The Tony Peter Lidocaine Inquiry scheduled over two days and originally set down for Thursday 12 October, will now commence on Friday 13 October.
The Inquiry came about after the confirmation from the Hong Kong Jockey Club Racing Laboratory on 13 September 2023, that specimens taken from Axel Collins and Youre My Sunshine were analysed and the presence of the prohibited substance, Lidocaine was found to be present.
Tony Peter – entitled to a fair hearing (Pic – Candiese Lenferna)
In an email copied at the defendant’s request to the Sporting Post on Tuesday evening, his legal counsel addresses the NHA Attorney Nic Roodt, on various issues, including the perceived lack of independence of the Inquiry Board.
First of which is the apparent intended absence from proceedings of NHA CEO Vee Moodley and Racing Control Executive Arnold Hyde, which is not acceptable to Peter’s counsel.
They write that the NHA has no discretion in the Rules to determine as to which witnesses Mr Peter may call, nor is there any Rule providing that Mr Hyde and/or Mr Moodley may not be called as witness to any inquiry.
They point out that both Moodley and Hyde were involved directly in the actions and correspondence that relate to this matter. They thus reaffirm the request that the presence of both parties is required at the hearing on Friday, 13 October 2023.
Whilst sympathy is conveyed in respect of the passing of Matthew Lips, and it is fair and understandable that some NHA staff and other racing stakeholders may wish to attend the memorial service on Thursday 12 October, it is pointed out in the email that Mr Peter has instructed counsel to attend on Thursday, 12 October 2023 and as such is responsible for the costs thereof.
Issue is taken with the fact that the racing regulator did not in any way request or consult as regards a postponement of the matter on Thursday with the defendant, but merely informed him that the proceedings would not be taking place.
This was a unilateral instruction to the Inquiry Board and the defence suggests that such a situation is highly irregular and displays a possible bias of the Inquiry Board.
They indicate that the proper procedure was that their client was to be advised of the NHA’s intention to seek a postponement of the hearing, and thereafter a formal request be sent to the Inquiry Board which would have encompassed both parties in the matter.
However, it appears that the NHA has instructed the Inquiry Board as to what will happen, and the Inquiry Board has merely acquiesced to their instructions.
The Peter counsel say that this must cast a serious doubt as to the independence of the Inquiry Board and the defendant reserves his rights with regards thereto.
As regards the calls by stakeholders and the racing public for the matter to be live streamed, the Peter counsel record that the hearing of this matter is of great significance to the racing public and furthermore, is of significance to the parties.
It is their belief that the reluctance of the NHA in this regard is due to the inconsistencies and procedural difficulties that will become apparent during the course of the inquiry.
As the body responsible for the control of horse racing in South Africa, the NHA is accountable for its actions to not only the stake holders in the horse racing industry, but also to those punters and gamblers who substantially contribute to the financing of the entire industry, including the legal costs of the NHA and the salaries of its employees.
Mr Peter finds it incorrigible and unacceptable that the NHA refuses to be transparent. Defence counsel confirm that they will make a request at the hearing of this matter for the inquiry to be open to the public.
The Sporting Post has addressed three emails to the National Horseracing Authority regarding the request from the public and Mr Peter to have the Inquiry streamed and opened to the public. No response has been forthcoming.
Similar stonewalling occurred at our request for the Yeni-Jacobson matter earlier this year.
