Conflict of Interest

["guest@endurance.net" <guest@endurance.net>]

K S SWIGART   katswig@earthlink.net


On February 4, 2000 (about the President's Cup in Dubai) Tom Ivers said:

> Best Condition" was a giveaway in this race. A political donation.

And on January 28, 2000 (about the Millenium Cup--which I believe was the same 
thing--in Dubai) Darolyn Butler said:

> Art Preiz was there, not only cheering us, but making sure the game was
> played fair and right.  He attempted to get them to enforce the "no crewing
> between P stops", but had no luck... those Arabs wanted their water, so in
> the middle of the race, an announcement was made that you could be crewed
> anywhere.  

And on June 8, 2000 (about the FEI Ride in Egypt) Maryanne Stroud Gabbani said:

> Jasper Mortimer worked with one of the Pyramids stables teams on the day of
> the 100 km race and reported the race for Associated Press. During the day,
> volunteer stewards had noted that rider number 7 (as the story quotes me)
> was wearing spurs and I both passed that on to FEI people and told our
> stewards to inform the FEI of infractions, as that was their job to enforce.
> After the race, I was asked to find out the proper procedure to file a
> complaint about the spurs, so I emailed  the FEI and was told that the
> Egyptian federation had to file a complaint with the international
> federation. Since this ride had been held without input from the Egyptian
> federation and without any involvement on their part, there was no one we
> could ask there to file the complaint.
> Locally, we dropped the matter, but apparently Jasper did not. As he notes
> in his story, AP found that, in addition to plenty of photographs that were
> taken and even published showing Maktoum wearing spurs (but which cannot pin
> down whether he took them off as FEI says he did), they had videotape of the
> race showing the spurs later in the day as well.
>
> In the course of his discussions with Michael Stone, Jasper gave Michael my
> phone number here in Egypt and Michael called me. The FEI gave very mixed
> messages regarding the complaint procedure throughout this issue. In an
> email, we were told it had to go through official channels. Verbally, I was
> told that anyone could file a complaint and apparently some people from
> Egypt did, by email again. They were apparently told that they needed hard
> evidence such as photos. No one has been quite sure what was going on,
> except that every time something regarding the issue came up in email
> discussions here, there were reactions from Dubai. This is not a local issue
> and our race is not the point. The subsequent handling of the matter is the
> point. The AP apparently plans to publish a follow-up article today, since
> the FEI says that they will not investigate in the absence of a complaint
> (?).

And an AP Story about the same event said:

> CAIRO, Egypt (AP) _ Reports the crown prince of Dubai wore spurs while
> winning an endurance horse race in Egypt has prompted a preliminary
> investigation by the world equestrian federation, which bans spurs for
> such events.
> Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, the Dubai crown prince and
> defense minister of the United Arab Emirates, sponsored the event to the
> tune of dlrs 100,000 and cantered in first in the 100-kilometer
> (62.5-mile) horse race held May 19 across the desert at Sakkara, near
> Cairo.
..
> Pictures of the prince riding with spurs have circulated on the
> Internet. A crew manager for an Egyptian team, Lesley Alford, said she
> believes officials did not enforce the no-spur rule introduced in
> January "because it was Maktoum, because he was paying for (the race.)
> If it had been one of us, I feel sure they would have told us."

These statements were all issued as first hand reports by people who had 
actually been at the events.

Whether the reports are true or not:

Tom Ivers said that the President was given the Best Condition award as a 
political gift rather than because his horse was actually considered to be the 
horse in the best condition.

Darolyn Butler said that rather than disqualifying participants who were 
violating the rules, they changed the rules in the middle of the event.

Egyptian riders and ride managers report that the winner of the ride was 
videotaped violating the rules and that the FEI refused to act on it by claiming 
a bureaucratic technicality.

So, whether you believe the reports or not (I make no comment as to whether the 
reports are true or not, just that the reports come from first hand witnesses), 
the APPEARANCE of impropriety because of conflict of interest that officials are 
facing because of the existence of participant sponsors is very real, and you 
would have to have your head buried in the sand up to your ass if you can't see 
it.  Hell, it even made the Associated Press.

It is all very well to say that anybody who expresses concern over the 
appearance of conflict of interest on the part of the officials (note that it is 
not the sponsors or participants who have the conflict of interest, it is the 
officials) is just expressing sour grapes for having lost (or not getting to 
participate) or is a racist or a bigot, but _I_ would think that it would be the 
officials themselves who would be the first in line in expressing such concern.  
It is, after all, the officials who would end up being accused of having been 
bought.

And it is all very well for officials to then state, "but we are all upstanding 
individuals, how dare you impugn that we can be bribed."  However, for many, the 
gut level response to such righteous indignation is, "Me thinks thou dost 
protest too much;" even if they don't say it out loud.  And THIS is the reason 
that even appearances of such conflict of interest might best be avoided.

It is for this reason that there is general disquiet, even on the local front, 
when ride managers ride in and subsequently win their own rides (so despite 
accusations to the contrary, this isn't a racist issue at all, since the AERC 
has plenty of examples of Americans accusing fellow Americans--whether out loud 
or not--of exactly the same thing).  I know of one circulating story where it is 
told that the head vet of the ride was fired and never asked to vet for the ride 
again because s/he refused to award Best Condition to the Ride Manager's horse 
because it was lame (I don't know if the story has any basis in fact, I only 
know that the story is being told as if it were true).

It is for this reason that every now and then the AERC tosses around the idea of 
having a policy that ride managers aren't allowed to ride in their own rides 
(and then it is dismissed because it is realized that being able to ride in them 
is one of the reasons that some ride managers even put them on, so to pass such 
a rule might decrease the willingness of ride managers to manage rides).  

And ride managers (or any other sponsors) if they choose to ride in their own 
rides, if they want to avoid the appearance of impropriety, should go out of 
their way to make sure that they don't win them.  Otherwise people WILL talk and 
suggest that the "officials" had been "bought."

And officials, if they don't want to be accused of having been bought, should 
ask the sponsors if they are planning to ride in the ride themselves.  And if 
the answer is yes, then officials who don't want to be accused by some people of 
having been bought would do well to refuse to officiate at such events (or just 
hope that they get lucky and the manager doesn't win anything).

In the world outside of endurance riding (or at least in the US), it is common 
practice (and in many instances a legal requirement) for sponsors and people 
connected with the organization of a competition to be ineligible for 
participation and/or winning.  One need only read the fine print or hear the tag 
line of any promotional "sweepstakes" where it is stated that employees of the 
organization putting it on, their families, and their connections are all 
excluded from winning.  And presumably the reason for this is because nobody 
wants to even allow for the possibility that there would be any accusations that 
the contest was rigged.

If the sponsor of an event is also a participant, then the officials DO have a 
conflict of interest. So the answer to the question of whether the fact that 
Jerry Fruth and Larry Kanavy are now sponsoring the FEI portion of the NC ride 
presents a conflict of interest for the officials is "yes" if the money that 
they are providing goes to paying for the officials at the ride, then the FEI 
officials at the NC ride WILL have a conflict of interest if any Fruths or 
Kanavys also participate in the ride.

However, all that stated, just because the officials have a conflict of interest 
doesn't mean that they will unfairly officiate at the ride.  And (as is the case 
in many issues of conflict of interest, many of which in life are impossible to 
avoid) if the officials, at whatever event, disclose their conflict of interest, 
then the other participants can choose to participate or not depending upon 
whether they think that those officials can officiate fairly despite the 
conflict (or if they even care).  BUT, and here is the important thing, the 
FIRST step in disclosing a conflict of interest is for the people that have one 
to acknowledge that it exists.  So saying "we don't see any conflict" is not the 
best way to encourage other participants and outsiders that the conflict of 
interest isn't going to color decisions.

Far better to say: Yes, we recognize that there exists a conflict of interest by 
accepting sponsorship from participants, but we think that the advantages of 
getting the sponsorship far out weigh the possibility of impropriety.  We 
believe that the sponsors, the participants and the officials are more committed 
to fair competition than they are to other motivations and are sure that they 
would all sacrifice whatever those other motivations are in the name of 
fairness.  AND ...  These are the steps that we have taken to ensure that this 
is the case (and then lay out the requirements for having, acknowledging and 
mitigating the consequences of conflict of interest).

Conflicts of interest exist in all walks of life; they are virtually impossible 
to avoid. And they cannot be avoided by pretending that they don't exist.  What 
can be done is to expose them to the light of day and then let individuals 
and/or the organizations to which they belong, decide to what extent they are 
willing to accept them and attempt to manage their possible unfavorable 
outcomes.  

Participating in endurance is completely voluntary on the part of all 
participants so I am not compelled to participate if I am uncomfortable with the 
extent of the conflict of interest of any of the officials and how that might 
color their judgment while officiating.  

But I can say this, _I_ would be a lot more uncomfortable with the extent of the 
conflict of interest of the officials and how it might color their judgment 
while officiating if they were to refuse to accept that the conflict exists.  
Not because I would think that they have nefarious intents and that they are 
trying to deceive me, but rather because they would be deceiving themselves, and 
I wouldn't be encouraged about their ability to manage the conflicts and 
mitigate their effects if they are pretending to themselves that there is no 
conflict.

So no, _I_ won't be participating in FEI endurance, for a lot of reasons, but I 
can say that the substantial conflict of interest that exists with regards to 
the overweening sponsorship (and it is everywhere, not just the FEI officials 
themselves) of the sport at the international level and the refusal of the 
people who have these conflicts to acknowledge them is part of those reasons.

AND, if the UAE's intent (as stated) is to have the sport become an Olympic 
Sport, well...the IOC is also very conscientious of the importance of avoiding 
the appearance of impropriety.  The opportunity for the appearance of 
impropriety where a huge percentage of the money is coming from a single source 
is substantial, and it is unlikely that the IOC won't notice just because the 
participants are trying to pretend that they don't notice. 

And if (as stated) the people of the UAE for cultural reasons are having 
difficulty with even understanding the concept of "conflict of interest" then 
those people who do understand the concept and are also committed to endurance 
becoming an Olympic sport would do well to try very hard to explain it to them 
rather than trying to whitewash over it by saying, "No, no, those people who are 
going on about it are just a bunch of radical, lunatic racists."

kat
Orange County, Calif.

p.s.  I am a BIG fan of separating the people who want to measure their success 
by galloping their horse around a flat course for 50 to 100 miles from those 
people who want to measure their success by managing their horse over thousands 
of miles of variable terrain at whatever is the appropriate pace; and there is 
NO reason that some individuals cannot happily fall into both categories.  I am 
also a BIG fan of separating the amateurs from the professionals.  

But that is a completely separate issue.  However, the reason I am a big fan of 
separating these groups is that people with such disparate motivations cannot be 
governed by the same set of rules, and if you don't separate them, they are 
GONNA disagree (and both with good reason) so it will lead to 
incessant bickering.