TRAINER A P PETER RACING STABLES – INVESTIGATION COMPLETED – INQUIRY NOTICE

 

TRAINER A P PETER RACING STABLES – INVESTIGATION COMPLETED – INQUIRY NOTICE  

The National Horseracing Authority of Southern Africa (the NHA) confirms that the investigation carried out by O’Sullivan Brosnan & Associates, surrounding the events that transpired at the stables of Trainer Mr Anthony Peter on Saturday, 25 November 2023, has been completed. Messrs A P Peter (Trainer), P A Peter (Assistant Trainer) and M D Peter (Stable Employee) will be required to answer to the following charges at an Inquiry which has been set down for Wednesday, 24 January 2024, commencing at 11:00.  

The charge sheet reads as follows:-

 1.               The subject matter of the Inquiry took place at and/or near the C block Stables, Turffontein Racecourse on 2023-11-25 at about or between 10h00 and 11h00. This will lead to charges being preferred, including but not limited to, contraventions of Rule 72.1.16 Rule 72.1.18 and Rule 72.1.23. For ease of reference, I set out relevant Rules below for your information.

 4.2      GENERAL POWERS In addition to any other powers and duties delegated or granted to them or provided in terms of the CONSTITUTION or the RULES, the SB and the STIPENDIARY STEWARDS shall have the power to do all things necessary to enable them to fulfil their functions and duties. Without derogating from the generality of this provision, the SB and the STIPENDIARY STEWARDS shall have the following powers, functions and duties: 4.2.10 to order an examination and, if they deem necessary, the detention for observation and further examination of any HORSE which has run in a RACE or which is on a RACE COURSE for the purpose of running in a RACE, and to take any action they consider necessary as a result of such examination, provided that the period of detention shall not exceed 48 hours and that the OWNER of the HORSE, or his representative, shall have the right to be present during the whole or any part of such period of detention;  

72.      SPECIFIC OFFENCES (PROHIBITED PRACTICES) 72.1    CONTRAVENTIONS Without in any way derogating from the provisions of the RULES, no PERSON shall:- 72.1.16   interfere with, tamper with or intimidate anybody (including any witness) or anything (where applicable) involved in or concerned with any INQUIRY, investigation, OBJECTION, appeal or review, held or to be held in terms of the CONSTITUTION or the RULES. 72.1.18   abuse, swear at, mislead, intimidate, threaten or interfere with any PERSON including any LICENSED OFFICIAL involved with the administration or the control of racing; 72.1.19 commit, or incite or conspire with anybody to commit any corrupt, fraudulent, dishonest or prohibited practice in relation to racing or breeding or the buying and/or selling of HORSES in any country; 72.1.23   administer any substance topically, orally, by injection, by inhalation, by drenching, by infusion or any other method other than normal feed and water by mouth, to a HORSE at any time prior to the RACE on the day of the RACE MEETING at which the HORSE is due to run except where such substances have been authorised by the CHIEF EXECUTIVE in the RACING CALENDAR as published from time to time; 72.1.40 fail or refuse to comply with any reasonable order, direction or requirement of any LICENSED OFFICIAL.  

1.1      ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE ABOVEMENTIONED PARTIES It is alleged that you all, together, acting with a common purpose and in concert with each other, at Turffontein Racecourse, on 2023-11-25, did unlawfully and intentionally: - 

1.1.1   Administer a substance, by way of a nasogastric tube, to a horse known asFlying Bull, at Block C, Stable block, Turffontein Racecourse, in contravention of Rule 72.1.23. o

1.1.2   Interfere with an investigation by the NHA Special Investigator, in contravention of Rule 72.1.16, by handing possible evidence (of the unlawful administration of a substance to a horse under your control - namely Flying Bull) to Mrs Marcel Peter, which evidence was contained within TWO Checkers carrier bags. 


1.1.3   Interfere with an investigation by the NHA Special Investigator, by forcibly preventing him from seizing evidence of the unlawful substance administration, from Mrs Marcel Peter and forcibly holding him back, whilst Mrs Marcel Peter escaped from the racecourse, in a vehicle driven by Mr Marc Dominic Peter, having first run out of the Block B stables with the evidence concealed in two Checkers carrier bags, which was then shoved down the inside of her tracksuit trousers. 

1.1.4   Interfere with an investigation by the NHA Special Investigator, in contravention of Rule 72.1.16, by reaching for and grabbing and concealing on your person, a clear plastic Ziplockbag, which had previously contained the substance that was administered to Flying Bull, in contravention of Rule 72.1.23. ALTERNATIVELY, that you 

1.1.5   Misled the Special Investigator of the NHA, in contravention of Rule 72.1.18 by attempting to avoid being searched at Block C stables, by dishonestly declaring that you were not a ‘registered person’, whereas at all material times you knew that you were registered as an Assistant Trainer and were therefore subject to regulation in terms of the rules. 

1.1.6   Interfere with an investigation by the NHA Special Investigator, in contravention of Rule 72.1.16, by refusing to hand over a plastic Ziplock bag, when instructed to do so, and instead proceeded to empty the Ziplock bag of all the white powder therein, so as to hinder the Special Investigator from seizing it as evidence, fully knowing that by repeatedly emptying the bag, there would be no evidence left to analyse, to be able to confirm the contents. 

1.1.7   Failed or refused to comply with the reasonable order of the NHA’s Special Investigator to hand over the clear plastic Ziplock bag, and instead committed the crime of Defeating the Ends of Justice by emptying the bag of incriminating evidence, leaving insufficient trace evidence to enable a probative analysis thereof, with the intention to avoid being charged with a criminal offence.(Alternative to 1.1.6)

1.1.8   Interfered with an investigation by the NHA, in contravention of Rule 72.1.16, read together with rule 4.2.10, by refusing and or failing to present the horseFLYING BULL for examination as part of the investigation into the unlawful administration of a substance, in breach of Rule 72.1.23. 

1.1.9   Failed or refused to comply with the reasonable order of the NHA’s Special Investigator NOT to drive away in the vehicle, a white double cab bakkie, with registration number HP33GT-GP, before such vehicle could be subjected to a search. 

1.1.10 Failed or refused to comply with the reasonable order of the NHA’s Special Investigator to allow two Checker’s carry bags to be searched and, instead, drove off with Mrs Marcel Peter in possession of such bags which were reasonably suspected of containing evidence of the commission of an offence.  

1.1.11 commit, or incite or conspire with anybody to commit any corrupt, fraudulent, dishonest or prohibited practice in relation to racing in contravention of Rule 72.1.19 in that your joint and several and aggregate conduct as set out above, amounts to such conduct, as well as the criminal offence of Racketeering, as defined in Section 2 (1) (e), read together with Section 2 (1) (f) of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act, Act 121 of 1998.    

A D HYDE

Racing Control Executive

Hoping for an executive summary. 

1.1.3 Interfere with an investigation by the NHA Special Investigator, by forcibly preventing him from seizing evidence of the unlawful substance administration, from Mrs Marcel Peter and forcibly holding him back, whilst Mrs Marcel Peter escaped from the racecourse, in a vehicle driven by Mr Marc Dominic Peter, having first run out of the Block B stables with the evidence concealed in two Checkers carrier bags, which was then shoved down the inside of her tracksuit trousers.

If they got video evidence of this then it's obvious they where hiding something.
But without evidence will be difficult to prove this I think.

And I was reading that even if all these allegations are true they could still get away with it if the NHA didn't follow the procedures properly.

www.africanbettingclan.com/forum/south-a...s-to-the-yard#875600

Was this deliberately spread out to make it look worse?

And no mention of any positives?

The racketeering part is interesting

......the confusion reigns...so they have the evidence but had to get outside so called forensic specialists to decipher if the evidence is sufficient to ensure that they have is strong enough to make a case.... they are leaning towards the possibility of milkshaking but without a positive and then actually being uncertain of which horse the procedure was intended for or actually performed on.... all horses are scratched and an assumption is made that a horse that was not tested or presented for testing may have been the one that was milkshaked.....but why would one be trying to perform this so called illegal procedure so far ahead of the actual race... and was it a bicarbonate cocktail or simply something else for indigestion....and was it even being performed on a horse that was due to race that day.....
 

Muhtiman wrote:

......the confusion reigns...so they have the evidence but had to get outside so called forensic specialists to decipher if the evidence is sufficient to ensure that they have is strong enough to make a case.... they are leaning towards the possibility of milkshaking but without a positive and then actually being uncertain of which horse the procedure was intended for or actually performed on.... all horses are scratched and an assumption is made that a horse that was not tested or presented for testing may have been the one that was milkshaked.....but why would one be trying to perform this so called illegal procedure so far ahead of the actual race... and was it a bicarbonate cocktail or simply something else for indigestion....and was it even being performed on a horse that was due to race that day.....

this......

possibly the best post on this forum this year.

It's a pity that the majority will not understand the significance.


 

Questions

1: Did the NHRA know Flying BULL was being drenched?

2: Why did they not act and test immediately?

Bob Brogan wrote:

Questions

1: Did the NHRA know Flying BULL was being drenched?

2: Why did they not act and test immediately?


..,.by their actions and response not really..... they basically bungled the intended procedures....and are trying to back walk the whole shoddy mess....as for Flying Bull not being available for testing... .anything could have gone wrong...more confusion.the groom learns that the horse has been scratched 
so he does not walk it from the yard simple communication error..... worse things have happened like bringing the wrong horse or groom falling asleep on the way to the track....whether deliberate or accidental the fine or penalty is still the same....sh1t happens but should the alleged illegal milkshaking taken place so early on the day it would never have had the intended affect nor would it have been detected as excess Co2  dispipates within a few hours even before a strenuous workout or race... and had alleged milkshaking taken place a simpler method make sure the horse expelled he excess Co2 is to give it a more vigorous walk or trot for a longer tine on the way to the track...besides a video showing a drenching procedure without being able to properly identify the horse is also problematic.... the rule says no such procedure for a horse on the race day....but what if the procedure  was being performed on a horse with an ailment that needed urgent assistance but was not a runner that day. The procedure could have been for indigestion or stomach ulcers and a magnesium cocktail which does not require a vet to administer nor be recorded in the treatment register... 
 

As one of the other Clanners posted, where / how does this trainer achieve (immediate?) success with horses that have failed to deliver with other (experienced, decent?) trainers...where those other trainers just not as good as their track record?

As I posted when @Zietsman became a trainer, put in the hard yards and do right and the outcomes (success) will come your way...and there have been no questions marks about @Zietsman whilst the same cannot be said in this case...

Is this trainer being supposedly targeted because of jealousy for the success achieved so quickly, the sins of the father (the R600000+ fine?), malicious parties in the industry (father wins trainer's title and walks away in personal capacity but part of "new" stable)?? Too many unanswered questions whilst the industry loses owners, punters continue to be poorly treated in terms of poorly prepared horses, kamikaze jockeys and results being changed for (doping) offences after the event...

So, all around, just a sad state of affairs...