SANGATA

you been hit by a bus totenham?

Most trainers give their grooms presents when their horses win and run places, but would like to give more.
They appreciate bonuses at Christmas, money to take home, and a pool could be formed from stakes towards this?

Ok now to stir the pot a little bit.

There is no argument that grooms play a vital role in the game. We hear on a regular basis that this and that has happened and in some cases, the treatment of grooms is unacceptable. Happily this is not the case in the majority of progressive stables and Louisg is a shining example of how grooms are used to promote his stables image. I love seeing his grooms leading horses on big race days. They are often better dressed than some of the owners on display and a credit to their profession. So to get back to the reason I raised this topic - WHO EMPLOYS THE GROOMS AND HOW ARE THE EMPLOYERS GOVERNED?

My understanding is that the trainers who employ the grooms fall under the labour laws of this country and are expected to follow these. The Jockey club has no jurisdiction over the trainers when it comes to the working conditions, pay, etc etc. This is the responsibility of the labour ministry. The Jockey Club do have rules that apply outside the usual labour laws that apply specifically to racing, and these include things like wearing protection whilst riding and so on. What I am saying, is the contractual conditions between trainer and groom are amongst themselves and the Jockey Club has no right to interfere, telling employers what to do. Quite simply, if grooms are not happy with their working conditions in a certain stable, they can apply to work elsewhere. Good grooms are like gold dust and will not struggle to find work elsewhere. What many people do not realise is that there are different levels of grooms and ability, this association seems to want to categorise them equally.

Now for those that enjoy a conspiracy theory, a small trainer had this to say during the week. He says the only reason that the RA are getting involved is that the Jockey Club and Phumelela want the Simoto threat nullified. The recent visits to parliament on this matter have made many people uncomfortable about the potential danger a Grooms union could bring. Splitting the grooms would nullify the threat. He says that Peter Naidoo and Trevor Raath are claiming that this initiative comes from them and that they are funding it from their own pockets. Neither have shown any desire to uplift anything that doesn't benefit them personally previously and he questions the reasons behind SANGATA's creation. Why would these guys suddenly grow a conscious after owning horses for decades and never a whisper about grooms. The trainer says that at the trainers meeting Peter Naidoo was mocked and asked to pay trainer Stewart Petigrew the money he has allegedly owed him for years. He tells me it is common knowledge that Trevor Raath has gone through tough times in recent years, losing businesses and cutting back on the amount of horses owned - he says he thinks Raath no longer owns horses but is not 100% about that. To me something is clearly not right. Why would the Racing Association, who are there for owners, suddenly get involved in something that falls outside their mandate?