VINCENT
25-10-2002, 16:10
Phone-tapping? Access to bank accounts? McNally plays down powers but admits 'mystique is healthy'
NICK PULFORD, Racing Editor
----------------------------
Safety first: Tim McNally has met trainers, jockeys and stable staff to make them aware of potential pitfalls. "It's not an interview, the purpose is to try to develop a relationship." Picture by K.Y. Cheng
The Hong Kong Jockey Club's security department is truly an institution to be feared - a cross between the KGB and the Spanish Inquisition. And at its head is Tim McNally, former drug-buster with the FBI and now the man with the power to end a jockey's Hong Kong career before it has even started and the job of chasing the betting syndicates out of town. A man with an ear to every phone line and an eye on every betting and bank account.
Well, at least that's the perception of some about McNally and the department he controls. And perceptions count for a lot in Hong Kong racing.
The Jockey Club's director of security smiles at that perception, however. "Sometimes I chuckle because people presume I have a lot of authority. I really don't, I have very little to none," McNally insists from his office on the top floor of Jockey Club headquarters.
"I may have influence, but I have very little authority. If you look at the rules of racing, most of the power rests with the stewards of the Jockey Club and some is delegated down to the stipendiary stewards. None of that power is vested in the security department. But maybe it's healthy to have some mystique about what we do."
But what about all that phone tapping? "I'll tell you something, I don't have those kinds of powers," McNally says. "I can't go to bank accounts, I can't just get telephone records, I can't do all sorts of things I would do as a law enforcement officer. There are rumours of widespread phone tapping by the security department, but it just doesn't exist. We have no legal authority to phone tap."
So, just how has McNally gone about upholding the integrity of Hong Kong racing in the 3.5 years since he was headhunted from his former post as the FBI's top official in California? "A lot of what we do has to be prevention," he says. "There's a big difference between law enforcement and what I do here.
"More importantly here it's my job to work with the people in the business and make sure they know and understand where they can get themselves into problems. If they come to me when it's gone too far down the line, there's not much I can do to help them."
To that end, McNally and his staff have just completed a round of meetings with all trainers, jockeys and stable staff to make them aware of their responsibilities. "It's not an interview, the purpose is to try to develop a relationship," he says. "The worst time to go and knock on a door and meet someone for the first time is when there is a problem.
"Yes, we give them a standard litany of things to try to avoid, but we also try to send a message that they need to ask us if they have questions, whether it's about a law, a rule, or a relationship. We've got to make sure that we reduce the risk of potential problems in Hong Kong because we've got a lot at stake in terms of protecting public money invested and maintaining public confidence."
McNally's operation ranges from physical security at the Club's facilities, to an 11-person data security section guarding against viruses and hacking in the betting systems, and two investigative branches.
But perhaps the most contentious area is the role of the records and research section in the licensing of jockeys, especially in light of the forthcoming Robbie Fradd trial, the continuing "fugitive" status of John Egan and recent accusations in the British media regarding jockeys' alleged associations while riding in Hong Kong.
McNally is unwilling to discuss individual cases, especially with legal action still ongoing, but he emphasises again that the security department wields no stringent powers. "Our role is to provide some type of risk assessment on jockey applicants and we are not the decision-making authority by any means," he says.
"We do a summary report to the secretary of the Licensing Committee. If certain questions or issues arise of what I would call a substantive nature, we would report it for information or discussion. If there were very strong concerns, we would express them to the Licensing Committee.
"It's a healthy system, we're just one piece of information, but sometimes it can be a critical piece of information. I would say security-related issues come up on a relatively small percentage of the applicants - 10 per cent would be a fair figure. A strong concern would arise less regularly - it is not often that strong concerns come up.
"I can say without hesitation that most of the jockeys coming in here are good professionals, good people to talk to and it's very few that bring cause for serious discussion."
McNally says major concerns would be allegations of drug abuse or involvement in criminal activity, but otherwise he prefers to deal with potential problems in a low-key manner if possible.
"If a jockey had a history of getting involved in punting relationships, I would not necessarily oppose him coming here. But when he got here, it would be a cause of concern for us to have a conversation and indicate to him that he shouldn't get involved in that way in Hong Kong. I would not be accusatory, I would be matter of fact but firm.
"There is a widespread misunderstanding in the media of how racing security works. Often it is a case of intelligence gathering, but intelligence is a far cry from evidence and since I came into racing I haven't seen any case which is black and white. There are always two sides to a story and we have to deal with any concerns with a great sense of fairness. Racing is full of rumours, but I find most jockeys are honest and candid when you ask them a straight question."
If there is no black and white, there are plenty of grey areas and McNally admits to concern over some parts of racing culture. "I haven't proven anything, but I've heard a lot of allegations and rumours about stable staff receiving money for information," he says.
"Either unwittingly, or with knowledge, there's too much of that going on - not just in Hong Kong but in other racing jurisdictions, and not just among stable staff. Does that go on in a lot of different businesses? Yes. But is that good for racing in the long run? I don't believe so."Phone-tapping? Access to bank accounts? McNally plays down powers but admits 'mystique is healthy'
The potential for trouble was highlighted last season in the Raymond Tsui case, which saw the assistant trainer stripped of his licence after he admitted providing information about horses to a Jockey Club member in return for money. "I'm not too sure that there aren't others who have found themselves in the same position," McNally says.
"We need to pay more attention to that whole area, through education, training and reinforcing by action. We have to make sure that what we do each day is consistent with what we say, and I think we have some weaknesses and vulnerabilities there. We can't always take action because a lot of it is hearsay or rumour, but rules are rules.
"If you allow little problems to pass, that's where the system begins to erode and the opportunity for corruption arises. If you don't like the rules or need to put some practicality to them, then change the rules. But otherwise you have to enforce them."
One area where McNally has to enforce the rules on the racecourse is the ban on mobile phones, which many think is an unnecessary measure. More than 10,000 warnings on mobile phone use were issued in the public enclosures last season and McNally admits the ban "consumes a lot of time and manpower", but adds: "The ban is strictly tied to our statutory duty under the Gambling Ordinance that says we should do all things reasonable and necessary to enforce the gaming provisions of Hong Kong.
"However, the chairman and the chief executive have asked us to provide some assessment and we'll do that during the course of this season. How quickly there might be changes, I don't know. In the meantime, we will continue to enforce the existing provision."
Many would say the Club has been equally zealous, and just as unnecessarily so, in driving out some of Hong Kong's high-rolling punters. But it is a view disputed by McNally. "I don't think that's accurate. It would be foolish to say accounts haven't been closed, but mainly it has happened where the named account holder and the user did not match up. It is idle speculation that the Club has targeted or discouraged major betting syndicates. It's an erroneous perception."
Yes, perception. Funny how so many things in McNally's line of work come down to the P-word.
[ October 25, 2002, 10:12 AM: Message edited by: VINCENT ]
NICK PULFORD, Racing Editor
----------------------------
Safety first: Tim McNally has met trainers, jockeys and stable staff to make them aware of potential pitfalls. "It's not an interview, the purpose is to try to develop a relationship." Picture by K.Y. Cheng
The Hong Kong Jockey Club's security department is truly an institution to be feared - a cross between the KGB and the Spanish Inquisition. And at its head is Tim McNally, former drug-buster with the FBI and now the man with the power to end a jockey's Hong Kong career before it has even started and the job of chasing the betting syndicates out of town. A man with an ear to every phone line and an eye on every betting and bank account.
Well, at least that's the perception of some about McNally and the department he controls. And perceptions count for a lot in Hong Kong racing.
The Jockey Club's director of security smiles at that perception, however. "Sometimes I chuckle because people presume I have a lot of authority. I really don't, I have very little to none," McNally insists from his office on the top floor of Jockey Club headquarters.
"I may have influence, but I have very little authority. If you look at the rules of racing, most of the power rests with the stewards of the Jockey Club and some is delegated down to the stipendiary stewards. None of that power is vested in the security department. But maybe it's healthy to have some mystique about what we do."
But what about all that phone tapping? "I'll tell you something, I don't have those kinds of powers," McNally says. "I can't go to bank accounts, I can't just get telephone records, I can't do all sorts of things I would do as a law enforcement officer. There are rumours of widespread phone tapping by the security department, but it just doesn't exist. We have no legal authority to phone tap."
So, just how has McNally gone about upholding the integrity of Hong Kong racing in the 3.5 years since he was headhunted from his former post as the FBI's top official in California? "A lot of what we do has to be prevention," he says. "There's a big difference between law enforcement and what I do here.
"More importantly here it's my job to work with the people in the business and make sure they know and understand where they can get themselves into problems. If they come to me when it's gone too far down the line, there's not much I can do to help them."
To that end, McNally and his staff have just completed a round of meetings with all trainers, jockeys and stable staff to make them aware of their responsibilities. "It's not an interview, the purpose is to try to develop a relationship," he says. "The worst time to go and knock on a door and meet someone for the first time is when there is a problem.
"Yes, we give them a standard litany of things to try to avoid, but we also try to send a message that they need to ask us if they have questions, whether it's about a law, a rule, or a relationship. We've got to make sure that we reduce the risk of potential problems in Hong Kong because we've got a lot at stake in terms of protecting public money invested and maintaining public confidence."
McNally's operation ranges from physical security at the Club's facilities, to an 11-person data security section guarding against viruses and hacking in the betting systems, and two investigative branches.
But perhaps the most contentious area is the role of the records and research section in the licensing of jockeys, especially in light of the forthcoming Robbie Fradd trial, the continuing "fugitive" status of John Egan and recent accusations in the British media regarding jockeys' alleged associations while riding in Hong Kong.
McNally is unwilling to discuss individual cases, especially with legal action still ongoing, but he emphasises again that the security department wields no stringent powers. "Our role is to provide some type of risk assessment on jockey applicants and we are not the decision-making authority by any means," he says.
"We do a summary report to the secretary of the Licensing Committee. If certain questions or issues arise of what I would call a substantive nature, we would report it for information or discussion. If there were very strong concerns, we would express them to the Licensing Committee.
"It's a healthy system, we're just one piece of information, but sometimes it can be a critical piece of information. I would say security-related issues come up on a relatively small percentage of the applicants - 10 per cent would be a fair figure. A strong concern would arise less regularly - it is not often that strong concerns come up.
"I can say without hesitation that most of the jockeys coming in here are good professionals, good people to talk to and it's very few that bring cause for serious discussion."
McNally says major concerns would be allegations of drug abuse or involvement in criminal activity, but otherwise he prefers to deal with potential problems in a low-key manner if possible.
"If a jockey had a history of getting involved in punting relationships, I would not necessarily oppose him coming here. But when he got here, it would be a cause of concern for us to have a conversation and indicate to him that he shouldn't get involved in that way in Hong Kong. I would not be accusatory, I would be matter of fact but firm.
"There is a widespread misunderstanding in the media of how racing security works. Often it is a case of intelligence gathering, but intelligence is a far cry from evidence and since I came into racing I haven't seen any case which is black and white. There are always two sides to a story and we have to deal with any concerns with a great sense of fairness. Racing is full of rumours, but I find most jockeys are honest and candid when you ask them a straight question."
If there is no black and white, there are plenty of grey areas and McNally admits to concern over some parts of racing culture. "I haven't proven anything, but I've heard a lot of allegations and rumours about stable staff receiving money for information," he says.
"Either unwittingly, or with knowledge, there's too much of that going on - not just in Hong Kong but in other racing jurisdictions, and not just among stable staff. Does that go on in a lot of different businesses? Yes. But is that good for racing in the long run? I don't believe so."Phone-tapping? Access to bank accounts? McNally plays down powers but admits 'mystique is healthy'
The potential for trouble was highlighted last season in the Raymond Tsui case, which saw the assistant trainer stripped of his licence after he admitted providing information about horses to a Jockey Club member in return for money. "I'm not too sure that there aren't others who have found themselves in the same position," McNally says.
"We need to pay more attention to that whole area, through education, training and reinforcing by action. We have to make sure that what we do each day is consistent with what we say, and I think we have some weaknesses and vulnerabilities there. We can't always take action because a lot of it is hearsay or rumour, but rules are rules.
"If you allow little problems to pass, that's where the system begins to erode and the opportunity for corruption arises. If you don't like the rules or need to put some practicality to them, then change the rules. But otherwise you have to enforce them."
One area where McNally has to enforce the rules on the racecourse is the ban on mobile phones, which many think is an unnecessary measure. More than 10,000 warnings on mobile phone use were issued in the public enclosures last season and McNally admits the ban "consumes a lot of time and manpower", but adds: "The ban is strictly tied to our statutory duty under the Gambling Ordinance that says we should do all things reasonable and necessary to enforce the gaming provisions of Hong Kong.
"However, the chairman and the chief executive have asked us to provide some assessment and we'll do that during the course of this season. How quickly there might be changes, I don't know. In the meantime, we will continue to enforce the existing provision."
Many would say the Club has been equally zealous, and just as unnecessarily so, in driving out some of Hong Kong's high-rolling punters. But it is a view disputed by McNally. "I don't think that's accurate. It would be foolish to say accounts haven't been closed, but mainly it has happened where the named account holder and the user did not match up. It is idle speculation that the Club has targeted or discouraged major betting syndicates. It's an erroneous perception."
Yes, perception. Funny how so many things in McNally's line of work come down to the P-word.
[ October 25, 2002, 10:12 AM: Message edited by: VINCENT ]