Paul Lafferty Racing Assistant, Roy Waugh
Paul Lafferty Racing Assistant, Roy Waugh, has reacted publicly to the recent NHA Inquiry and subsequent Appeal which was recently dismissed.
Sequence of Events
The NHA charged Paul Lafferty Racing Stable Assistant, Mr Roy Waugh, with a contravention of Rule 72.1.25 in that he conducted himself in an improper manner by physically abusing an employee of Paul Lafferty Racing Stable at Scottsville Racecourse on the 10th June 2015.
An inquiry was held at which Mr Waugh pleaded not guilty to the charge, but was found guilty by the Inquiry Board and a penalty of R7500.00 was imposed.
Mr Waugh had the right of appeal against both the finding and the penalty imposed and exercised his right to do so. Mr Waugh’s appeal was heard at the NHA offices on 23 August 2016 (read the NHA press release here). The Appeal Board confirmed both the finding and penalty imposed by the Inquiry Board, dismissed the appeal and declared Mr Waugh’s deposit fee forfeited. Furthermore, the Appeal Board acting in terms of Rule 85.5.7, ordered that Mr Waugh pay all of the actual costs and other expenses reasonably incurred by The NHA in connection with the appeal.
Waugh Responds
“In a stipendiary inquiry held in Durban in 2015, I was found guilty of physical abuse of a groom in the employ of Paul Lafferty Racing based on the testimony of the groom himself (complainant) and three groom witnesses. These witness statements were taken by the investigating officer of the NHRA over a period of eight to ten days subsequent to the incident at Scottsville Racecourse. I was never interviewed or had a statement taken by any member of the NHRA.”
“For the inquiry, I submitted the results of a polygraph examination taken on myself by an independent forensic company recommended by one of the stable’s owners. Under the polygraph examination, I was interrogated on whether I committed any physical assault against the groom in question. I also submitted an internal stable inquiry held with the groom/complainant and our two head lads shortly after the incident.”
“My polygraph result of +3 indicates absolutely no deception in telling the truth in that I did NOT assault the groom in question at any stage. A polygraph reading goes from -3 to +3, a -3 indicating a high degree of deception and a +3 result indicating absolutely no degree of deception – nil. So clearly my result of +3 showed absolutely no deception and confirmed that I was telling the absolute truth.”
“The internal stable inquiry statement taken a couple of days after the incident did not match the original statement of the groom/complainant taken at Scottsville Racecourse. In fact, it completely contradicted his original accusation of assault. The inquiry statement was taken in the presence of the two stable head lads to ensure its integrity and to ensure that the complainant understood and agreed with the contents of the statement. The complainant cannot write and the head lads translated everything for him so he understood the contents of the statement written. The complainant did mention to one of the head lads that his original statement made at Scottsville was different to that of the stable inquiry but ‘he could not change it.'”
“During the stipendiary inquiry itself, the complainant made at least five conflicting statements, and this was pointed out by my lawyer as part of my grounds for appeal.”
“I made it clear to Mr Hyde of the NHRA in email correspondence that I was currently overseas and would not be available for my appeal until after November, 2016, but I was happy to have the appeal conducted before then in my absence with my legal counsel present on my behalf.”
“The NHRA emailed me with ten days notice for an appeal date set on the 23rd August and to be held at Turfontein Racecourse in Johannesburg. I responded (& copied my lawyer) that my lawyer was not available on this date. Ten days is short notice. My lawyer could give a few dates in September when he would be available. And I also pointed out that we would like the appeal to be heard in Natal as the incident took place at a racecourse in Natal, not in Johannesburg. The NHRA responded that the date would remain unchanged on the 23rd August and the venue would also remain unchanged at Turffontein Racecourse in Johannesburg. In other words, the appeal would be held in the absence of both myself and my legal counsel, ie there is no appeal and the original finding stands.”
“That in a nutshell is the case and the course of events that led up to the appeal that was set by the NHRA on the 23rd August, 2016, in Johannesburg, in the full knowledge that neither myself nor my legal counsel would be able to attend.”
“Firstly, an appeal held without the presence of the defendant, or the legal representative of the defendant, is no longer an appeal as such. Clearly the grounds for the appeal cannot be argued by either the defendant or his legal counsel in both their absence.”
“Secondly, if there is knowledge that no defendant or legal counsel will be present at an appeal, there will be no legal costs as such, and any administrative costs would be minimal. So to be charged R15,000 legal costs is outrageous.”
“Thirdly, to then release a NHRA press statement to the Sporting Post that effectively states that “neither Mr Waugh nor his legal representative appeared before the Appeal Board and accordingly, the matter was heard in Mr Waugh’s absence” is completely misleading to the point of being blatantly untruthful and ultimately a gross distortion of the facts.”
“In the first place, I had made it very clear to Mr Hyde of the NHRA that I would not be available for an appeal before the end of November as I was overseas (with a stable horse, Harry’s Son, no less). And in the second place, I stated very clearly in my email correspondence with Mr Hyde that I would not object to an appeal in my absence if my legal representative attended the appeal on my behalf.”
“The NHRA never afforded my legal counsel the opportunity to attend my appeal. The NHRA never made any attempt whatsoever to accommodate his presence at a convenient date to both parties, and this at his request. And the NHRA proceeded with the appeal on the 23rd August with the full knowledge that I also would not be in a position to attend the appeal on that date as I was out of the country.”
“The NHRA states in its first paragraph that it is ‘a voluntary association which operates under its own rules and regulations. Its primary objective is to promote and maintain honourable practice…’ The NHRA is doing neither here, of either promoting or maintaining honourable practice within its own operations, never mind that of the racing industry. What it is doing is operating under its own rules and regulations, there can be little argument about that. But I do not believe for a moment that the NHRA operated within the constitutional laws of this country, or importantly, in this instance, adjudicate in either a fair manner or with any integrity for the benefit of the racing industry and its licensed members.”
