Long simmering tensions between Racing NSW and Racing Victoria over the scheduling of marquee horse races during spring have erupted in the New South Wales supreme court, in a case that could split the $9bn racing industry and turn the spotlight on the actions of one its most high-profile figures, Peter V’landys.
V’landys, the chief executive of Racing NSW and the chairman of the Australian Rugby League, is one of the most powerful figures in sport.
He is known for his his forthright style – he once threatened the then NSW premier, Dominic Perrottet, with taking the rugby league grand final interstate if the government reneged on $600m in stadium upgrades.
In the supreme court on Thursday, Racing NSW alleged that Racing Victoria engaged in anti-competitive behaviour designed to limit competition in the racing industry.
At the heart of its claim is an elaborate alleged conspiracy by Victoria and the other state racing bodies to exclude NSW from the national governance body, Racing Australia, and start a breakaway organisation .
Key evidence includes an alleged “tactical plan” prepared by the prominent PR consultant Sue Cato and her partner on the project, Clive Mathieson, the former editor of the Australian, which was “war-gamed” at a series of meetings.
Racing NSW says it was excluded from the meetings but received a number of documents from a confidential source.
Appearing for Racing NSW, Tony Bannon SC said documents showed the other state bodies discussing “plan A” and “plan B” to try and get Racing NSW to cooperate with reforms of “the Pattern” by Racing Australia.
“The Pattern” is a racing term for the scheduling and grading of races, with group one being the most prestigious.
Racing NSW had been refusing to sign off on Racing Australia’s proposed new rules for “the Pattern” for months and had used its effective veto on Racing Australia’s board to block meetings.
Plan A was about how to cajole V’landys, who was regarded as the sticking point in getting the changes through Racing Australia.
Plan B was about setting up an alternative body to Racing Australia that would not include Racing NSW, Bannon said.
Like other sports, much hangs on which events are given marquee status.
Racing NSW alleges Racing Australia’s proposed rules were designed to prevent the Everest – the richest horse race in Australia, which has $15m in prize money and takes place in Sydney – from taking its rightful place in group one.
“Based on ratings of horses running in the Everest it ought to be rated as a group one race,” Bannon told the court.
But whether plan B – for a new racing authority that excluded NSW – was anything more than a negotiating tactic is hotly debated.
Bannon pointed to emails which he said showed there were plans to register a new entity. He is now asking the court to order further discovery of documents so Racing NSW can develop its anti-competition case.
Michael Borsky KC, counsel for Racing Victoria, told the court Racing NSW was using the courts to try to force the state racing bodies “to bend to its will” and recognise the NSW Everest event as a top-tier event.
“We do submit that application brought by Racing NSW is for improper purpose of getting the other [racing authorities] to fall into line with NSW’s own agenda, but without intent to go forward with substantive proceedings,” he said.
Borksy said plan B was nothing more than a negotiating tactic, and excluding NSW from racing was “an imagined” scenario.
Racing NSW argued “the Pattern” had been put in place when there was little competition between TABs and betting was local. Now that wagering was online and national there was fierce competition between the states and racing authorities for gambling revenue.
The case continues.
