Lack of transparency in Callan u-turn calls into question HKJC’s disciplinary process
Neil Callan received an outpouring of support and congratulations on social media after his successful appeal last week against a hefty three-month suspension that would have left him iced on the sidelines until the end of the Hong Kong season on July 14.
The Irishman walked out of the Hong Kong Jockey Club’s (HKJC) Happy Valley headquarters last Thursday with the appeals panel having adjusted his suspension to end on May 27. It was the second time in seven years that Callan had prevailed in an HKJC appeal hearing, and the rare feat means his career in Hong Kong, which had seemed to be over, is just about back on the rails, at least for the remainder of this campaign.
He is currently awaiting clearance from the HKJC to resume trackwork riding, with trainers already attempting to book him for morning gallops.
The jockey has established a firm fanbase during a decade in Hong Kong, riding the likes of Blazing Speed (Dylan Thomas), Beauty Only (Holy Roman Emperor) and Peniaphobia (Dandy Man), under his “Iron Man” nickname. His supporters came out in their hundreds on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter after he was stood down at an April 7 show cause hearing, convened as a result of his behaviour at a Happy Valley race night stewards’ inquiry in February.
That ruling garnered negative coverage in both the Chinese and English language media, as well as on social platforms. This included criticisms of perceived HKJC secrecy amid unanswered questions about its disciplinary hearing processes, while raising questions surrounding the presence of political figures on the three-man panel at the show cause hearing, as well as the implications of a clash of personalities between the forthright Callan and high-profile individuals at the HKJC.
While Callan is now putting the episode behind him, the HKJC’s continued silence on the matter outside of its brief official announcements is doing little to stifle swirling rumour and innuendo.
Asia Bloodstock News attempted to contact the HKJC’s executive director of racing to seek clarification and address some of those criticisms, but despite repeated attempts via a variety of channels, no response was forthcoming. Instead, a minor public affairs manager sent an unattributed HKJC comment: “We have nothing to add to what the Club has publicly stated through its press releases issued on April 7 and 29.”
The organisation prides itself on being a world leader on many fronts and it is certainly in the vanguard when it comes to providing a broad range of figures, statistics and technical information about its product. The Club’s website contains a treasure trove of data; among the many gems is daily trackwork information with times and video; free race replays; a publicly viewable veterinary record for each horse, albeit partial, detailing procedures, notable injuries and setbacks; details of horse movements between Sha Tin and its Mainland China site at Conghua; and things like speed maps and race times with sectionals have long been par for the course.
With this in mind, when thrown under the spotlight of the Callan case, the opaqueness of its licensing committee disciplinary hearing and appeal processes appears incongruous, particularly to the world outside of 1 Sports Road.
HKJC provides a thorough racing stewards’ report at the end of each raceday, detailing race-by-race any incidents and race-riding infractions. The report states the penalty any jockey receives, but it does so alongside clear information about the incident leading up to why a rider was handed their punishment.
That approach seems to be absent when the arena moves from the raceday stewards’ room to licensing committee decisions, such as Callan’s show cause and appeal hearings.
The HKJC has issued only two brief statements on the outcomes of those hearings, giving a lack of information and few clues as to how the decisions were reached and none at all about who made them. More complete details appear to be kept in-house rather than disseminated publicly.
The two statements amounted to a combined 230 words. The latest of those releases, relating to the appeal panel decision, stated that the panel “considered all the evidence taken in this case together with the further statements made at the hearing today”. But what evidence was given and what statements were made, by whom and to whom, that convinced the panel to arrive at such a different outcome to the first hearing?
Asia Bloodstock News included those questions in its attempts to contact HKJC, along with: What was the case Callan put forward? Who was in the appeal hearing and how did the appeal panel come to its decision? What was its reasoning?
Members of the licensing committee are either drafted from the board of stewards or are a club member specially appointed, and those who have passed a ruling cannot sit on the connected appeal panel. The full list of the 12 stewards, 21 honorary stewards and almost 200 honorary voting members is available on the HKJC website, but Asia Bloodstock News received no response when it asked who actually sat on the appeal panel and who decides the make-up of any given panel.
HKJC’s Rule 19 states “The Licensing Committee may invite Officials to attend the hearing of any inquiry it may hold to make such representations as Officials consider to be relevant for the Licensing Committee to consider in its deliberations at the inquiry.”
It is known that CEO Winfried Engelbrecht-Bresges and executive director of racing Andrew Harding were at least in the show cause hearing, but this in itself, without the transparency of a detailed account of what was done and said, has raised queries about what their role was.
The HKJC’s decision not to respond to such questions, as well as the all-round lack of disclosure around its disciplinary and appeal hearings, falls short of the standard set by other leading racing authorities, including those in Britain, Ireland and Australia.
The British Horseracing Authority’s (BHA) Judicial Panel is composed of the Disciplinary Panel, Licensing Committee and Appeals Board. Its website has a long list of disciplinary and appeals hearings, clickable to reveal full reports.
The most recent of those, dated 22 April, runs to around 1,200 words and states the charge as related to the rule allegedly breached: it outlines who was present and who was representing; the facts of the case; penalty guidelines; submissions; judgements with reasons; the outcome and who made the judgement.
The Irish Horseracing Regulatory Board (IHRB) states that its mission includes ensuring “confidence in the sport is protected by robust and transparent regulatory practices, implemented with integrity, by a professional and progressive team”. It follows a similar template to the BHA Judicial Panel, providing clear and informative reports about all referral and appeal hearings.
A visit to the Victorian Racing Tribunal website leads to a page devoted to appeals and decisions. The recent March 15 tribunal hearing of trainer Archie Alexander runs to a comprehensive 5,480 words, and again, follows a similar pattern as the BHA Judicial Panel, publicising all relevant particulars and a thorough explanation of the judgement.
In each case, there is not obfuscation and it is clear who is on the panel and passing judgement.
Asia Bloodstock News revealed previously that Martin Liao, a politician outspoken against democracy, and two former Hong Kong legislative council members, Stephen Ip and Dr. Eric Li, formed the panel that handed down the initial stiff penalty. It has discovered that the three people on the subsequent appeal panel were the HKJC deputy chairman Michael Lee, senior banking boss and club steward Margaret Leung, and the former high court judge and HKJC honorary voting member Arjan Sahkrani.
Many observers and racing stakeholders would like more than an inkling as to how these panels, composed of high-powered and high-achieving figures, came to reach their decisions. But with no details available about the reasoning for either the initial judgement or the markedly different appeal decision, it is impossible to gauge with certainty whether or not one or both panels erred in their judgements.
The lack of transparency continues to foster misgivings within the jockey community inside and outside of Hong Kong, which, as the world has observed, is a city undergoing drastic political change under the influence of a system of government not noted for its openness. As we move into the third decade of the 21st century, is it healthy for the sport in Hong Kong, or anywhere else, to have overtly political figures and horseracing hobbyists ostensibly holding a professional jockey’s livelihood in their hands? That is another question as yet unanswered.