The blog published on racehorse trainers Mike and Matthew De Kock's website, contains material factual inaccuracies regarding the convening, composition, and mandate of the Appeal Board that adjudicated the merit rating appeal relating to TRUST arising from the TAB Gauteng Guineas (Gr 2).

 For the sake of accuracy and transparency, it is necessary to place the correct facts on record.

In terms of clauses 20.3 and 21.3 of the Constitution of The National Horseracing Authority of Southern Africa, (effective 19 November 2025) the Legal Executive is expressly empowered to act as Convenor of Appeal Boards and to constitute such panels when a valid appeal is lodged. In this matter, a merit rating appeal was formally lodged by the connections of TRUST. Acting strictly within this constitutional mandate, the Legal Executive constituted the Appeal Board, appointed its members, and scheduled the hearing. The documentary record confirms that the Appeal Board was duly constituted by the Legal Executive and not by the Chief Executive, either directly or indirectly.

The Appeal Board comprised Messrs R Bloomberg, C Gordon and D Thistleton, and was convened to adjudicate the specific merit rating appeal relating to TRUST. The hearing was conducted in accordance with the applicable rules, and the panel was duly authorised to determine the appeal and, where appropriate, adjust the ratings. The outcome of the appeal - including the adjustment of the merit ratings of SPLITTHEEIGHTS, GRAND EMPIRE, ONE EYE ON VEGAS, and YIPPEE KIYAY — was determined by the Appeal Boards acting collectively and within its mandate.

It is therefore factually incorrect to suggest that the Chief Executive convened, selected, or otherwise implemented the appointment of the Appeal Board. The Chief Executive played no role in the constitution of the panel, which was effected strictly through the Legal Executive’s constitutional authority as Convenor.

It is further important to distinguish between editorial commentary published in the media and the formal adjudicative process undertaken by an Appeal Board. While individuals may hold or express views in a personal or editorial capacity, Appeal Board members are appointed institutionally, sit collectively, and determine matters based on the submissions before them, the applicable rules, and the evidence presented at the hearing. Decisions are those of the panel as a whole and not of any single member acting unilaterally.

The NHA remains committed to transparency, procedural fairness, and institutional integrity.  However, that commitment must be grounded in accurate representations of governance processes and constitutional mandates. Where public commentary attributes decisions or appointments to office-bearers who were not responsible for them, it is necessary to correct the record in order to preserve confidence in the Authority’s adjudicative systems.

Michael Shackleton

Legal Executive