- This topic has 128 replies, 33 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
I think the questions that need to be answered are:
1. What substance was administered?
2. What is the stated withdrawal time for that substance?
3. Was the substance administered to Binny sufficiently in advance of the race to allow it to leave his system on the basis of the stated withdrawal time?
4. What are the circumstances of the other horse which apparently tested positive for the same substance?Without these details being made public there will remain the suspicion that Henderson has once again been caught attempting to breach the rules of racing in that he administered a substance to a horse knowing it would not have left the horses bloodstream by the day of the race because he believed the substance to be undetectable in a post-race urine sample.
Pinza- Come on. It’s blindingly obvious that this has been very poorly handled. Huge sums of money are bet on that race. I’m sure people have bet on it since Friday who, although they may get their stake refunded, would have bet elsewhere and now perhaps have lost a price, etc (in other races I mean). There are lots of ways punters stood to lose out.
I don’t see how the BHA imagined they were in a ‘lose/lose’ situation over disclosing the info earlier. Henderson may have felt (wrongly) that he was and, IMO, his actions were selfish.
The BHA, on the other hand, had no vested interest here. They should have reported the plain facts as they stood at the time. They were dealing with the long-time ante-post favourite in one of the top four or five races of the jumps season. Let’s hope lessons are learned and that such things are not hushed up behind closed doors in future. It sounds like the BHA just mis-judged the situation on this occasion. To be fair they (the BHA communications team) have made significant progress in getting closer to the racing public and in breaking down the barriers and being more open with information.
Anyway, here’s the full BHA statement –
BRITISH HORSERACING AUTHORITY STATEMENT ON BINOCULAR NOT BEING DECLARED FOR THE CHAMPION HURDLE
The Authority received an elective test request from Nicky Henderson this week. The results of those tests came through on Thursday and Binocular had a screening finding for a legitimate veterinary medication.
We all wanted to give Binocular every chance to run, both from connections point of view and also thinking of those that had backed him for the Champion Hurdle, therefore over the weekend HFL tested further samples.
The results of those tests were still positive. We advised Nicky Henderson and his vets of this result on Saturday night and, bearing in mind that against expectations the levels of the substance were remaining constant, the clear advice was that Binocular would test positive on raceday.
We were informed following a further conference call with connections this morning that they had therefore decided not to declare the horse. This is obviously bitterly disappointing for connections and also for backers of Binocular, but based on all the information to hand it is the only decision that could be taken in the interests of both the horse and the integrity of the sport.
Because the horse has not run and because the substance is a legitimate medication, we want to be clear that this screening finding is not a breach of the rules. We will continue to assist where we can in establishing when Binocular tests negative and can therefore race again.
- Total Posts 17716
antepost market is suspended the day market is up but zilch liquidity.
Great stuff by PP refunding losing antepost bets
I never backed the horse but for anyone who did it’s good. Paddy Power are in a class of their own in my opinion.
A few more apparent ‘facts’.
1. The drug administered was a steroid.
2. Henderson’s decision to elect to have Binny tested arose as a result of one of his other horses testing positive for the same substance post-race.Now I think that bearing in mind this is a man who has been shown to provide unreliable testimony; keep poor medication records; and have a longstanding arrangement with his vet to conceal administration of substances to horses in breach of the rules of racing it’s reasonable for us to ask the following additional questions to the ones I posed earlier:
1. Does the substance administered have the potential to enhance a horse’s performance?
2. Under what circumstances would the drug at the levels detected by the BHA be likely to be in a horse’s system?So it is now a fact that Henderson ran a horse in race with a illegal substance only being found after being checked by BHA Vets?
This is amazing if true
If the B sample comes back positive, yes. I suppose he will get a short ban in the summer season.
So it is now a fact that Henderson ran a horse in race with a illegal substance only being found after being checked by BHA Vets?
This is amazing if true
This seems like a possible train of events.
1. The RCVS enquiry into James Main cast additional doubt on Henderson’s integrity
2. The BHA decide to start testing all of Henderson’s runners more thoroughly
3. One of Henderson’s runners tests positive for a corticosteroid.
4. Henderson invites the BHA to test Binocular because he fears the result will be positive
5. Testing not only produces a positive result but the level of the drug in Binny’s system does not fall following subsequent testing.Now why would the level of corticosteroid not fall as the BHA (and apparently Henderson) expected? Possibly because rather than being a one-off treatment for an ‘allergy’ it was in fact a long-term treatment for Binocular’s suspected back problem and as a result the drug had built up in his system. We can only speculate as to why Henderson was administering the drug too close to the Champion Hurdle but some may find it revealing that one of the reasons Henderson gave for allowing TA to be administered was that he believed it wasn’t detectable.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/ma … ion-hurdle
Article by Greg Wood
Anyone with a grain of common sense would feel sorry for connections of a fit horse which, for technical reasons, is not in a position to try to retain his crown on Tuesday. Instead of that, we’ve been treated to another shameful display of baying at the moon.
So predictable, mounting your pedestal again. Nothing shameful about the thread whatsoever.
Handled badly is an understatement Corm , I cant see the sense of it at all just why anyone would keep this secret for 3 days and not expect it all to implode is just beyond belief
I suppose in the fullness of time all will be revealed !!! will heads roll …probably not , will it all blow over ..of course , but this has left a mark make no mistake , and the BHA don’t come out smelling of roses either
Ricky
This all sounds a bit like the 1980s when human athletes routinely took steroids and came off them just before major championships. I presume the BHA tests horses randomly well before races (as well as after) to stop this happening.
Sod the punters opinion, it’s worth feck all.
Total nonsense, racing wouldn’t be much of a sport without punters. I remember chatting to Trevor Hemmings at Aintree a few years ago and he thanked me as a punter for being there that day and supporting the sport.
- Total Posts 17716
So it is now a fact that Henderson ran a horse in race with a illegal substance only being found after being checked by BHA Vets? This is amazing if true
It’s not true for Binocular. Quote BHA:
Because the horse has not run and because the substance is a legitimate medication, we want to be clear that this screening finding is not a breach of the rules. We will continue to assist where we can in establishing when Binocular tests negative and can therefore race again.
Note:
legitimate medication
.
Note:
not a breach of the rules
. What may happen as a result of the positive test on the other, unnamed horse is speculation.
- Total Posts 17716
I presume the BHA tests horses randomly well before races (as well as after) to stop this happening.
No they do not. And what would pay for all this testing if they did so? Another decrease in prize-money, of course. Your suggestion is not realistic.
- Total Posts 17716
So predictable, mounting your pedestal again. Nothing shameful about the thread whatsoever.
I wrote more in sorry than in anger, and in this case I do not have a "pedestal" to howl down from! My position is merely that of a long time lover of racing who’s dismayed by such an orchestrated fuss.
What has happened (re. the unnamed horse tested earlier) is bad, especially for the trainer who can ill afford another foul-up at this juncture. Having said which, forgive me for not relishing the blood-sport spectacle, of a hoard of jackals (Greg Wood sniffing his way to the fore) incessantly trying to pull down a stag at bay. And during Cheltenham Week, too. Why not let it go?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.