N.A.R.S. versus the N.F.T.

​When I read the headline on the front page of the Racing Post this morning – ‘Osborne slams Nars quiz for trivialising misconduct allegations’ – I thought, after reading the details of the story, I would be solidly behind Jamie Osborne’s condemnation of George McGrath, head honcho of the National Association of Racing Staff. After all, a spoof quiz that washes racing’s dirty linen in public cannot be in the best interest of the sport, can it?
Actually, to my surprise, I think what George McGrath has done is in the interests of the sport as he has brought into the public domain conduct by certain trainers that is revelatory and all rather shocking. If trainers, legitimately, can make a fuss about poor prize money, regulations that should be instigated by the B.H.A. to force owners to pay their bills, the requirement to pay apprentices 50% of their riding fees, and the rule that stops the buck at their door if one of the horses under their care fails a drug test, they should be held to account, and to public scrutiny, when one of their number fails to allow part-time staff holidays and I assume holiday pay, does not allow part-time staff access to pool money or who gives his secretary 4-times the amount of pool money he gives his stable staff, or who keeps best-turned out prize money to pay for diesel or refuses to acknowledge doctor’s sick-notes, and so on.
The worst question on George McGrath’s spoof quiz was ‘Name the trainer who was arrested for assaulting a female member of staff?’
I have a lot of time for Jamie Osborne. If I could afford it and wanted a horse to run on the flat, he would be high on my list of preferred trainers. In employing Nicola Currie, the first top-line trainer to have a female as his preferred jockey, he demonstrated courage and faith in his own judgement. He is also, I believe, honest, evidence of which was when he admitted he was the answer to the one of the questions posed by George McGrath. I don’t know which questions but I would guess at number 9, the one about not carrying out a risk assessment on behalf of a pregnant member of staff. But as I said, I speak in ignorance.
From my own experience – many moons ago, when employment in racing stables was so different from what it is now – I can easily believe many of the allegations made against trainers. In my opinion, again an opinion derived from an age long gone, trainers do not necessarily believe they are employers with a duty of care and a responsibility to abide by employment law. When anyone asked for a pay-rise, many times what the employee would receive in reply would be a breakdown of how-much he or she is owed by owners, and how fortunate you are to be employed by them and that for some unstated reason the world of racing owed them, but not you, a better living than they had become accustomed to.
There was a book published a few years ago titled ‘Stable Rat’ and some trainers certainly held their staff in a similar vein as the rodent life around their stables.
We are, of course, talking about the minority of trainers. The majority of trainers I have no doubt are honourable and fair employers. Unlike the National Trainers Federation, Jamie Osborne and others, I do not feel that George McGrath has acted ‘irresponsibly’. We need to be proud of all sectors of the sport and people, whoever they are, who bring disrepute upon the sport should be held to account, as should any employee who falsely accuses a trainer of a misdemeanour.
Instead of condemning N.A.R.S. and initiating a war of words with them, the N.T.F. should investigate each and every allegation brought against one of its members and engage in a policy of weeding out the guilty from the protection of their federation. The B.H.A. also should investigate each allegation and start to revoke licences from trainers who consistently break employment law and who engage themselves with unlawful activities even if such outrages against decency do not in effect break the rules of racing.
The reason Jamie Osborne and the N.T.F. are so upset is because trainers are shown to be sinners, whereas they would prefer their image to be one of people who are sinned against.
As always seems to be the case, this is a spat where the small minority tar the reputation of their more illustrious and honourable colleagues.