While technology and policing is in place to ensure that the horse listed in the racecard is the horse that you are actually backing, it is possible to mix them up.
A case at the Vaal last Thursday highlighted the diligence of Highveld horse identifier Tanya Pilgrim, and the fact that, in the face of everyday human frailty and a propensity to err, the system actually really does work.
The Sporting Post sought clarity from National Horseracing Authority CEO Vee Moodley earlier this week after calls to our offices from a variety of stakeholders, who generally felt that a cursory note in the Stipes Report, and a R10 000 fine slapped on a Turffontein trainer, did not do justice to what could have been another serious stain on horseracing.
Trainer Tony Peter accepted delivery of two fillies on face value – his explanation was accepted (Pic – Candiese Lenferna)
Just to sketch the background: two former Justin Snaith charges raced by leading owner Suzette Viljoen were transferred to the Tony Peter yard.
According to evidence led in an inquiry conducted at the Vaal on Thursday 6 July, where Tony Peter was charged with a contravention of Rule 72.1.45, it was accepted that the two horses in question were actually mixed up by the transport company who delivered them to his stables.
Trainer Peter apparently took the stickers on the horses’ hindquarters at face value, and did not identify them individually on arrival.
The two 2yo fillies – the promising Golden Sickle and the formless in two starts One Fell Swoop – were thus effectively in training under each other’s identity from this point onwards, until the NHA Horse Identifier’s intervention before the fourth race at the Vaal on 6 July.
One Fell Swoop was carded at the Vaal on that date, with Golden Sickle down to run at Turffontein on Saturday 8 July. The former was scratched after the Horse Identifier picked up a discrepancy – while Golden Sickle, who actually turned up at the Vaal, subsequently won two days later.
The report, published the same afternoon, states that following an investigation, which included evidence being presented by Trainer A P Peter, the horse identifier on duty, as well as the examination of both GOLDEN SICKLE and ONE FELL SWOOP’S identity pages in their passports, the Board was satisfied that there was no sinister intent with regard to this scratching. It appeared from the evidence that Trainer A P Peter had mixed these fillies up from the time they first arrived in his yard. He was charged with a contravention of Rule 72.1.45 in that he presented GOLDEN SICKLE as ONE FELL SWOOP, which was the horse carded to race and subsequently withdrawn from the race. Trainer A P Peter signed an Admission of Guilt and a fine of R10 000 was imposed.
This was a pleasingly express conclusion to a serious matter, and the callers to our offices felt that, for one, a greater fuss in terms of publicity, should have been made by the NHA, who turned out to be on the ball and showed that their processes actually work. In other words, turn a negative into a positive and show that racing is well controlled!
In the circumstances, there was a question as to why our racing regulator would not come out publically – beyond the Stipes report – to show that the control systems in place to prevent ‘ringers’, and thus ultimately protect the punting public, worked well in the end?
NHA CEO Vee Moodley, pictured above, told the Sporting Post that the incident in question was handled in the same manner as recent similar cases.
“To be fair, the Stipendiary Stewards Report and the racing calendar, is the official communication document and channel of the NHA. The report describes the happenings at every race meeting in SA and Zimbabwe. I can confirm that lots of time and effort are dedicated to these reports to inform all stakeholders. I believe that the comments emanating from your unnamed owners and trainers, are flawed, when they state that not enough airtime was given to the incident,” said Mr Moodley, who confirmed that this type of incident is not the first of its kind.
“We have had at least four similar cases in the past 24 months, and up until as recently as approximately two months ago. These were dealt with, and the necessary details included in the Stipes reports. I note there were no queries on those incidents? I put it to you that selectively choosing an incident for the NHA to ‘expand on’ is hardly being consistent. Every incident is treated on its merits,” he confirmed.
The Sporting Post only approached the NHA on this matter as there were enquiries from stakeholders asking for more information.
The NHA boss also emphatically refuted any suggestions of any attempt to actually bypass the very experienced, and clearly diligent, horse identifier in the pre-race.
“That is absolutely without basis. The identification of the horse and the actual discrepancy was highlighted in front of the Chief and Deputy Stipes on duty, and in the presence of all other stakeholders in the area.”
We asked whether any investigation was done into any betting moves.
“Yes, we certainly do. The NHA is thoroughly equipped to monitor betting patterns on all legitimate betting channels both locally and internationally, including exchanges. In this case, no further investigation was warranted due to the genuine error as accepted by the Board.”
While the matter was swiftly concluded, one caller asked whether the wrong horse – Golden Sickle – should not have been withdrawn from the engagement two days later – where it won – as it was effectively under investigation?
“There were no grounds whatsoever to withdraw Golden Sickle. There was no investigation pending as the inquiry was concluded on the Thursday at the Vaal, and an Acknowledgement Of Guilt was signed by the trainer,” concluded Moodley.
