Vaughan Marshall has been training for 43 years (Picture: Wayne Marks)
The NHA leaders need plenty of support in their current drive to ensure racing results have integrity, particularly in their initiative to test for TCO2 levels, but they appear to have given their detractors some fodder in a case against Vaughan Marshall which by all accounts should never have been a case.
Vaughan Marshall Inquiry held on 6 May 2024. Charged with a transgression of Rule 10.5.14 in particular that a veterinary treatment has not been accurately recorded as a treatment record in a Veterinary Treatment Register (VTR).
Vaughan Marshall:
“I have never been one to run to the press, but I am so aggrieved about what I have been subjected to that I feel compelled to speak out publicly in the hope that others don’t suffer the same fate and that this type of behaviour ceases forthwith. I have been a trainer for 43 years and have never had a single prohibited substance transgression against my name. Two of my horses jarred up in a race and the next day when I was off, and after discussion with my assistant of 14 years, Adele Alsop, my vet Dr Alisdair Cameron, duly administered a dose of pyroflam to the horses in question which he recorded in his VTR. Cameron relocated and left SA and the employ of Baker & McVeigh the following day. A few days later, NHA vet, Matthew Bawden, arrived at my yard and requested to take 10 out-of-competition tests. It was only when chief stipe Ernie Rodrigues turned up with an AOG for R30k that I first became aware of the 2 treatments. I duly contacted B&M, obtained their VTR and Ernie then scanned copies to the NHA on 5 November 2023 and duly handed Arnold Hyde a hard copy on 11 November. He was completely satisfied that I had not contravened any NHA Rules. I need to point out that pyroflam/flunixin/finadyne is one and the same, and the most commonly utilized non-steroidal anti-inflammatory used on a daily basis by every training establishment. It is like you and me taking a panado. This should have been the end of the matter but literally months later, Ernie was instructed by Hyde to now offer me a discounted R15k AOG to sign. Again, I refused. Ernie kindly offered to testify at the Inquiry on my behalf. I decided to lawyer up to protect my good name and integrity. I duly appointed attorney Mike Marshall (no relation), Adv Nigel Riley and of course Robert Bloomberg was always behind the scenes and also attended the Inquiry. The Inquiry itself was an embarrassment for the NHA. After their only witness Dr Bawden had admitted under cross-examination that the vets VTR was accessible at all times, that the treatments were accurately and legibly recorded in a treatment register, and that I had not contravened Rule 10.5.14, we closed our case without calling any of our 3 witnesses. The chairman of the Inquiry Board, Mr Andre Vlok was fantastic and was visibly irritated from the get-go with the NHA prosecutor. When Mr Wafer was asked by Mr Vlok why we were actually here and the wasted costs associated with this, he unbelievably replied that if I had signed the AOG that this wouldn’t have happened. I can’t tell you the stress that this unnecessary victimization by the NHA has caused me. My sincere thanks go out to my incredible legal team.”
When asked for comment, Robert Bloomberg responded:
“Whilst I took a decision months ago to focus my attentions on assisting Cape Racing in various matters, and not to represent stakeholders at Inquiries and Appeals, I will always try and assist my friends especially where I believe that there has been a travesty of justice. In regard to Vaughan’s matter, I furnished Vee Moodley and Arnold Hyde with an objective factually based Legal Opinion in an endeavour to save unnecessary costs wherein I stated unequivocally that Vaughan had no case to answer politely stating inter alia that this matter was “not justifiable in pursuing.” I also informed them that the chief witness for Vaughan was the chief stipendiary steward in the WC, Ernie Rodrigues, who would be testifying against his own employer and that surely this set off alarm bells. Mr Moodley arrogantly responded stating that they had not asked for my opinion and further said that “there is absolutely no way we shall NOT proceed with the Inquiry based on the fact that our chief stipendiary steward is a witness and the cost implications that you mention” and further stated that “this matter is NOW closed.” I subsequently told Mr Hyde when he called me in an unrelated matter that they had “zero chance” in succeeding and that it was foolhardy in the extreme to proceed. He undertook to speak with Mr Moodley. I never heard from him again and exactly one week later a letter of set down for the hearing was sent to Vaughan by one Shane Wafer, bizarrely penned on an NHA letterhead and pronouncing that he was the new NHA Prosecuting Attorney. To the best of my knowledge, he is not a full-time employee of the NHA. It was the disrespect shown to me by the NHA and the request from Adv Riley that I assist him at the Inquiry in the capacity of racing technical advisor and of course my extreme desire to give them a “snotklap” that I agreed to same. When ones opinion accords with that of the CEO and RCE then your opinion is appreciated, but when it deviates from their own myopic and severely tainted viewpoint, then bully-boy tactics prevail. The mission statement of the NHA is “maintaining the integrity of the sport of horseracing” but where was the integrity in prosecuting a vindictive, vexatious, meritless and spurious case against an obviously totally innocent party.”
ENDS
Those who have a problem with the leadership of the NHA are allowed to excercise Rule 6.10. However, it is a route seldom taken.
6.10 COMPLAINT AGAINST THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE
6.10.1 If any PERSON is aggrieved by the actions or any decision of the CHIEF EXECUTIVE or any MANAGER in the exercise of their powers, duties, functions or discretions given or to be carried out or exercised in terms of the RULES, such PERSON may lodge a complaint in WRITING with the NATIONAL BOARD. Such complaint shall set out the circumstances giving rise to the complaint and the grounds thereof and shall, unless
lodged by a STEWARD or LICENSED OFFICIAL, be accompanied by a deposit of R3000.
6.10.2 The NATIONAL BOARD shall investigate the complaint and take whatever steps with regard to the complaint as they deem appropriate. The NATIONAL BOARD shall, inter alia, have the power to:-
6.10.2.1 dismiss the complaint;
6.10.2.2 overrule any decision taken or discretion exercised by the CHIEF EXECUTIVE or MANAGER;
6.10.2.3 substitute their own action, decision or exercise their own discretion in place of any action, decision or discretion taken or exercised by the CHIEF EXECUTIVE or MANAGER;
6.10.2.4 refer any matter back to the CHIEF EXECUTIVE for reconsideration;
6.10.2.5 decide what amount, if any, of the deposit shall be refunded.
6.10.3 The complainant may be fined not more than R50000 if his complaint is considered unwarranted.
