- This topic has 27 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
http://www.racingpost.com/news/horse-ra … t7DaysNews
Pretty strong action. I cant say I know the details of the case very well.
SHL
He was originally charged on the basis of having horses found with the steroid stanozolol in their systems following a random testing visit to his yard. This was blamed on the use by his vet of a commercial product called Sungate, which Butler knew that vets had used in other Newmarket stables. In due course, nine other trainers were found to have used Sungate, which means an awful lot of people supposed to know better failed to notice that it’s list of ingredients included a banned steroid!
However during the course of the investigation, the BHA uncovered that Butler had purchased a much stronger steroid supplement called Regoxin over the internet, and had then injected four of his horses with this drug himself without any assistance from a qualified vet. He initially lied about this and claimed all the horses had only been given Sungate. Butler has no qualification as a vet and his argument that he’d seen the vet administer similar drugs direct into a horses blood stream and could therefore copy what he’d seen fell on deaf ears.
The length of his ban is almost entirely down to his actions with these four horses, rather then his use of Sungate. Personally, I reckon he’s got off lightly and it would be disappointing if he was ever allowed to hold a licence again.
The other nine identified users of Sungate have also escaped any charges or bans, and indeed remain anonymous. If the BHA ever decide to introduce ostrich racing to the UK, they will certainly have much in common with the contestants.
He was originally charged on the basis of having horses found with the steroid stanozolol in their systems following a random testing visit to his yard. This was blamed on the use by his vet of a commercial product called Sungate, which Butler knew that vets had used in other Newmarket stables. In due course, nine other trainers were found to have used Sungate, which means an awful lot of people supposed to know better failed to notice that it’s list of ingredients included a banned steroid!
However during the course of the investigation, the BHA uncovered that Butler had purchased a much stronger steroid supplement called Regoxin over the internet, and had then injected four of his horses with this drug himself without any assistance from a qualified vet. He initially lied about this and claimed all the horses had only been given Sungate. Butler has no qualification as a vet and his argument that he’d seen the vet administer similar drugs direct into a horses blood stream and could therefore copy what he’d seen fell on deaf ears.
The length of his ban is almost entirely down to his actions with these four horses, rather then his use of Sungate. Personally, I reckon he’s got off lightly and it would be disappointing if he was ever allowed to hold a licence again.
The other nine identified users of Sungate have also escaped any charges or bans, and indeed remain anonymous. If the BHA ever decide to introduce ostrich racing to the UK, they will certainly have much in common with the contestants.
Thanks AP. Pretty damning stuff.
I must admit when the story first broke, I had a lot of sympathy for him as the impression was given that he called his own foul stoke to use a a gold expression. Clearly a lot of dishonesty.SHL
Why won’t the BHA release the names of the other trainers involved.
Surely the betting public have the right to know who they can trust.
What a cover up which will do little to help the sport.
How many other investigations go on without any public knowledge.
Shocking stuff.Because they have nothing with which they can charge them under the rules. None of the horses in those nine stables were tested at the same time as the Butler horses, so there is no hard evidence that they had the steroid in their system. By the time the facts came to light, the drug would have been out of the horses system.
Of course the medical books for the horses concerned do show that they were given Sungate, but that isn’t covered by the rules.
The BHA have now introduced a new rule to cover this situation, so that charges can be brought even without a positive test.
I’d guess that keeping the names secret is based on legal advice – effectively calling a trainer a drug cheat when you have no hard evidence could result in court action.
Why won’t the BHA release the names of the other trainers involved.
Surely the betting public have the right to know who they can trust.
What a cover up which will do little to help the sport.
How many other investigations go on without any public knowledge.
Shocking stuff.Why indeed? Proof positive that the authorities are hand in glove with criminals to ensure the public are kept in the dark. Dopers have no place in racing.
Of course the medical books for the horses concerned do show that they were given Sungate, but that isn’t covered by the rules.
I’d guess that keeping the names secret is based on legal advice – effectively calling a trainer a drug cheat when you have no hard evidence could result in court action.
If the record books of the trainers state that they used Sungate, one would be forgiven for believing that this would provide sufficient protection against threats of litigation should the BHA – or anyone – name them. Damning evidence that they are indeed ‘drug cheats’, in my opinion, that would hold up in a court of law and result in a writ of libel/slander being summarily dismissed
And who knows, an investigation into the mysterious 9 akin to that undergone by Butler may just result in discovery of more serious misdemeanours like that which resulted in Butler being kicked into touch
Of course the medical books for the horses concerned do show that they were given Sungate, but that isn’t covered by the rules.
I’d guess that keeping the names secret is based on legal advice – effectively calling a trainer a drug cheat when you have no hard evidence could result in court action.
If the record books of the trainers state that they used Sungate, one would be forgiven for believing that this would provide sufficient protection against threats of litigation should the BHA – or anyone – name them. Damning evidence that they are indeed ‘drug cheats’, in my opinion, that would hold up in a court of law and result in a writ of libel/slander being summarily dismissed
Does seem that way Drone, but is "opinion" enough?
If
one libel/slander writ is successful, then all 8 others will be successful. So even if there is only a 20% chance of succesful legal action – a 20% (or whatever) chance of decimating BHA finances. I’d like to know the names too, but is it wise to take the risk?
Value Is EverythingOf course the medical books for the horses concerned do show that they were given Sungate, but that isn’t covered by the rules.
I’d guess that keeping the names secret is based on legal advice – effectively calling a trainer a drug cheat when you have no hard evidence could result in court action.
If the record books of the trainers state that they used Sungate, one would be forgiven for believing that this would provide sufficient protection against threats of litigation should the BHA – or anyone – name them. Damning evidence that they are indeed ‘drug cheats’, in my opinion, that would hold up in a court of law and result in a writ of libel/slander being summarily dismissed
Does seem that way Drone, but is "opinion" enough?
If
one libel/slander writ is successful, then all 8 others will be successful. So even if there is only a 20% chance of succesful legal action – a 20% (or whatever) chance of decimating BHA finances. I’d like to know the names too, but is it wise to take the risk?
Is there some evidence that Sungate injections were recorded and was not picked up as being a problem upon routine inspection by the BHA??
Would the BHA be open to a counter-action for failing to carry out their duty. Even if they weren’t, it could get very embarrassing.
SHL
The use of terms like ‘criminal’, ‘doper’, and ‘drug cheat’ seem a bit over the top when you look at the facts (I know this is an unpopular process with conspiracy theorists).
A number of Newmarket trainers have had horses treated for stiff joints by a qualified vet from a reputable and long established Newmarket practice. By the strict wording of the rules of racing, it is the resposbility of the trainer to ensure that their horses aren’t given any banned substances, but should we really expect them to check the list of ingredients of every product. And bear in mind, even if they had, there was nothing that would have immediately shown that Sungate contained a banned steroid. That info was only obtainable by means of a detailed internet search.
Once it became known that Sungate did contain stanozolol, they stopped using it. The amount of steroid in Sungate is small and becasue it’s injected into the joint, not into the muscle, it’s effects on the horse are negligible, compared to what Butler was doing with the stronger substance.
None of the trainers had attempted to conceal their use of Sungate, and medical books containing reference to Sungate had passed inspection by the BHA and on the racecourse.
If you really think that’s a definition of doping or drug cheating, then we’ll have to agree to differ.
And if you want to know why the BHA have kept the names private, read the press release they put out in August that explains their decision.
The BHA Press release from August on the conclusion of the Sungate investigation.
07/08/2013 13:55:00
Investigation into the use of Sungate concludesThe British Horseracing Authority (BHA) has today announced the conclusion of the investigation into the use of Sungate, a veterinary product which contains stanozolol, an anabolic steroid and therefore a prohibited substance under the Rules of Racing.
The relevant trainers interviewed as part of the investigation have been informed that the BHA has concluded that no charges under the Rules of Racing will be issued against them.
The BHA became aware of the nature of Sungate and its use on horses in training following a visit to Gerard Butler’s yard in February 2013 as part of its testing in training sampling programme, from which nine horses produced positive tests for stanozolol. It became apparent that a veterinary practice, which had legally imported Sungate under licence into the UK, was prescribing this product and had recommended its initial administration to horses in training.
The BHA subsequently met with representatives of the veterinary practice in question. As a result of that meeting the BHA became aware that Gerard Butler was not the only trainer to whom it was recommended that Sungate be administered to horses in the trainer’s care.
Upon becoming aware of the nature of and use of the product on horses in training the BHA notified the NTF of the product’s name and that it contained a prohibited substance. The NTF subsequently distributed this information to all of their members.
In order to establish the extent of the use of the product, the BHA identified and met with 38 trainers who were known to use the same veterinary practice.
The investigation identified that 43 horses from nine trainers had been treated with Sungate by veterinary surgeons and on veterinary advice since early 2010. These administrations were recorded in the medication records required to be kept by trainers in accordance with the Rules, and in the clinical histories of the horses which were obtained, with the trainers’ consent, from the veterinary practice.
Based on the information gathered during the investigation the BHA concluded that there are no grounds for charges to be brought.
Adam Brickell, Director of Integrity, Legal and Risk for the BHA, said:
“Having carefully considered our options under the Rules, including taking legal advice and reviewing previous cases, we have concluded that there would no reasonable prospect of a Disciplinary Panel finding that these trainers have breached the Rules of Racing.
“Under the current Rules of Racing, in the absence of any positive samples, charges could only be brought in cases such as this if there is evidence that the trainer concerned has acted in a manner prejudicial to the integrity, proper conduct, or good reputation of the sport. In these cases there was no such evidence. This is because the nine trainers in question only allowed their horses to be administered with the product on the advice of – and by – veterinary surgeons to treat orthopaedic conditions.
“Following the completion of this investigation, and the ongoing disciplinary proceedings involving Gerard Butler, consideration will be given as to whether the current Rules provide sufficient and appropriate protection against the type of scenario highlighted in this case. In addition, while acknowledging that veterinary surgeons are not currently accountable to the BHA, we will consider how we can reduce the risk of incidents such as this happening again.
“The charges brought against Gerard Butler are based on a different set of facts and circumstances to those which were identified during this investigation. A date for this hearing will be announced in due course.
“Meanwhile, all licensed trainers are reminded that if a prohibited substance is found to be present in the system of any horse under their care or control, that would constitute a breach of the Rules of Racing. They are also reminded that it is their responsibility as licensed trainers to be familiar with the Rules that govern which substances can and cannot be given to horses under their care and control.
“Due to the number of individuals and horses involved, and the volume of records reviewed, the process to ascertain the extent to which this product has been used has necessarily been a lengthy one. However we acknowledge that the cooperation of the trainers in this investigation has made the process less difficult than it might have been.”
Jenny Hall, Interim Chief Veterinary Officer for the BHA, said:
“It is important to note that the product at the centre of this investigation is a treatment designed to be injected into a horse’s joints, and is very different to that which might be used in an intramuscular anabolic steroid product.
“The recommended dose of Sungate varies according to the size of the joint to be treated, but a typical intra-muscular injectable anabolic steroid product has around ten times the concentration of anabolic agent compared to Sungate, and a recommended dosage would generally contain around fifty times the volume of anabolic agent administered in one Sungate treatment.
“In addition, it follows that when a veterinary product has been used to treat an orthopaedic condition there is a recovery period associated with the treatment before a horse can return to the racecourse. The clinical histories of the horses in question confirmed that in each case where Sungate had been administered by veterinary surgeons it had indeed been done so to treat an orthopaedic condition.
“However, it remains a matter of serious concern that a veterinary practice recommended and administered a product containing anabolic steroids, which are prohibited substances under the Rules of Racing, to these horses.”
Is the "good reputation" of horse racing enhanced in keeping confidential the names of the other 8 Sungate trainers? I’m not sure it is.
However I can only hazard a guess that the BHA, based on legal advice, reasoned it was on safer grounds to keep their names confidential, rather than disclose them to the general public and run the risk of being sued by those trainers at a later date.
By the strict wording of the rules of racing, it is the resposbility of the trainer to ensure that their horses aren’t given any banned substances, but should we really expect them to check the list of ingredients of every product. And bear in mind, even if they had, there was nothing that would have immediately shown that Sungate contained a banned steroid. That info was only obtainable by means of a detailed internet search
I do hope my doctor doesn’t need to discover what’s in the medicine he prescribes to me by "means of a detailed internet search" and if horses could speak I’m sure they’d voice concern if their vet needed to
Sure, you can’t expect trainers to be wholly cognisant of the active ingredients contained within the myriad medications their vets administer: one professional puts his trust in another professional and it would appear one of these professionals has been negligent. Reason enough to warrant closer scrutiny than appears to have been the procedure carried out in the August report, in my view
Furthermore, ‘anabolic steroid’ and ‘stanozolol’ whilst perhaps not quite so familiar names as say ‘aspirin’ are hardly unfamiliar: they’re well-known ‘dirty words’ in the majority of athletic pursuits, of which horse racing is of course one
When it comes to the administration of drugs/medications "the strict wording of the rules" must be adhered to er…strictly: there can be no grey areas viz the tenuous okaying of Sungate into joints rather than muscle: Stanozolol is a banned substance, full stop
Apologies for seeming to be a ‘conspiracy theorist’ but my keen nostrils do sense a slight whiff of manure beneath the tall, stately, sweet-smelling roses
During your absence APR there were other related threads here on TRF you may like to peruse
Hi Drone,
I fully respect your position, but maybe there is still a misunderstanding about who knew what regarding Sungate.
Sungate was in use by the Rossdales firm of vets in Newmarket for almost three years and around 100 horses are believed to have been treated with it. Sungate is manufactured in Italy and imported to the UK under licence as an approved treatment for stiff joints in horses.
But until the Butler random tests, NOBODY knew it contained stanozolol – not the vets, not the trainers, not the BHA. It wasn’t listed as an ingredient. And because a horse that has had an injection to a joint cannot be raced for three months, to allow the active ingredients to leave the system (I know about this as Salute had such a treatment once), there was never any chance of stanozolol being detected in a racecourse test.
When the Butler horses tested positive for stanozolol, it was only a cross matching of the horses and their medical books that pointed a finger at Sungate, which is when the BHA found the info on the internet. They immediately issued a warning via the NTF to all trainers to avoid using Sungate.
Thanks for that clarification; I have indeed misunderstood, though must admit to finding it strange that nobody knew stanozolol was present in Sungate or perhaps more pertinently that nobody thought it worthwhile to ask the manufacturers of this imported, unlabelled-though-licensed
product what exactly the active ingredients were, or ask to get it independently analysed before it was cleared for use on horsesPresumably the Italian regulators permit the sale of drugs without necessarily specifying what’s in them. Even one as potent and notorious as stanozolol
So I’ll accept there was no malice aforethought by any of the involved parties but have to say I find it a thoroughly unsatisfactory chain of events
Remind me again what Mr Henderson said when accused of using illegal drugs? I know NOTHING! One of the lads must have given the illegal drugs to the horses before I got up in the morning!!!! Of course he is not a vet,but here is the address of the vet.Go after him.What medication record book? Am I responsible for what happens in the yard. I am ? You must be joking. Five years! You mean five months? Good.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.