Howard Hamilton - HORSE SENSE

The Jamaica Race Horse Trainers' Association hosted a meeting on Tuesday, November 25, to discuss two main issues:

The recent increases in fees and fines announced by the Jamaica Racing Commission.

The impasse existing with respect to escalating operational expenses and the need for a meaningful increase in purses paid by the promoting company.

All stakeholders were invited. Present were leaders of all the racing associations and their presence and active participation reflected the gravity of the problems facing the racing industry. I cannot recall any previous occasion when there was such unity of purpose as that displayed on Tuesday morning at that meeting.

Insensitive to burden

The Jamaica Racing Commission (JRC) were apparently insensitive to the financial burdens facing the participants of the industry, especially at this time when there were ongoing discussions for adjustments in purses by the same people to whom these increases were directed.

It was the feeling of the meeting that this insensitivity warranted a vote of no confidence in the leadership. The fact that these fees were last adjusted some four years ago would have warranted some dialogue and could have been used to further strengthen stakeholders negotiation/arguments for increased purses.

The problems with the promoting company were the main focus of the meeting. The Off Track operators provide more than 80 per cent of the turnover of Caymanas Track Ltd (CTL) and their income has been seriously affected by their inability to offer expanded simulcast racing on a daily basis.

This is the result of directions from the contractor general and the ongoing impasse with CTL. This is leading to a number of closures and a resolution to this problem is urgently needed.

The farriers were concerned that they are unable to improve their skills because of the inability of trainers to pay the costs associated with the appropriate equipment, etc.

Veterinary concern

The lack of 24-hour veterinary care and the burden placed on trainers to administer medication and provide emergency treatment to the horses under their care were vexing issues.

Veterinarians complain that they are not attracted to the industry because the participants are unable to pay for their services and there are no facilities to perform professionally. This is a real problem and has been recognised as such for some time.

The grooms voiced their complaint about poor working conditions and inadequate wages.

The owners emphasised the massive increases in every aspect of their participation. Trainers complain of bills not being paid and the fact that they now 'own' some 63 per cent of the horses racing, either because owners are unable to pay the bills or owners are no longer attracted to the sport.

Breeders endorsed the fact that the recent yearling sale had not attracted one new owner. In fact, the sale would have been a dismal failure had it not been for the participation of overseas buyers from Trinidad and Barbados.

Management has failed to attract the investment which is necessary to fuel the required increased turnover. Announcing that govern-mental delays have prevented them from moving forward is an indictment on their competence, not that of the Ministry of Finance.

Board's responsibility

It has long been recognised that the current ownership structure is not compatible with the successful operation of a racing industry.

The first job of this new board should have been to put in place a timetable for the public offering of shares in a properly capitalised company that can own and operate an efficient racing plant.

They should have immediately negotiated a moratorium on all taxes and duties in keeping with those incentives offered to the entertainment, amusement and tourism sectors.

These initiatives are nothing new. What makes their performance more pathetic is the fact that, for the first time, there is a minister in charge who understands racing and is receptive to these changes.

It is, therefore, not without merit that there was a unanimous vote of no confidence in their performance. This comes against the background of the respect and expectations which heralded their appointment more than a year ago.

The question is: Where do we go from here?