In a letter to the editor

I had reason to take issue with Mr Howard Hamilton for his article in The Gleaner on February 13, 2009, headlined 'Much ado about nothing'.

Mr Hamilton, your readers may recall, attacked the contractor general for his report about conflict of interest by directors of Caymanas Track Limited (CTL), a company owned by the Government of Jamaica.

Mr Hamilton accused the contractor general in his report of "a level of ignorance" and "arrogance", and even suggested that his investigation may have caused the death of former CTL executive, Mr Donald Tankoy.

Yet, Mr Hamilton's first column did not deal with or refute one single fact outlined by the contractor general. His first article was merely frivolous and irresponsible.

Contradiction

Amazingly, a few days later Mr Hamilton then went on TV on Tuesday, February 24, and totally contradicted himself. In response to moderator Cliff Williams, who asked him about problems which the CTL board may have had, Mr Hamilton replied, and I quote verbatim, "Well, to be honest with you, I have not been too involved with that board because I have been travelling quite a bit. I have been more, more conscious of the contractor general's report, which I have made some comments on. It was obvious that there was some problem with respect to the simulcast contract and that is now a matter for the director of public prosecution to deal with so I would rather not discuss that. Obviously, there was some pro-blems which the minister who appointed them did not or took issue with and I gather they were asked to resign and a new board is to be appointed shortly."

The contradiction between Mr Hamilton's article on February 13 and his statement on TV is nothing less than absolutely astounding. In the articles, he attacks the contractor general and on TV, a few days later, he states "It was obvious that there was some problem with respect to the simulcast contract." At that point, having acknowledged same, Mr Hamilton should have apologised to the contractor general for his first article.

Yet, Mr Hamilton's erratic behaviour continues, as last Friday, March 6, he returns to The Gleaner again with his column and once again attacks the credibility and, in my view, the integrity, of the contractor general.

His second article, titled 'Much ado about nothing II', again does not dispute or deal with any of the facts laid out in the contractor general's report, but generally goes off on several tangents, none of which deal with the main issue of "conflict of interest and procedure by board members".

Explanations

Mr Hamilton's position as a columnist and president of the Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association behoves that he behaves more responsibly. He can take any position he wants, but he must back his position up with facts and he SHOULD NOT change his position every few days. Less he does not realise it - he contradicts himself and he does it in public to boot.

There are two possible explanations: (1) Mr Hamilton needs a vacation; or (2) there are really two Mr Hamiltons - one who thinks one way when he writes and one who disagrees with himself when he talks. I might suggest that we try not to follow Mr Hamilton too seriously or we might end up as confused as he is. Howard, I know you just came back from one but it sounds as if it's time for another vacation.