- This topic has 212 replies, 55 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
Milkshaking is understood to have masking properties, but it’s not conclusive. This article, taken from an old Pacemaker magazine, is interesting.
http://www.jockeysite.com/stories/milkshake.htm
Milkshaking can also be tested for, though it requires blood testing not urine testing and ideally pre-race, rather than post-race. We do this type of sampling on a random basis and have yet to have a confirmed positive.
If it isn’t confidential information, are you able to give an idea of the number of pre-race blood tests carried out in the flat and jumps seasons?
If it isn’t confidential information, are you able to give an idea of the number of pre-race blood tests carried out in the flat and jumps seasons?
Along with the other questions posed (see esp. Cav. Ramp.’s) – why do they need asking?
Is it a question of transparency?
Have the records of past testing, its penetration, results and thoroughness not been published and debated?Perhaps not?
It surely does not matter who said what.
Silvoir’s selected quote from the RCVS report is:The Committee found Mr Main evasive and unclear on issues central to the case. It has regrettably concluded his evidence lacked candour and that on some 8 aspects of the case his evidence was untrue.
There are plenty more quotes that could be selected, concerning both vet and trainer, but the fact is a vet adminstered a drug against a simple BHA rule (only food and water on raceday) under instruction of a trainer.
Both are guilty and the trainer is equally responsible, if not more so, than the vet whom he employed.
Why then did the trainer receive a short ban during summer months, when the vet has been struck off?
Why is the BHA’s punishment towards the trainer more lenient than the RCVS’s towards the vet. Whose rule was it that was broken?
With regard to drug testing it can only be as good as the number of horses tested, and the company testing. They need to invest constantly to keep up with the various ways used to mask the drugs administered. Is it now the LGC that tests for the horse racing industry and are they accredited?
With regard to training of staff (would be trainers, jockeys, and stable staff) why is this not done in-house? They could be employed by the racing industry instead of the trainer, spend 3-6 months at different yards who would be invoiced for their services, and report back to the training school after each period at the different yards. The present situation, where trainers employ trainees after just a short introduction at the training school, perpetuates and therefore continues any bad practises that may occur in their yard.The elephant in the room for Paul is that the perception of the racing public is that Nicky Henderson is a well connected, well educated man who moves in the top social circles and wears the right tie, and that because of that he got a soft deal on a serious issue.
Other trianers have been warned off for much longer periods for offences which to many seem no more serious.
I’m not talking facts here, but perceptions. That’s what a PR man has to deal with isn’t it Paul?
Greg Wood’s view: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/20 … ath-affair
- Total Posts 17716
Thank you for the link. I’d hoped for a less predictable stance from Wood, who famously has it in for the Old Etonian mob and has applied yet another puff of gas to keep this dirty little kettle on the boil.
Calls for public apologies are childish nonsense, the kind of thing you’d hope boys got over in the primary school playground. Media calls for these public exhibitions have one agenda only – to give the newspapers yet another chance to knock racing and the "toffs" down another peg or three.
Really, it would be a joy to see Wood praise something (or someone) connected with this sport he purports to love, rather than this continual carping from the sidelines.
I live in hope, rather than expectation.
Thank you for the link. I’d hoped for a less predictable stance from Wood, who famously has it in for the Old Etonian mob and has applied yet another puff of gas to keep this dirty little kettle on the boil.
Calls for public apologies are childish nonsense, the kind of thing you’d hope boys got over in the primary school playground. Media calls for these public exhibitions have one agenda only – to give the newspapers yet another chance to knock racing and the "toffs" down another peg or three.
Really, it would be a joy to see Wood praise something (or someone) connected with this sport he purports to love, rather than this continual carping from the sidelines.
I live in hope, rather than expectation.
I don’t think we can be reading the same article, Pinza. I found the article almost too restrained in its call for Henderson to merely express regret to draw a line under the saga. The idea that a trainer can systematically disregard the rules of racing and then shabbily attempt to foist responsibility for the affair onto his employees is utterly repugnant to me. The man has displayed a complete lack of integrity and should be shunned by the rest of the racing community.
- Total Posts 17716
If a public apology really would draw a line under the business, of course I’d welcome that. But I think we know that it would not do so. An apology would be construed as an admission of the conscious wrong doing which the trainer has always denied, and would fuel the media fires once again.
We can all see what’s happened. Henderson has done much to tarnish his own reputation. But it is worth remembering that this vet chose to protect his client, at the ultimate expense of his own livelihood. Some might choose to wonder at that loyalty, or even to praise what is (I rather feel) an unusually honourable piece of behaviour for this day and age.
But no. What’s the agenda of the journalists such as Wood who wish the saga to rumble on? Yet another public excoriation of a popular figure in the sport. And why? To pander to those who blame "the toffs" for all Racing’s ills and wish to see them drummed out of it for good and all.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
Greg Wood choose a headline that does not reflect large parts of his article. In it he correctly addresses some serious issues and questions…
"several troubling aspects of the case that remain unresolved"
"how many other horses, at Henderson’s yard and elsewhere in Lambourn, were getting the same injections on race days under the guise of a "pre-race check"
"In other words, how many more trainers at jumping’s HQ were – and so probably still are – more than willing to treat the anti-doping rules with contempt if they think they can get away with it?"
"This alone should really be enough to persuade the BHA to re-interview Henderson about the wholeaffair, to see if there is anything that he would like to add to his originalaccount"
"does not feel (the case) as though it has reached a satisfactory conclusion."
… so I think beyond that, Henderson "express(ing) some genuine regret for the whole affair" really is superfluous to the central issues he address’s in the article.
My question is, what will the BHA do next?
FWIW Greg wouldn’t write his own headline and nor would most journalists. He sends in his copy, sub-editor adds a headline
- Total Posts 17716
My question is, what will the BHA do next?
Your digest of Wood’s article reflects most of its content perfectly, and rather demonstrates my main concern: that the author is in the business of rabble-rousing. The best thing for the BHA to do would be to move on, as they have done, and ignore these incitements.
Henderson’s punishment has been meted out, and his ban has been served. The deterrent effect will be large enough to give any other likely users of this illegal strategy pause for thought. Wood’s rolling witch hunt is an attempt to deflect energies away from more important matters towards a case which has already been firmly dealt with.
If Mr Wood wants BHA to spend more money and time on persecuting the "top toff", perhaps he should offer to fund their enquiries himself.
My question is, what will the BHA do next?
Your digest of Wood’s article reflects most of its content perfectly, and rather demonstrates my main concern: that the author is in the business of rabble-rousing. The best thing for the BHA to do would be to move on, as they have done, and ignore these incitements.
Henderson’s punishment has been meted out, and his ban has been served. The deterrent effect will be large enough to give any other likely users of this illegal strategy pause for thought. Wood’s rolling witch hunt is an attempt to deflect energies away from more important matters towards a case which has already been firmly dealt with.
If Mr Wood wants BHA to spend more money and time on persecuting the "top toff", perhaps he should offer to fund their enquiries himself.
You’re missing the whole point of this case, Pinza. The RCVS enquiry has found that Henderson and Main were involved in a longstanding and systematic policy of concealing their repeated breaches of the rules of racing. This finding arose from evidence that wasn’t available to the BHA at its enquiry (because Main refused to testify).
There is every reason to question Henderson further and to investigate what other drugs may have been administered as part of the ‘pre-race check’.
A couple of extracts from the BHA’s original enquiry:
As will be apparent from the analysis of this case below, it is obvious that Mr Main had some important, perhaps vital evidence to give.
The real vice of the conduct here was that this was but one example of the use of a prohibited substance in knowing breach of Instruction C9. The omission in this case of any mention of the injection in the Medication Book was part of a systematic attempt to conceal from investigation the use of TA. The Panel has no way of knowing how frequent the use of TA was. Henderson gave an estimate that it was used on occasions numbering “low single figures”, but the records that he had responsibility for maintaining are silent about it. The Panel did not have the help of Mr Main’s evidence in this regard, nor did it hear from the assistant trainers.
The Panel had very much in mind that the injection of TA was carried out by an experienced veterinary surgeon, whom Henderson regarded as his adviser, and that he had introduced Henderson to it. The Panel was not however in a position to make any better or more detailed judgement about the respective roles of Henderson and Mr Main or about the extent of any collaboration between them because of Mr Main’s absence from the enquiry.
Pinza
With regard to trainers you believe
The deterrent effect will be large enough to give any other likely users of this illegal strategy pause for thought.
I think the opposite might happen. Look at the sycophantic response from members of the racing industry and a large section of the media.
Most of the blame has been shifted from trainer to others; the owner continues to have horses with him; the publicity has been mostly positive and supportive, his career is flourishing.
Rather than a "deterent effect", other trainers might believe they will get similar treatment and punishment, and if in doubt, use this fine example to ensure they do.
It is the vetinary surgeons who might "pause for thought". They should now refuse to obey instructions, given by a trainer, that do not comply with BHA rules.
Unfortunately, it would require them all to do so, not just a few.I first posted on this thread that I thought that 3 months was about right.
How wrong I was!
Knowing what I know now, a ban of a year, or perhaps a little more, would be the punishment I’d mete out.
It’s clear that Henderson’s involvement in this sorry tale is considerably more calculated and blameworthy than we were originally led to believe.
It’s clear that the old boys’ network has enabled him to be treated very leniently indeed.
As has been posted already, what do you think would have happened if it had been someone like Martin Pipe, or some other "outsider", who’d done this?
Finally, yes, racing journalists have been typically supine in their response to this. Mustn’t upset the establishment.
- Total Posts 17716
The deterrent effect is, as
Nor1
rightly says, a matter of conjecture.
An eminent member of the veterinary profession has been struck off and is now disbarred from earning his livelihood. A famous trainer lost his livelihood for three months.
It’s up to us to guess: but in the light of the punishments these men have already received, if you were a vet or a trainer would you be nonchalant about committing similar breaches of the rules?
- Total Posts 17716
It’s clear that the old boys’ network has enabled him to be treated very leniently indeed.
How is it "clear"? What’s your evidence for suggesting that the BHA has behaved corruptly in this matter?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.