September 16, 2021 at 11:07 #1560640AndyRACParticipant
- Total Posts 369
Syringes found in horse boxes isn’t a good look. And yet there isn’t massive uproar….If it was another sport, there would be all hell let loose. And I’ve heard all this before…..I know were this is going.September 16, 2021 at 13:20 #1560653FiftyPParticipant
- Total Posts 111
Kim Bailey on Nick Luck’s podcast saying they might have re-used syringes and left them in a bucket that shouldn’t have been in the horse box. Further, people said they’re using a supplement called Pulmon Pro, and Bailey defends it along the lines of people using “herbal” supplements. But I’ll be honest, outside of booze and fags, which I know the effects of, I’ll only take medically licensed products.September 16, 2021 at 15:31 #1560670IanDaviesParticipant
- Total Posts 1799
“You say this Ian and then post (probably tongue in cheek i know) otherwise, such as the Pope comment etc. Why can’t i do the same as you as i have here and poke the hornet’s nest? Call it phoney or whatever, we all do it….”
Fair enough, Jack – I shall henceforth endeavour to practise what I preach!
Could be a big ask!September 16, 2021 at 17:54 #1560685
MoyenneCorniche posted thusly on page 1:
…my question would be how Kim Baileys horse tested negative if the syringe that they admitted that they had jabbed the horse with while loading him into his box contained banned substances?
This was also my question. A reliable source contacted the BHA and received the following reply:
“Regarding the findings for substances in the syringe, a screening finding is not a confirmed analytical finding, and this is an important distinction. It is an indication that the substances may be present but it is not an indication of its prevalence and therefore does not satisfy the requirements for charge under the anti-doping rules.
Furthermore, the horse was withdrawn (ie did not race) and tested negative for prohibited substance. A confirmatory analysis of the syringe was not undertaken because the prospect of an anti-doping
violation were unlikely based on the outlined circumstances and, in normal doses, it would not be anticipated that this product would cause an anti-doping violation (supported by the horse’s negative
sample). This informs the reason for the charge under Rule (D)11.”
IMO it would not have hurt to to undertake a confirmatory analysis of the syringe contents because I’m not especially enamoured with the word ‘unlikely’.September 16, 2021 at 19:35 #1560701cormack15Keymaster
- Total Posts 8966
I would argue that Kim Bailey could in no way be considered low profile. Not the profile of a Nicholls or Henderson, Mullins or (whisper it) Elliott but hardly low profile.
The content of the BHA findings was an eye opener. Almost suggests stuff is happening under the noses of the authorities, hidden in plain sight.
Penalties for this sort of transgression should be and need to be much tougher. Elliott’s transgression gets six months, La Sayette gets six months, yet this gets a 1 grand fine that Bailey can surely afford without turning a hair (I’d guess) while Greenall wouldn’t be short of pocket money either.
Jim Bolger’s warnings, and he couldn’t have been much more explicit without actually naming names, should be heeded here just as strongly as in Ireland.September 16, 2021 at 20:06 #1560707
I’m wondering whether there is some leeway in the analyses whereby the tolerance in testing the horse is greater than that used when testing the contents of the syringe.September 16, 2021 at 21:10 #1560714Titus OatesParticipant
- Total Posts 224
Here is a link to the Pulmon Pro supplement (as posted on Bailey’s Blog this morning):
It’s an entirely natural supplement and widely used for competition horses, as well as race horses. The list of ingredients is there. Nothing untoward. But, and this is a big but – this product is sold as something to be scooped i.e. like most supplements it’s added, in scoops, to solid feeds. So, it is not sold in a format that is to be administered as a paste via syringe. To do that (as anyone who has administered anything orally via a syringe would know) it would need to be mixed with something else, in liquid form. Of course, that could be water.September 17, 2021 at 01:38 #1560727MarlingfordParticipant
- Total Posts 410
Some interesting information there Seasider and Titus Oates.
Seasider’s post highlights further just how poorly explained the original BHA summary was. Explanation of what a “screening finding” is would seem to be very important in this context. If I were Kim Bailey and had done nothing wrong, I would be none too pleased that the lack of clarity around this in the original report makes things sound worse than they potentially are.
I also agree with Seasider about the desirability of further testing. This would seem sensible if for no other reason that to show the BHA is being rigorous and to act as a deterrent. The actual approach taken seems to have been very lacklustre.September 17, 2021 at 09:04 #1560734seaing starsParticipant
- Total Posts 120
It does raise the question of how authorities can ever be sure that a horse has only received food and water on race day without the horse being stabled under guard from midnight. In the Bailey case, if they’d left the syringes at home and wiped down the horse’s mouth before it was seen, this would never have come up. Is a herbal supplement ok to give if that’s all it is? Or could that cover be used by some – not necessarily saying that’s what happened here as we just don’t know either way – to mask another substance the BHA aren’t testing the horses for?September 17, 2021 at 09:30 #1560736MoyenneCornicheParticipant
- Total Posts 163
Thanks for that Seasider.
Although, as is typical of the BHA, their response leaves more questions than it provides answers!September 17, 2021 at 14:20 #1560751
The link immediately hereunder was posted by jackh1092 in his OP.
From that site we find as follows:
His (Bailey’s) representative explained to the Veterinary Officer that she had witnessed the horse (Subway Surf) being administered one of the syringes by one of the Head Lads either before or as the horse was being loaded to travel on the morning of the race. Furthermore, she explained that the substance was ‘Pullman Pro’ and the horse was due to be administered the second syringe after the race.
Compare and contrast Kim Bailey’s blog entry for 16 September:
When she (Subway Surf) arrived at the races the vet saw a residue of a paste around her mouth that she was given that morning.. The paste is a herbal paste called Pulmon Pro which is something she is given on a daily basis in the belief that it would help her stop breaking a blood vessel.. This is administered orally and at no stage was she injected.
As Alice in Wonderland once observed, ‘Curiouser and curiouser’.September 17, 2021 at 18:49 #1560780Titus OatesParticipant
- Total Posts 224
I would thoroughly recommend anyone who hasn’t had a listen to yesterday’s NL Daily Podcast to have a listen to the first few minutes, which includes the interview with KB. Episode 314.
Convincing as an explanation? No. Aside from the attitude, it raises way further questions, especially given the casual references made to syringes lying around the place in buckets with stuff like ‘bute in them, not to mention the practice of multiple re-use of syringes for oral administration. The potential for cross contamination there is immense. And we are meant to accept that this stuff somehow got on the back of the lorry heading to the races because the second travelling head girl put the wrong buckets on … Listening to this I had one reaction to what was being described: ‘Festina’. Unfortunately, that’s where I think horse racing (under both codes, in GB and Ireland – and for that matter, elsewhere) is.
As for the ‘paste’: I have no reason to think there is anything untoward in this product in and of itself. But what I find very surprising is that the manufacturers explicitly say on their material that the best results come when administered with feed, so why take the trouble to administer it as a paste? [Much, much messier and subject to uncertain/variable dosage!} And on race day? When supplements should not be being given.
There is a litany of examples from cycling and athletics where athletes have failed drug tests, and paid the consequences in terms of competition bans, allegedly as a result of taking ‘herbal’ or ‘natural’ supplements.September 18, 2021 at 10:45 #1560852AndyRACParticipant
- Total Posts 369
I agree Titus Oates – as I said earlier, some of us have heard all this before.
There was one fairly recently in the US; which was rather ironic, as that particular athlete was vehemently anti doping, and had expressed no sympathy of a Dutch rider who had failed a test a few years ago – due to a supplement prepared by her pharmacy.September 18, 2021 at 22:30 #1560934jackh1092Participant
- Total Posts 3306
post out of date.
Hindsight is 20/20 so make the most of it!September 19, 2021 at 10:00 #1560944Richard88Participant
- Total Posts 513
Elliott’s transgression gets six months, La Sayette gets six months, yet this gets a 1 grand fine that Bailey can surely afford without turning a hair (I’d guess) while Greenall wouldn’t be short of pocket money either.
I think this is an excellent point. Elliott and Sayette shouldn’t have done what they did but drugging horses is at best cheating and at worst it’s also animal cruelty (which as despicable Elliott’s act was, it wasn’t cruelty).
A slap on the wrist for juicing horses, thus cheating the other owners, trainers, jockeys and the betting public. Six months for drugging yourself with something that whilst illegal, won’t help you win horse races.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.