Conflict of Interest -- New Australian racing rules

These seem a bit harsh but NSW are introducing these rules following the More Joyous - Gai Waterhouse affair

Conflict of Interest and Inside Information - LR110A & 110B

The Board of Racing NSW, in reviewing the recent More Joyous Inquiry, has taken action to ensure that the thoroughbred racing industry has in place the appropriate Rules dealing with the issues of conflict of interest and inside information.

The confidence of the public and racing participants in the integrity of racing is a paramount objective of the Board of Racing NSW.

Accordingly, Racing NSW has introduced the attached Local Rules 110A and 110B dealing with inside information and conflicts of interest.

In introducing these Local Rules, Racing NSW has been conscious of persons’ individual rights and the need to adhere to the Anti-Discrimination Law. First and foremost, persons must be treated as individuals and their rights must be respected.

However, the integrity of thoroughbred racing is fundamental to the multi-billion dollar thoroughbred racing industry which has over 50,000 participants in New South Wales.

These Local Rules were drafted with the assistance of Senior Counsel specialising in anti-discrimination and administrative law in order to ensure that they do not discriminate against any individuals or class of persons.

They are consistent with the protocols in place in the corporate world and are intended to ensure that the thoroughbred racing industry has the best practices in place to maintain the confidence of racing participants and the public in the integrity of racing.

They also complement the Cheating at Gambling provisions in the Crimes Act 1900.

Racing NSW will submit a proposal to the Australian Racing Board for these Rules to be adopted on a national basis.

In the meantime, Racing NSW considers it critical that the proper Rules and procedures are in place in New South Wales, hence the adoption of these Local Rules.

(1)A person who possesses inside information in connection with a
horse that is entered in a race can be penalised if the person:
(a) in the case of a bookmaker, accepts a bet on the subject
horse;
(b) has a lay bet or an interest in a lay bet on the subject
horse and/or has a bet or an interest in a bet on another
horse in the subject race;
(c) encourages another person to have a lay bet or an
interest in a lay bet on the subject horse and/or to have a
bet or an interest in a bet on another horse in the subject
race, or
(d) communicates the information, directly or indirectly, to any
person who the first person knows or ought reasonably to
know would or would be likely to bet on the race in which
the horse is to run, provided that it is not an offence to:
(i) make the information publically available; or
(ii) communicate the information to the horse’s
owner, trainer, trainer’s representative or a
stable employee or service provider engaged
by the trainer or owner and actively and
necessarily involved in the care or
management of the subject horse.
(2)For the purposes of this rule:
(a) Information is “inside information” about a horse if:
(i) it is not publically available; and
(ii) it would or would be likely to influence persons who
commonly bet in deciding whether or not to bet on
the horse or making any other betting decision in
respect of a race in which the horse is to be run.
(b) Information is “publically available” if:
(i) it consists of a matter that is readily observable or
known by the public;
(ii) it has been made known in a manner that would or
could bring it to the attention of the public; or
(iii) it consists of deductions, conclusions or inferences
made or drawn from information referred to in
paragraph (i) or (ii).

(c) “Lay” has the meaning given to that term in AR175B(7).
LR 110B
(1)A trainer, jockey, stablehand or any other person engaged or
employed in the training or racing of thoroughbred horses must
not:
(a) enter into an arrangement, agreement or understanding with
a wagering operator or a person representing a wagering
operator that involves that wagering operator referring to,
basing on or seeking to link to any advertising, commentary
or promotions with that person;
(b) enter into an arrangement, agreement or understanding with
a wagering operator or a person representing a wagering
operator that confers special privileges or concessions which
are prejudicial to the image of racing;
(c) accept any gift or inducement that might impair that person’s
judgment or be perceived to be a conflict of interest, bribe or
inappropriate gift;
(d) prefer the interests of one owner or group of owners to the
interests of another owner or group of owners in the care or
management of horses owned by different owners,;
(e) put that person’s secondary interest before or above his or
her primary interest, or
(f) be influenced by his or her secondary interest over his or her
primary interest.
(2)For the purposes of this rule:
(a) a “primary interest” is the activity for which the person holds
a license or permit from Racing NSW or is engaged in or
associated with thoroughbred racing; and
(b) a “secondary interest” is:
i. any material reward, gift, favour or benefit in kind not
directly arising from or in addition to the primary
interest;
ii. any favour for any immediate family member or other
person with whom the person has a close professional
or personal relationship.
(3)For the purposes of this rule, an owner who holds a financial
interest in the horse only and does not play any active role in the
training or racing of the horse is not subject to sub-rule (1).

(4)A bookmaker is not to refer to, base on or seek to link to any
advertising, commentary or promotions in any form of media
including social media to a family member or other person with
whom the person has a close personal or professional relationship
engaged in or associated with the training or racing of
thoroughbred horses, other than in circumstances where such
reference is in the normal course of the bookmaker’s wagering
operations.
New definitions
“wagering operator” means a bookmaker, a person who operates a
totalizator or a person who operates a betting exchange.

2 things stand out for me:

1)The extent to which they go to emphasise the importance of the integrity of the racing industry

2)the extent to which they define the parameters and terminology of the rules

We,however don't seem to take regulation particularly seriously and many of the NHA rules are vague and ambiguous and are therefore unable to be enforced (eg. can you imagine how many opinions must exist of what constitutes an inconsistent run.........it is the lack of definition that prevents enforcement of this rule)