Disciplinary Panels – Naive or Competent ?

[conundrum]

This is a variation on the recent Curley thread which highlighted the apparent discrepancies in punishments handed out by the BHA Disciplinary Panels.

Justice demands that the punishment should always seek to match the crime yet I am regularly bemused by what seems to be a system whereby we read about the offence and the punishment but are left with no understanding whatsoever as to the level of reasoning and debate that went towards Disciplinary Panels reaching their conclusions.

For example, and I appreciate it was included in the Curley thread, the case of trainer Vaughan attempting to run the ‘wrong’ horse at Market Rasen. At his disciplinary hearing he explains that he mis-identified the horse when it arrived in his yard six months earlier in October 2009. The Panel, reluctantly so it seems, accepted this explanation and fined him a measly £1,000.

However, what kind of searching questions was Vaughan asked? Did they ask him how it was that, in his October 2009 blog, he described the horse, Piment D’Estruval, "..is a very good looking 6 year old bay gelding…" or did they ask whether during the intervening six months both it and the other horse concerned had been receiving any veterinary treatments wrongly entered in their respective passports?

The point I’m trying to ascertain is this…when trainers and jockeys present flimsy and suspicious explanations for their behaviour do the panels just accept these at face value or do they adjourn proceedings in order to pursue further lines of investigation?

I just think it would be reassuring to know that the people on these panels have a degree of forensic ability and expertise to be sufficiently aware as to when they are having the wool pulled over their eyes. I realise that we get to read truncated versions of disciplinary hearings from the BHA website but are there full transcripts of all that was discussed available to the general public?

[jose1993]

I don’t mean to sound possibly stupid, but would this not come down to investigators (whoever they are) in this type of situation producing the evidence for the panel to judge? Did the panel see those quotes from Mr Vaughan?

[conundrum]

Very relevant question, Jose. All we have to go on, reading their findings is …..The matter was drawn to the attention of the Authority by the Veterinary Officer on duty at Market Rasen on 11 June 2010.
And this is the point of my thread ….we are left in the dark as to whether this went straight to the Disciplinary Panel or at some juncture was the Integrity Department called in to investigate matters? It seems a fairly short time line between the offence being flagged up and the actual hearing taking place so I wonder if sufficient time/resources were available to conduct a proper investigation?

[jose1993]

It does seem unclear. We seem to know, for example, that with an "inside information" case Scotney and co would be compiling the evidence against an individual thought to have broken the rules. Maybe some offences are not deemed worthy of investigating fully……..

[conundrum]

Compare these two events:-
Stewards Enquiry- Epsom, 12 August 2010

SUZY WONG, trained by J AKEHURST, was declared to run but on inspection the record of vaccinations in the passport was found not to comply with the requirements of the Rules of Racing. The Stewards fined the trainer £140. Was the passport checked before or after the race?

14:20 Epsom Downs, 12 Aug 2010
1m 114y
Racehorse Sanctuary ‘zigaura’ E.b.f. Maiden Stakes
Result
First: Suzy Wong 33/1

dwelt, raced wide, keen held up, headway over 2f out, led over 1f out, ridden clear final furlong. Wins by 5 lengths.

So, a horse runs and wins on the very same day that the stewards fine the trainer responsible for that very same horse guilty of an offence relating to that horse. What were the discrepancies in the passport? Can we be certain that had the rules been properly adhered to that the horse would still have won? More info. please stewards. After all those people who owned or backed the second horse might feel a bit hard done by because Suzy Wong was not disqualified.

[robnorth]

conundrum

Though I would’nt be sure, I suspect that there would have been some sort of entry for the vaccinations involved but that some details were omitted. There are regular such entries on the BHA Disciplinary pages and the value of the fine, a slap on the wrist compared with some punishments, suggest a minor error or omission.

I would presume if there was no proof that the horse was correctly vaccinated then it wouldn’t be allowed to run.

Rob

[Author]

Posts