- This topic has 23 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
Any thread discussing Nicky Henderson, the Queen’s horse and the deliberate administering of a prohibited anti-bleeding drug.
Censorship, coincidence, or just not worthy of discussion?
Yes, but he was oh so terribly ‘honest’ at his hearing, eh Benny, which is no more than one can ask is it?
Rules are rules however ‘honestly’ you may break them (
) and anything other than a suspension will be a huge embarrassment to racing IMO.Until the evidence and full ruling from the BHA is published, any discussion would only be based on speculation and supposition.
I certainly would not be prepared to comment on a public forum, one way or the other, without seeing the panels report first.
Then again, on previous evidence, such threads tend to be based on individual prejudices with scant regard for the facts.
Luckily the BHA disciplinary panels are headed by QC’s and not by barrack room lawyers.
Paul, I think Benny was just wondering why there’s not been any discussion on the subject – after all, Nicky Henderson
has
been found guilty and
will
be told in what way he’ll be punished on Monday. There’s nothing wrong with speculating about what the outcome will or should be as he’s already been found guilty.
It’s strange, though, that people are allowed to freely speculate on Mark Johnston’s speculation elsewhere in the forum.
The difference between Mark Johnston’s comments and Nicky Henderson hearing was that Mark Johnston’s remarks were already in the public domain. As far as Henderson’s case is concerned, I haven’t seen the judgement from the case and I’m in agreement with Paul that it’s difficult to comment on something you haven’t seen. All we have is the charge and the fact that he has been found guilty, end of story.
Censorship? – In my experience of this forum, unlikely.
Coincidence? – Probably
Not worthy of discussion? – PossiblyRob
As Onthesteal says, I was just surprised by the absence of a thread, that’s all.
With regard to the mention of censorship, I was just wondering if there was a thread which had been pulled because somebody had overstepped the mark in the libel department. I’ve been too busy to check the forum each day recently.
As for any discussion being based on speculation and supposition, isn’t that what a discussion forum is supposed to be about? It would be pretty dull if we only ever discussed cold hard facts.
Back on topic, what puzzles me about the whole incident is the motive. Why would such a successful trainer as Mr Henderson risk his reputation and livelihood just to get a slightly improved performance out of a relatively moderate animal? From my (albeit minimal) dealings with him in the past, I’ve always found Mr Henderson to be a likeable, approachable and seemingly honest chap – I think this incident is a shame for the sport really, especially as it will obviously generate so much interest from those outside racing, with it being the Queen’s horse.
I just can’t understand why he would do it.
As Onthesteal says, I was just surprised by the absence of a thread, that’s all.
With regard to the mention of censorship, I was just wondering if there was a thread which had been pulled because somebody had overstepped the mark in the libel department. I’ve been too busy to check the forum each day recently.
I don’t think there had been one Benny.
As for any discussion being based on speculation and supposition, isn’t that what a discussion forum is supposed to be about? It would be pretty dull if we only ever discussed cold hard facts.
I see the point you are making but when discussing, for want of a better word, sensitive, issues like this one there is a danger of the discussion getting out of control because some people do take supposition as fact
Back on topic, what puzzles me about the whole incident is the motive. Why would such a successful trainer as Mr Henderson risk his reputation and livelihood just to get a slightly improved performance out of a relatively moderate animal? From my (albeit minimal) dealings with him in the past, I’ve always found Mr Henderson to be a likeable, approachable and seemingly honest chap – I think this incident is a shame for the sport really, especially as it will obviously generate so much interest from those outside racing, with it being the Queen’s horse.
I just can’t understand why he would do it.
I can’t disagree with you at all there Benny. It is not as if he is one of the "usual suspects" – which is all the more reason why I really want to see the full report on the case before commenting further.
It is not as if he is one of the "usual suspects" – which is all the more reason why I really want to see the full report on the case before commenting further.
Paul, we know the facts. He has been found guilty of running a doped horse (Tranexamic Acid). The only real speculation now is whether the BHA will try and wriggle out of doing their duty (kick the cheat out for a year) and just give him a couple of hundred quid fine instead….because of who he and the owner are.
Zero Tolerance should be the only outcome.
There’s much more to discuss about the Henderson case that "why did he do it?", but the worry is that this will descend into a class argument and not one about the rights and wrongs of the case. For what it’s worth, given that Nicky Henderson trained the winner of the race in question which was unquestionably his first string and his long and honourable history in the sport, I’d be amazed if he (or his vet) were setting out to ensure that Moonlit Path’s connections or supporters would benefit financially. That makes the intention very different to that of Messrs Flood and Gingell whose ends were undoubtedly nefarious. That doesn’t mean that Henderson isn’t culpable, but merely adds to the depth of any debate.
Benny – As far as I’m aware none of the moderators has deleted any threads in relation to N.Henderson.
My own hunch is that Nicky Henderson would not have done this deliberately, but as Graham Cunningham said the other day on Racing UK –
I paraphrase …
that just because it’s Nicky Henderson who is involved, and who is generally perceived as being a "good egg", we should not automatically assume his innocence, just as we should not assume his guilt.
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
Whatever the result of the enquiry, from a purely selfish point of view I hate the thought of the NH season [proper] starting and Nicky Henderson not being part of it, so I just want to believe in his innocence.
I am in the "let’s wait to see what happens first" camp.
I cannot believe, however, that the letter from Michael Kerr-Dineen in today’s Racing Post will have done Henderson’s cause any good whatsoever.
- Total Posts 17716
My own hunch is that Nicky Henderson would not have done this deliberately, but as Graham Cunningham said the other day on Racing UK –
I paraphrase …
that just because it’s Nicky Henderson who is involved, and who is generally perceived as being a "good egg", we should not automatically assume his innocence, just as we should not assume his guilt.
Graham Cunningham would, wouldn’t he. He’s showed in the past that he doesn’t mind where he scores his cheap shots, or at whose expense.
Even without the transcripts, it’s pretty clear by now that Nicky H. wasn’t trying to cheat anyone.Graham Cunningham would, wouldn’t he. He’s showed in the past that he doesn’t mind where he scores his cheap shots, or at whose expense.
Even without the transcripts, it’s pretty clear by now that Nicky H. wasn’t trying to cheat anyone.It was a fairly ambiguous thing to say, I’ll give you that –
but in fairness to Mr. Cunningham, I think he was more or less saying that even though everyone is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, no one ( not even the established trainers) should be exempt from punishment – if indeed they have contravened the rules.
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
I remember watching Batman as a kid – the authetic technicolor version not more recent imposters.
Every week the caped crusader would end up in the most ghastly pickle, trussed up, lights about to be put out. There was just no way that he could get out of this one.
I often think the HRA take their inspiration from the supervillains of Gotham City, becuase we all know when we tune in ‘Same Bat time, Same Bat channel’ on Monday exactly what will happen…..
I am in the "let’s wait to see what happens first" camp.
I cannot believe, however, that the letter from Michael Kerr-Dineen in today’s Racing Post will have done Henderson’s cause any good whatsoever.
I don’t know enough about the case to have a strong view as to what should happen, but I was astonished the RP chose to publish Kerr-Dineen’s letter. How on earth he can claim that "most unbiased people" would agree that Henderson didn’t breach rule 200 is beyond me. How would he know?
Graham Cunningham’s point on RUK was particularly relevant – we cannot have a situation whereby Henderson gets a reduced punishment because he is "good bloke" or does work for charity…
) and anything other than a suspension will be a huge embarrassment to racing IMO.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.