On 30 November 2024, 4Racing will celebrate the running of their stakes-boosted flagship, the R6 million Betway Gr1 Summer Cup.
But a dark cloud hangs ominously above Turffontein as the controversial metaphorical smash and grab that was the scratching by the National Horseracing Authority of the Tony Peter runners that scarred the big day last year, remains unresolved.
Frustrated Tony Peter – where to next ? (Pic – Candiese Lenferna)
While exciting developments have unfolded in racing regions countrywide, and the local and international sales arena is buoyant in the post-covid boom, South African racing stakeholders continue to ponder over the unfinished business of a day that apparently started with a breakfast at the Peter stable yard to celebrate the arrival of a bonny grandson and ended with scratchings and a subsequently lifted suspension, as well as a video that did the rounds.
The sad reality is that no matter who did what wrong, the Peter saga has been a scar on the SA horseracing landscape for far too long and besides the old favourite of justice delayed, it has lingered lengths ahead of KZN star Royal Victory’s big win in the 2023 renewal of the Highveld showpiece.
Anybody remember that Royal Victory won the 2023 Betway Summer Cup? (Pic – Candiese Lenferna)
In more Dick Francis style melodrama, Tony Peter issued a summons of R70 million in December 2023 against the National Horseracing Authority, with the regulator named as first defendant and Racing Control Executive Arnold Hyde as the second defendant, jointly and severally.
There are three individual claims listed, including damages arising from withdrawals from a race meeting on 27 July, following Out of Competition specimen collection that took place at Randjesfontein Training Centre and Turffontein Racecourse on 24 July 2023.
In between, we have had a variety of hearings, social media mud-slinging, statements from the beleaguered family operation and an ominous silence from the racing regulator – all patently bad PR for a game trying desperately to reinvent itself.
The latest postponement of the hearing, on Thursday 10 October 2024, happened as a result of a review application by the Peter family concerning the Inquiry Board’s decision not to disallow all of the evidence given by the NHA’s investigator, Riaan Janse van Rensburg.
When the Board received the application they despatched a note saying that they did not believe the inquiry should proceed on Thursday 10 and Friday 11 October.
The NHA’s counsel objected and opposed the postponement application, and the Peter legal team were thus made to argue a postponement, which was ultimately granted. This is said to have effectively cost the racing regulator two days of legal fees as well as the Inquiry Board expenses, including airfares etc.
The Sporting Post is in possession of an application in the South Gauteng High Court brought by the Peter family. This is a public document and can be read here.
“For reasons best known to its board, the NHA has delegated this matter to a firm of private investigators, who appear to be running the matter and on information at my disposal even appointed the NHA’s legal team. This exercise has cost the NHA an estimated almost R2-millon to date according to our legal team,” added Tony Peter.
The trainer went on to explain that at the previous hearing in August, whilst NHA investigator Janse van Rensburg was still being cross examined by the Peter’s representative, Advocate Nigel Riley, a representative of the private investigation firm was found to be instructing Mr Janse Van Rensburg as to what he should say to Riley while he (Van Rensburg) was being cross examined.
“I am informed that this is against every legal principle and practice in existence. And when the behaviour was brought to the inquiry boards’ attention, the NHA admitted what had happened. Previously, during the proceedings, and while he was being cross examined, Janse Van Rensburg also revealed that he had read the evidence of a previous witness, before he gave evidence himself,” added Peter.
“The real question is how the NHA board can continue to allow this almost comedic wastage of funds in a process effectively driven by an external service provider. The unnecessary delays and outrageous expenses have not been of our doing, and we simply want this matter finalized and to be allowed to get on with our professional lives,” concluded a clearly frustrated Tony Peter.
