I have been involved in racing for decades and can’t recall an occurrence that has divided the South African racing public more than the Tony Peter and National Horseracing Authority standoff that is currently playing out.
Steve Reid writes in the Sporting Post Mailbag that on Saturday 23 December 2023, the NHA confirmed that the investigation carried out by O’Sullivan Brosnan & Associates, surrounding the events that allegedly transpired at the stables of Tony Peter on Saturday, 25 November 2023, had been completed.
The statement indicated that all of Messrs A P Peter (Trainer), P A Peter (Assistant Trainer) and M D Peter (Stable Employee) will be required to answer to various charges at an Inquiry on Wednesday, 24 January 2024.
The closest thing that I can compare ‘Petergate’, as it has been labelled by our media, to would be the Jean Barnard-Heming (see image below) struggle against the then South African Jockey Club in the 80’s and 90’s.
For those of you that are unaware of the history of this and taken verbatim from the Racing Post :-
Heming was charged for using illegal substances three times and was twice warned off, but she took the Jockey Club to the Supreme Court and was cleared of all charges.
Heming told South African racing journalist Charl Pretorius: “There are trainers who have used arsenic, aconite, EPO and minute doses of tranquilisers, but no horse in my yard was ever doped to win. The only pre-race preparation administered was drenching to hydrate a dehydrated horse.”
The NHA may not like that I am comparing them to their predecessors. However it’s clear that there is a history of trainers being singled out unfairly without proof.
To say that the NHA has been messy in their attempts to prosecute Tony Peter would be kind.
The improper haste by the NHA to charge Peter has resulted in the following occurring:
- Hyde scratching horses carded to run on 27 July 2023 against the advice of the NHA Veterinary surgeon.
- Hyde suspending the Peter stable runners on Summer Cup day after allowing the 1st race entrant to run and win.
- Lifting the suspension barely 36 hours later after legal action was taken by the Peter stable against the NHA in this regard.
- All the Peter runners carded to run on Summer Cup Day returned no positives
- The NHA have charged the Peter stable for not presenting a horse that was scheduled to run in a later race. Why would you take a horse to races after it had been scratched? If there was any suspicion that this particular horse was the silver bullet needed to prove their doping suspicions, why did the NHA not send their staff to identify and take a sample from the horse which was stabled on the racecourse grounds?
- Unprecedented surveillance by NHA staff in the Peter stable following the aftermath of Summer Cup actions has done little to diminish the flow of winners so clearly the horses are winning on merit.
- Appointment of a high profile forensic investigator after the Summer Cup debacle. Why was this needed if the video evidence was sufficient to prove guilt as alleged?
It is clear is that public opinion is divided on the innocence of the Peter stable. There’s no grey area, you either believe the stable, or you believe the NHA.
It is highly probable that if the NHA find Tony Peter guilty, and impose any drastic sanction, this decision will be challenged in a higher court.
This leads the question about allowing the hearing to be made public by allowing the hearing to be streamed. While this has been requested and refused before, surely the NHA with their alleged video evidence, would be keen to set the record straight?
If it was deemed to be in the public interest by judges to publically broadcast high-profile cases such as the Oscar Pistorius trial, why would the NHA deny the same privileges to the racing public unless they were nervous of what would be revealed?
To emphasize my belief that INTEGRITY would be served by a broadcast of the hearing, the following observations were made about the broadcasting of the Oscar Pistorius trial:
The Oscar Pistorius trial has been the most sensational and dramatic televised trial since the OJ Simpson trial almost 20 years ago. In Judge President Mlambo’s groundbreaking and somewhat controversial decision, he decided to grant permission to media houses to broadcast the trial live on radio and television. Parts of certain court cases have been televised in South Africa before, but this judgment is the first ruling of its kind in our country. Mlambo’s judgment is now a leading precedent for broadcast access to criminal trials around the world.The application to broadcast the trial was brought by Eyewitness News, eNCA and MultiChoice, which announced its plans to launch a dedicated 24-hour TV channel. They sought permission to do this through audio, audio-visual and photographic means. Pistorius and his legal team steadfastly opposed any form of coverage sought by the applicants, contending that it would infringe his right to a fair trial.
Judge Mlambo observed that important constitutional rights had to be weighed up against each other. This was the right of an accused person and the prosecution to a fair trial on the one hand (section 34). On the other hand was the freedom of expression rights of the press and media (section 16), which includes the freedom to receive and disseminate information and ideas, as well as the open justice principle. Mlambo then held that in balancing these competing rights, he had to ensure that the interests of justice are upheld in terms of section 173 of the Constitution, which states that the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court of Appeal and the High Court of South Africa each have the inherent power to protect and regulate their own process, and to develop the common law, taking into account the interests of justice. He then undertook a balancing exercise to give expression to the constitutional rights at play.
Mlambo emphasised the principle of open justice, which asserts that court proceedings are public. This ensures openness, accountability and public understanding. He further remarked that this openness ensures that the citizenry know what is happening and remain informed. Further, it allows people to discuss, endorse, criticise, applaud or castigate the conduct of the courts. He remarked that such free and frank debate about judicial proceedings promotes impartiality, accessibility and effectiveness. Mlambo held that, within allowable limits, it is in the public interest that the goings-on during the trial be covered to ensure that a greater number of persons in the community, who have an interest in the matter but are unable to attend these proceedings due to geographical constrains, are able to follow the proceedings wherever they may be. He further held that enabling a larger South African society to follow first-hand the criminal proceedings, which involved a celebrity and international icon, would go a long way towards dispelling the negative and unfounded perceptions about the justice system, and would inform and educate society regarding the conduct of criminal proceedings.
Judge Mlambo in ordering that the trial be televised, imposed a number of conditions to ensure that broadcasters would not interfere with the proceedings. This included that Judge Masipa would specifically direct when recording should start and when it should stop; no recordings were allowed when the court was not in session; the cameras had to be installed in such a way that they did not interfere with proceedings and were as unobtrusive as possible; no extreme close-ups were allowed to be taken of anyone; and witnesses giving evidence were not to be televised (unless they consented).
It may be pertinent to remind the NHA that their rules do not trump those of the constitution of South Africa.
The Chief Executive, pictured above, has this to say about transparency in the 2023 NHA Annual Report:
“The NHA assures transparency in its actions, as it is deemed critical in a regulatory environment whilst ensuring that confidentiality is embedded”.
I couldn’t agree with him more.
Now put your money where your mouth is Mr. Moodley and provide the most transparent inquiry possible.
Make it public!
