IMPROVEMENT OF NHA RULES CONSULTATION PROCESS

The National Horseracing Authority (“the NHA”) has deliberated over the past year as to the most appropriate inclusive and effective consultation process to follow when amending and/or adopting new rules as provided for in the NHA’s constitution.
Notwithstanding clauses 5.3, 5.4 and 16.2.1 of the NHA’s constitution, which grant sole authority to the National Board to deal with amendments and adoption of new rules, the National Board resolved at its meeting on 4 November 2022 to adopt what it sees as an improved process of consultation with its members and all stakeholders when exercising its aforesaid mandate. The Board decided to adopt a comprehensive notice and comment procedure, as opposed to consulting only with representatives of select groups.
The revised process in essence will see the NHA publish on its website, and elsewhere to the extent deemed appropriate, any proposed amendment and/or new rules, together with an explanation as to what purpose the NHA seeks to achieve by such changes and/or new rules. Any person or organisation that has any interest in the subject matter will be at liberty to make written submissions within the allotted timeframe that will also be published.
Whilst it is important to note that any comments submitted would not necessarily have the effect of resulting in the proposed rule or amendment being changed, all submissions will be considered by the Rules Committee. The Rules Committee is a subcommittee of the National Board and will comprise solely of National Board Directors and Executives. No invitees will be in attendance at the Rules Committee meetings, however, the Rules Committee may engage with any person or entity, which made a submission, for the purposes of clarity or amplification of their submission.
After this consultation process is completed, the Rules Committee will collate all submissions and upon due deliberation make a recommendation to the National Board on such amendment and/or new rule. The National Board may then approve, with or without modification, or reject the recommendation from the Rules Committee, whereafter its decision will be published on the NHA website and further disseminated as deemed appropriate.
This new process will require certain information technology (“IT”) upgrades to the website, as all submissions will be web-based in order to ensure proper and complete tracking of submissions in the required format.
The National Board, in approving this process, is firmly of the view that this is the best process to follow when consulting with the industry by allowing all interested and affected persons and stakeholders, including the betting public, to be heard

The NHA is captured at the moment by the 2 who should be doing the most for our sport.

First rule that should change is the giving of licenses and colours. Should go back to the old way of having to prove that you can …
1 sustain a training yard
2 afford to keep your racehorses

Next they should update the retirement office so it can follow up on where horses are going and that forms are all sent in

Then they can help trainers with non payers by getting all owners to either put down a minimum 1month deposit or a guarantee for that amount of horse they have . Then blacklist the horse so it can’t be changed to another owner either.This will also ensure that service providers can get paid as well. And get rid of the default rule needing court judgement as they don’t default on that anyway.

Very surprising as this is written in a very different tone to the last couple of communications sent out. Certainly lacking in the normal condescension and arrogance, has this been written by someone other than the author of the last two?

Either way I have not read such good drivel in a while and while on the face of it there is a claim of better consultation, the proposal ensures zero commitment to any outcome.

It reads like a legal contract set up with so many hurdles and so many assurances that whatever is raised may not be dealt with, I wonder why it was written in the first place. The author must be taking for granted that they are able to fool all the people all the time. So many committees and layers with every assurance that the issue raised may be filed under X after being entertained. Like going on hold with Eskom......

I wonder where all the doyens of this industry are that spoke so highly of this organization not wanting it to be tainted with a trainers representative??? Why have they not asked any questions publicly or at least challenged the anomalies directly? Maybe this is just another MJ situation, just act like you didn't know....