Racing: Wahid's trainer rejects 'Clayton's award'

Wahid was overlooked for the award even though he got more votes than Darci Brahma. Picture / Richard Robinson

Wahid's trainer Allan Sharrock is livid a head has not rolled in the wake of the official report on the Wahid-Darci Brahma scandal for champion 3-Year-Old of the Year.

New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing yesterday released the report it commissioned from Auckland QC Bill Wilson, which is critical of many of the steps taken to promote Darci Brahma to the award after a panel of 75 industry representatives clearly voted Wahid on top.

Sharrock told the Herald yesterday that he was bitterly disappointed the scope of the report did not allow for someone to be held accountable for what he and his owners saw as disgraceful behaviour.

Thoroughbred Racing's chairman Guy Sargent said the report was only one step along the way and that there would be more conclusions drawn domestically.

"The report identifies the problems and now we have to take them forward."

Wilson's 11-page report is extremely thorough, one of its main thrusts centering on why the three-person awards panel chose to overturn the opinion of the 75 industry representatives asked to vote.

That right was granted to the awards panel by the board of NZTR last year, but when Wilson questioned each of the members of the full board of 2005 what their understanding was of the role of the awards panel, a clear majority said their understanding and intention was that the panel should have a limited role, for instance, to ensure there were no anomalies or inconsistencies in the voting by the panel of 75.

One board member, Dr Murray Blue, could not recall what was intended and all others agreed with the above, except Brian Kinley, chairman of the awards panel, and David Ellis, then a board member and now not, managing owner of Darci Brahma - both of whom told Wilson they believed the intent was for the awards panel to decide the awards.

Wilson's report highlights that when the awards panel formed a teleconference to discuss the awards on August 28, Kinley insisted that all discussion and declarations by the panel remain strictly confidential to those on the teleconference - the three-person panel and NZTR's Simon Cooper, who was overseeing the awards.

The report also uncovered that Kinley's and Cooper's opinion of what was discussed between the pair on several occasions after the scandal broke in the media varies greatly.

Cooper, as guest on Racing Retro after the awards, declared that no changes in any category had been made to those voted by the group of 75.

Wilson's report somewhat sympathises with Cooper's response.

"He was concerned that to refuse to answer the question would in effect be to acknowledge that the awards panel had taken a different view from the recommendations panel [the 75], but this concern did not, in my view, justify his actions," said the report.

Cooper clearly had concerns when the story started to break in the media, but when he telephoned Kinley to discuss his television interview and to recommend the drafting of a media release, Cooper said Kinley agreed with the points made on the programme and that NZTR and the awards panel should maintain the panel's agreed policy of silence.

The report states that Kinley told Wilson and racecourse inspector John McKenzie that he had no recollection of these conversations and therefore disputed that they occurred.

"Mr McKenzie has at my request obtained telephone records which show Mr Cooper and Mr Kinley spoke for 5 minutes 52 seconds and 15 minutes 3 seconds the following day.

"Mr Cooper and Mr Kinley now agree that they discussed the awards on both the Wednesday and Thursday. They remain, however, in direct conflict as to what was discussed. I take the view that my terms of reference do not require me, and indeed do not permit me, to attempt to resolve that conflict."

Sharrock says he is appalled at that.

"Simon Cooper is clearly being hung out to dry," he said.

"Look, corruption came down here and nothing is going to be done about it. The report is admitting fault, admitting something went down."

In answer to those claims, Sargent reiterated that the report is not the end of the inquiry.

"We have to identify who is telling the truth and we will go as far as we need to get to that truth."

Sargent said the investigative panel has already been put in place.

Sharrock said he and Wahid's owners Ron and Noel Stanley were horrified that the report suggested a special award for Wahid.

The report: "I think the best solution would be for the board of NZTR to resolve that an additional award is to go to Wahid. I emphasise that this would not be a joint award to Darci Brahma and Wahid. Rather it would be an additional award for Champion Three-Year-Old, decided by the voting of the recommendations panel."

Replied Sharrock: "The 29 majority voted for Wahid originally was not a close vote, now they want us to take some Clayton's award and go away happy. My owners don't want to line up, have a cup of tea and walk away with an award like that.

"We know something wrong has happened here and so does the whole of New Zealand.

"What needs to happen is Brian Kinley should be sacked from the board and the award overturned and given to Wahid, otherwise, where's your integrity - it's gone."

Sargent said he felt for Wahid's connections.

"I really do. Look, we got a few things wrong, but it needs to be remembered that the awards panel were quite right in doing what they did - it was within the regulations. How that was done should have been different.

"I think the second award to Wahid is appropriate because Bill Wilson had no grounds on which to take the award from Darci Brahma, because the methodology was not flawed."

The report somewhat criticised Kinley for not declaring he and his wife had a 16.6 per cent share in a racehorse, Cross My Heart, prepared by Darci Brahma's trainer Mark Walker. Kinley also managed the ownership syndicate.

But it defused the criticism with: "I accept however that this failure to do so [declare] was due to an oversight, rather than an attempt to conceal the association."

It added: "Even if Mr Kinley had disclosed his interest and taken no further part in the discussion, the end result would have been the same because Mr Fenwick and Dr Fennessy [the other two panelists] were each firmly of the opinion that the award should go to Darci Brahma."

Kinley has stood down as NZTR's chairman of its integrity sub-committee and from the committee itself.

The report recommends NZTR formally apologise to the connections of Wahid and Darci Brahma and to the awards sponsor, Mercedes.

It also suggests that there be only a single panel for voting on the awards, similar in structure to the original 75-strong recommendation panel.