IS THIS A BRAZEN CASE OF DOUBLE STANDARDS?

By Graham Potter | Monday, August 1, 2016

Graham Potter writes a weekly column for the Sunshine Coast daily. Due to demand from those having trouble accessing the paper these columns are now also published on HRO courtesy of the Sunshine Coast daily.

You can sugar coat it anyway you like but the fact remains that the manner in which Racing Victoria resolved the recent issue between Chairman Of Stewards Terry Bailey and Melbourne Racing Club Chief Executive Brodie Arnhold clearly smacks of a double standard which arguably should have no place in any professional racing setup.

The fact that Bailey and Arnhold both acknowledged they made inappropriate comments hardly absolves them of any wrongdoing.

When Peter Moody’s stated at a private function that he would not return to training under the current RV integrity department regime it is alleged that Arnhold responded from the floor with ‘we could fix that’.

Bailey was incensed by the alleged exchange and produced a fairly lengthy response of his own on the subject of racing integrity which, amongst other things, included the reference, ‘and renegade clubs respond like this.’

This situation was resolved in the following way. Arnhold was summoned to a meeting at Racing Victoria headquarters after which Bailey and Arnhold both expressed regret for their comments and Racing Victoria Chief Executive Bernard Saundry confirmed no action would be taken against either party.

Racing Victoria and the Melbourne Racing Club took that outcome a step further by consolidating support for each other.

“Racing Victoria is of the firm view that the Melbourne Racing Club understands and values the importance of maintaining the highest integrity standards in Victorian racing for the benefit of all stakeholders," Saundry said ... while Melbourne Racing Club Chairman Mike Symons reiterated his club’s support of integrity in racing and the team RV has in place to enforce it.

“The Melbourne Racing Club’s commitment to integrity in racing could not be stronger,” Symons said. “The club has always been at the forefront of enhancements to integrity measures in the Victorian racing industry and we unconditionally support the work of RV’s integrity team led by Dayle Brown and Terry Bailey.

Do you get that warm, fuzzy feeling.

Hey, don’t get me wrong. I am certainly all for matters, contentious or otherwise, being resolved as amicably as possible in as short a space of time as can be mediated ... as was the case here.

The matter was immediately pounced on. The issue was quickly thrashed out and everybody can now move on with a clear understanding where they went wrong and what is required moving forward.

But we all know that is not the situation when it applies to the ‘ordinary’ licensee.

The process they have to go through is generally a time consuming one ... to an exaggerated degree. It can also be a costly one, both in financial terms as well as the impact delayed proceedings can have on a person’s reputation ... and perhaps, most important of all, is the fact that penalties for those found guilty of transgressing rules, such as bringing racing into disrepute, are firmly enforced without fear or favour.

If a licensee does something wrong, he or she can expect a penalty, be a $100 fine for presenting a horse with incorrect gear to a lengthy ban for the much more serious offences.

Which brings me back to the double standards that arguably apply in the way the Bailey / Arnhold situation was handled.

To say that you regret your comments and acknowledge that they were inappropriate and be given a free pass just doesn’t cut it if we are talking about an equal, level playing ground for all.

I’d like to see how well that argument works next time a licensee uses it after making comments criticising the condition of a track surface or criticising a club official or racing steward.

Some would say that officials such as Bailey and Arnhold should be held to even greater account than the ordinary stakeholder because of their leadership role in the game.

I don’t subscribe to that. I just think they should be held to the same standards.

The problem is I do not believe that criteria was applied in this case.