Racing: Racing authority admits votes altered

New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing last night admitted for the first time it changed the voting on the controversial Wahid-Darci Brahma Champion 3-Year-Old award.

Chairman Guy Sargent was horrified when told yesterday that the Herald had been passed confidential information about the incident.

The information confirmed that the points discrepancy between Wahid and Darci Brahma was even wider than that unearthed in a poll conducted by the Dominion Post.

Darci Brahma was named champion at the awards dinner at Ellerslie two weeks ago, but the Dominion Post poll suggested more people voted for Wahid than Darci Brahma.

All but five of the 76 who were asked to vote on each racing award category were contacted and asked which horse they voted for.

According to the newpaper, nine did not vote, one refused to declare who they voted for and one could not remember.

Of the remainder, one voted for Seachange, 39 for Wahid and 20 for Darci Brahma.

The Herald's information indicates that on the 3-2-1 voting system used for the awards, Wahid was 29 points ahead of Darci Brahma.

Christchurch lawyer Brian Kinley, who headed the three-person adjudication panel for NZTR, said there were too many misconceptions around the awards.

"For a start people keep using the word 'votes' for what was received from the 76 on the recommendation panel," Kinley said.

"They are not votes, they are recommendations, which comes as a surprise to those on the panel."

The sheet on which the respondents declared their choices is clearly headed Voting Sheet and the lead page headed Voting Rules.

Kinley's point is that the papers and the NZTR website said: "Selection Of Winners: The NZTR Awards Panel determines the winner of each award after taking into account the points received from the Recommendation Panel."

Kinley continues: "For that reason, the numbers that come from the response from the Recommendation Panel is not a result.

"The only result is that which is provided by the adjudication panel."

Kinley told the Herald that a number of votes in several categories were discarded because they were not filled in correctly.

He refused to say how many in the case of Wahid and Darci Brahma and did not concede that transparency now in the face of criticism of the procedure would satisfy the critics.

Several hours later the information was passed to Sargent.

He immediately telephoned Kinley.

"I want some answers," Sargent told the Herald.

"I don't know the numbers myself, but I'm going to say to Brian, if in fact we passed over Wahid in favour of Darci Brahma, then lets state the reasons A, B, C and D and have done with it."

Sargent said when he called Kinley the lawyer was driving home from work and claimed he could not recall the numbers, but might be able to shed some light when he got home.

When Sargent called back later he had been given a message that Kinley had left to attend a Christchurch racing awards dinner and could not be contacted.

"I also got the message that Brian had said: 'You can tell the press the margin was less than 29'.

"Look, I've got to sort this out ... and get the three people on the adjudicating board to give their reasons. There is nothing to be gained by hiding anything. I'm not covering for anyone."

Kinley told the Herald earlier: "There were a number of papers that voted for only one nominee instead of all three and they were discarded because to count them on a 3-2-1 scoring basis would have unfairly weighted it towards a certain horse.

"There were also people who were too close to a nominee to be comfortable about accepting their vote and those were also discarded."

When asked for his opinion on the 39 to 20 differential that appears too great to be overturned by discarded votes, Kinley pointed to the 3-2-1 system.

"My question to those who did the poll would be, did they ask each of the panel who they voted for second and third? Because only then do you get the same points picture that we had in front of us."

Clearly the 3-2-1 method is flawed and should be changed to a single vote by each respondent in each category.

Kinley agreed: "I've no doubt there will be something done to change the procedure from this year to one that represents a greater degree of openness. Also, I believe the number on the Recommendation Panel will be thinned down to a smaller number.

The question remains, why ask 76 people for their opinions if there is the opportunity for a different winner to be appointed?

Kinley would not accept the use of the word veto when applied to the 3-year-old award.

"It's simply that the adjudication committee is invited to take note of the recommendations and then declare a winner.

"Not for one minute are we suggesting the opinions of the 76 were not taken into account."

Then why on this occasion ignore transparency?

Simon Cooper, across whose NZTR desk the awards are collated, wants to see change. "It's up to the board, of course, but personally I would like to see each person's votes published."

Kinley and Sargent are keen on the word "credibility". Before the Herald's information was passed on, Kinley said he was comfortable that everything had been done properly in the Wahid-Darci Brahma case.

"It's absolutely critical to us that these awards have credibility. The last thing we want is controversy and its important."

Speaking of the dinner generally and the awards, Kinley said: "I think we could have done it better.

"If there is going to an area of contention we need to eliminate it. It's embarrassing for the contenders. Its all about credibility.

"Credibility is like virginity - you only lose it once."

The story so far

* New Zealand's chief handicapper, Dean Nowell, rated Darci Brahma higher than Wahid in the domestic Free Handicap.

* Their ratings were Darci Brahma 103, Wahid 99.

* On the Australasian classifications, Darci Brahma stood at 108 to Wahid's 103.

* Nowell believes Darci Brahma's feat of beating the older horses such as Kristov at weight-for-age elevated him to a weight ahead of Wahid.

* Wahid was not asked to race against older horses in his 3-year-old season.

Wahid's trainer demands answers

Allan Sharrock wants to know why Wahid was passed over for the Champion 3-Year-Old title.

"I just want an explanation for Wahid's owners, they deserve it," said the horse's trainer last night. "I'm not after blood, I want an explanation".

NZTR chairman Guy Sargent is still reeling from an angry phone conversation he had yesterday with Sharrock.

"Allan Sharrock is very upset and got heated with me. It was pretty foul-mouthed and I don't need this.

"I'm not trying to lie to anyone. I want it resolved."

Darci Brahma's syndicate manager David Ellis said he hadn't seen the Dominon Post story that revealed the 39 -20 margin in favour of Wahid.

"All I can say is that I've been to the awards dinner before thinking I was going to win and didn't. You smile, walk away and get on with it.

"All I'm focusing on is winning the next race with Darci - hopefully tomorrow's Stoney Bridge Stakes."