Conduct reveals character, and we best understand integrity when we see it lived out in a person’s life – Charles H. Dyer
The racing world is abuzz with rumours tonight that a very high-profile integrity official in a major racing jurisdiction had borrowed a rather substantial sum of money from an expatriate trainer while officiating in an overseas racing jurisdiction.
The official, who has previously been the subject of integrity concerns expressed by former colleagues, is said to have needed the money – at least in part – for reasons related to his intimate relationships with women whose bodies form a large part of their means of employment, and who are not the senior integrity official’s wife.
There are obviously huge – no, gigantic – integrity concerns about a racing official who has borrowed money from a horse trainer working under his regulatory supervision.
One would imagine that if the person’s masters in the overseas racing jurisdiction that the person was working in had become aware of his financial dealings with the trainer, the person would have been summarily dismissed from their senior position, warned off racecourses around the world, and quite possibly charged with a criminal offence, depending on the laws in that land.
Whether the person was warned off or not, it is inconceivable that they would ever have been able to gain employment in the racing industry again, let alone be appointed to the very senior role in the sport in Australia that they hold today.
How could the public possibly have confidence in such an official?
How could the racing industry have confidence in the person?
How could the various courts and tribunals hearing matters involving any trainer in which the money-borrowing official presided over, investigated, or was involved in making decisions about, have any confidence in the decisions made by that official, or in the integrity of the investigations that the official conducted, or the findings that they made?
Wouldn’t the suspicion always be there that if the official broke every rule and ethical standard in the book once, then when financially pressed they may just do it again?
What would that mean for the official’s dealings with the trainer who loaned them the money, or with any of that trainer’s rivals?
There is no suggestion of anything untoward on behalf of the horse trainer, who was merely assisting a person who asked, and was in need.
One cannot say the same about the senior integrity official.
I wonder what the person would reply if asked by his current employer to produce their banking records for the period during which they were employed in the overseas racing jurisdiction?
They couldn’t say no if there was nothing to hide.
This is a scandal.
And there is a lot more to play out yet.
Watch this space.