous, hence the fine, so don't try this again ?

I have never seen the the word "SO WHAT" used in a document of this nature. Anyways Brett well done. You got the NHA to change there rules and have a meeting all on one day.

Pretty zippy the NHA are.

Maselle must have a lot of time on his hands, or he maybe gets kicks out of wasting other people's time with bullshit like this...

@saksy:

'Maselle must have a lot of time on his hands, or he maybe gets kicks out of wasting other people's time with bullshit like this...'

I have no interest in this matter save as an unaffected observer.

However, let's just consider 'evil triumphs when good men keep their peace!'

Over the years, there have been numerous posts, decrying the control and regulation of the industry by the NHA. When an opportunity presented itself, it took a person like Brett to take up the cudgels. Instead of support (even empathy), he gets abuse and nit-picking comments from a peanut gallery.

Why become personal (I suppose I'll also be lining up for similar flack)?

My personal take is; this is a gross violation of freedom of speech and in conflict with the constitutional rights of owners (and those similarly affected). The arbitrary and conflicting NHA rules & decisions must be challenged in the Constitutional Court & the relevant Minister ordered to intervene with an independent quasi-judicial Horseracing Board or similar.

The NHA must remain an administrative body to issue licences, colours, stud register, etc.

I love the statement..."the NHA should not deviate from the norm of issuing a press release"
There are a couple of issues recently which it seems caused the NHA to deviate from the norm.
Ever seen a press release in respect of the enquiry into the Flamingo objection debacle?
Perhaps they only release whatever they consider 'good news'!