- This topic has 45 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
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.
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.
Here is a link to the Pulmon Pro supplement (as posted on Bailey’s Blog this morning):
Pulmon PROIt’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.
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.
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?
Thanks for that Seasider.
Although, as is typical of the BHA, their response leaves more questions than it provides answers!
The link immediately hereunder was posted by jackh1092 in his OP.
https://www.racingfixtures.co.uk/news/Disciplinary-Panel-results-of-fast-tracked-cases.php?id=6955
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:
http://www.kimbaileyracing.com/baileys-blog/
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’.
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.
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.
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.
“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.”
And on race day? When supplements should not be being given.
Titus’ point is the salient one.
I suspect that supplement is an expensive load of snake oil. But I have often wondered whether the likes of dandelion could be used instead of Lasix on race day- nobody would be any the wiser:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3155102/
Bailey was at pains to point out that the horse was not injected…presumably because of optics: oral administration seems less “druggy” than an IV injection. But substances which have good oral bioavailability work just as well as injections.
At what point does a supplement count as a drug? Presumably the “not on race day” rule acts to try to render the position of the dividing line less important. But as seaing stars says, how could it be policed? If they hadn’t been careless, nobody would have known.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.