- This topic has 20 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
I see that Tony Martin and Jim Best have been fined by the Newmarket stewards for having prohibited substances in the stables without permission. Martin also having the means with which to administer the substance.
Does anyone know what the substances were and what effect, if administered they would have on a horse.
Tony Martin has been fined £1500 i think and, Jim Best was fined £1000 for being in possession of a less serious substance.
TRAINERS Tony Martin and Jim Best found themselves in trouble with the Newmarket stewards on Saturday after being found guilty of a breach of instruction C7 – which governs restrictions on substances administered to racecourses.
Martin was fined £1,500 and Best £1,000 after two members of stable security stafffound employees of the trainers in attendance with Leg Spinner and Gee Dee Nen in possession of prohibited substances.
Stipendiary steward William Nunneley said: "Both trainers said theyknew the rules but prohibited substances had accidentally beentaken into the stabling area by their staff.
"In Martin’s case it was quite a serious substance, one with a local anaesthetic affect, but there was no suggestion they were going to be used."
"there was no suggestion they were going to be used" – who do they think they are kidding?
people don’t carry things around that they are not going to use and just how do stable staff accidentally have horse drugs on them?
what with jockeys being pulled up all over the shop for corruption and losing races, trainers not running horses to the best of their ability, etc, racing doesn’t need publicity like this – i’d say it’s fair for the average bystander to assume racing is inherently bent
I don’t know the substances but would guess they may be items that appear in most trainer’s tack boxes such as electolytes and bute.
Electrolytes would be given to re-hydrate the horse after a journey or a race whilst bute is given if the horse pulls up a little unsound to ease their discomfort.
I don’t think either substance would have any beneficial effect and the bute would appear in any post race sample anyway.
Whilst I don’t know anything about this case I suspect that if the BHA suspected foul play then these minimal fines would have been substantially more and suspensions would be involved.
"sberry wrote:
what with jockeys being pulled up all over the shop for corruption and losing races, trainers not running horses to the best of their ability, etc, racing doesn’t need publicity like this – i’d say it’s fair for the average bystander to assume racing is inherently bentsberry
I don’t know where these ‘average bystanders’ that you mention are, but the ones I run into certainly don’t hold that opinion of racing.
This particular case won’t even be noticed by your average bystander. Anyway, surely the point here is that, however innocent the explanation, the trainers were punished for their carelessness.
Rob
and as Rob puts it, carelessness is the most likely explanation.
I’m not too sure why these two instances have suddenly come to the forefront – such fines are not that uncommon and as Adrian pointed out the fines are at the lower end of the scale.
I would suggest in 98% of cases the prohibited substances have been left in pockets or bags by mistake.
In relation to the treatment of horses only the course vet can possess or administer anything (apart from food and water) to a horse once at the track, this includes any medication that may normally be administered by a trainer or stable lad or lass.
The fact the fine came uncer C7 suggests to me the breach was a technical one, rather than possesion with intent.
Rob
Has Tony Martin ever raided Perth with seemingly no-hopers ( numerous and always ) – certainly on previous class, form and speed – heavily backed into near odds-on and then romped home to these ‘average bystanders’ surprise ?
Backing two runners is the relentless pursuit of value. Backing each way is a shortcut to the poor house. Only 7% make a long term profit.
Rob
Has Tony Martin ever raided Perth with seemingly no-hopers ( numerous and always ) – certainly on previous class, form and speed – heavily backed into near odds-on and then romped home to these ‘average bystanders’ surprise ?
Here we go with the conspiracy theories and I suppose you believe theCIA killed JFK, MI5 murdered Princess Bleeding Heart and Elvis is woking at McDonalds in Memphis.
Just because trainers land touches does not mean they use prohibited substances.
If there are two security guards going round checking the stables, wouldn’t they be better employed checking bags at the stable entrance, thereby avoiding any risk of ‘accidents’.
If every member of the crowd at a meeting like Royal Ascot can have their bags checked on entry, how hard can it be to inspect a hundred or so stable staff.
Probably for use on themselves or the stable lads not the horses.Still as Richard Nixon said "it would be wrong".
" If every member of the crowd at a meeting like Royal Ascot can have their bags checked on entry, how hard can it be to inspect a hundred or so stable staff."
I agree with apracing here, though, unlike Alan, I am more likely to be one of sberry’s bystanders, I regret to say.
Just because trainers land touches does not mean they use prohibited substances.
Agreed – it doesn’t necessarily follow. What does raise my suspicion is when a trainer improves a horse from another yard out of all recognition in a very short space of time.
Just because trainers land touches does not mean they use prohibited substances.
Agreed – it doesn’t necessarily follow. What does raise my suspicion is when a trainer improves a horse from another yard out of all recognition in a very short space of time.
but could that not equally be down to a change of scenery or different training regime that is better suited to the horse?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.