- This topic has 278 replies, 50 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Jollyp,
Some of your countrymen on Australian racing forums are coming round to the idea of changing your rules.
Value Is EverythingMahmood Al Zarooni has lodged an appeal against the severity of the penalty (8 year ban) imposed by the BHA following finding of steroids in horses in his care at Newmarket.
No date fixed yet for hearing.
Last thing the BHA/Godolphin would have wanted was for the story to run on I suspect.
Disagree Sir , the whole episode was dispatched with undue haste in my opinion , so good for him , I hope we hear the full story now as a result
some interesting times ahead ……
Ricky
imo
I suspect he won’t get a job training cockroaches for Big Ron in E-wing for the Pentonville Derby and the 4 ounces of snout prize after his capers. What is the upside for him, if any, in this appeal?
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
In stark contrast to his being (unwisely IMO) unrepresented in the original hearing he’s gone for a big hitter in his corner this time around apparently.
http://www.2bedfordrow.co.uk/william_clegg_qc_member/1
I think he’s been surprised at the extent he has been made a scapegoat and now wants to put his side of the story.
When the BHA announced the verdict, reference was made to a "vet’s assistant" and two "foremen" who allegedly had some knowledge of events
However, the BHA inquiry found MAZ guilty and imposed the sentence before speaking to any of the three, saying that they would interview them later
It is poor procedure to reach a verdict in any legal case without speaking to its three main witnesses, and the BHA will regret this at the appeal
Stevecaution – as I demonstrated on another thread, the disciplinary committee failed to prove that MAZ had knowledge of the restriction on use of steroids out of competition in this country. Unprofessional yes, but reckless? Who knows?
Len
With the things that Zarooni owned up to in the first "trial", you would not think there was any way he’d have any chance…
…Unless making some sort of attack on Sheikh Mo.
Something like:
"Sheikh Mo told me if owning up to everything I’d get a nice job in Dubai. I was only following orders Sir".Value Is EverythingBut he didn’t "own up" to knowingly breaking the rules. In fact, he denied that he was aware of the ban on steroids outside competition in GB
That’s what the appeal is likely to focus on
Mistakenly breaking the rules would carry a much lesser sentence
Mistakenly breaking the rules would carry a much lesser sentence
So simply saying something like "I didn’t know she was only 13" or "I didn’t know the gun was loaded" or "I didn’t know it was illegal to drink and drive" is sufficient justification for a lenient sentence?
Al Zarooni did get off lightly – he could have received 10 years for each doping offence and the panel could have applied each of the bans consecutively.
When he took his licence out he was obliged to be aware of the rules of racing – I’m not a trainer but I have read the rule book cover to cover – well I did when it was a book and not just online.
Also after previous doping cases all trainers were written to reminding them of their responsibilities – so in my view and also in the view of the BHA and the
independent
QC led disciplinary panel Al Zarooni is either a liar or so stupid he does not deserve a trainers licence when he says he dis not know the rules.
Yes of course it is
Knowingly breaking the law is a more serious offence than unknowingly breaking the law
Yes of course it is
Knowingly breaking the law is a more serious offence than unknowingly breaking the law
a) no it isn’t – ignorance is no excuse – end of.
b) following your logic any criminal could just turn round and say they did not know just so they can get a lighter sentence, that makes a mockery of the systemn.
a) You are confusing guilt with sentencing. MAZ has admitted guilt, so there is no issue with that
b) It is common knowledge in all civilised societies that certain activities (murder, theft, arson etc) are regarded as criminal, so one couldn’t use ignorance of the law regarding those offences as a defence. However, the rules on steroids in Dubai are in direct contrast to those in GB, and MAZ is from Dubai. The drugs regulations are also much more complex than the laws on murder etc
The real issue here, which all the media have so far avoided, is this: are the Godolphin horses (legally) treated with steroids during their winter holidays?
If so, I for one could understand MAZ’s error of judgement
Len
Questions emerging over why Improvisation – a Newmarket winner for Al Zarooni on April 17th, ws not tested despite the trainer being teh subject of what you might describe as a deep investigation at that very time.
Some of BHA media manager Robin Mounsey’s comments –
“Our policy over which horses were to be tested each day had to remain flexible. We do not necessarily have to test every winner. We might decide to test an odds-on favourite who has been well beaten.
“April 17 was before we had received confirmation of any positive samples from Al Zarooni’s horses. As soon as a positive sample was confirmed, on April 22, there were no further runners from Moulton Paddocks.”
No, you do not necessarily have to test every winner,<i> but we flipping well expect you to test a winner if it comes from a yard where you have good reason to believe there may be an issue and where you’ve just seen fit to go to the stable and test the yard’s inmates en masse.</i>
What on earth were they thinking about.
In my view all winners and all unplaced favourites should be tested as a matter of routine.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.