- This topic has 212 replies, 55 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
Pinza,
Henderson did not ‘lose his livelihood for three months’, he was simply unable to run any horses. He was not prevented from training or from charging fees for his services during that three months. In fact, apart from a few horses that briefly moved to other yards to enable them to race during the period of his ban, his business was totally unaffected.
AP
- Total Posts 17716
AP, I think it’s early days to say how badly his business has been affected. The mud is still sticking, and the likes of Mr Wood will go on spraying glue at it up to and beyond Cheltenham – especially if Henderson breaks the record at the meeting.
That achievement too, if it happens, will be tarnished. In a world ruled as much by fashion as by anything, it’s an open question as to how many owners may decide not to send horses to him as a result of the Moonlit Path furore. How many has HMQ sent him since the ban?
AP, I think it’s early days to say how badly his business has been affected. The mud is still sticking, and the likes of Mr Wood will go on spraying glue at it up to and beyond Cheltenham – especially if Henderson breaks the record at the meeting.
You seem to be suggesting that people are engaged in ‘mud slinging’ with the concomitant implication that the accusations are either unfair or unfounded. The opposite is the case. The RCVS enquiry has shown Henderson’s guilt to be worse than the accusations he has so far faced.
- Total Posts 17716
You seem to be suggesting that people are engaged in ‘mud slinging’ with the concomitant implication that the accusations are either unfair or unfounded.
I don’t mean to imply that,
Tuffers
. The case was tried by the BHA and the ban handed out quite properly.
In my opinion, I’m not convinced (as you are) that there’s anything more to be gained by another formal sniff around the dirty linen. It’s time the whole business was laid decently to rest. Life moves on.
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?
I didn’t use the term "curruptly".
I think that there has always been a kind of assumption, probably subliminal, that if a "gentleman trainer" has committed an infringement, then somehow he should be treated less harshly than what we might call "working trainers".
In my post, I stated that originally I thought the punishment fair, but in light of what we now know, it’s clear that it fell far short of what was required.
As I understand it, the drug was administered on the express orders of Henderson. Of course, that doesn’t absolve Main, but why does he lose his livelihood but Henderson’s allowed to carry on as if nothing had happened?
Supposing this had involved, say, Martin Pipe, or Joe Soap for that matter.
What do you think the punishment would have been then?
What do you think the response of the racing press would have been?
- Total Posts 17716
Forgive me
Venusian
, but if you are saying that a legislative body favoured one class of person over another, then you
are
saying that body is corrupt.
To destroy or subvert the honesty or integrity of a legislative body is,
ipso facto
, corruption.
I assume you have evidence to back such a serious claim?
Corruption involves the payment of money for favours to be granted.
I don’t think even Henderson’s harshest critics are suggesting that he ponied up a wedge of dosh in return for a more lenient sentence.
What I, and others, have a problem with is that the poorer the miscreant is, the harsher he or she seems to be punished. Of course, this is not peculiar to racing, just look at the people in the financial world who gambled away people’s money and collected, not fines or terms of imprisonment, but enormous payoffs.
At least racing’s disciplinary authorities didn’t try to give Henderson a knighthood!
- Total Posts 17716
Semantic debates on this Forum are not much liked,
Venusian
; but for what it’s worth, here is a dictionary definition of "corruption" (from
The Business Dictionary
):
Patronage – exactly the thing you are talking about. The corruption of a public body does not necessarily involve hard cash any more than a Legal Contract needs to.You are saying that there is one law for the "toffs", and another for (still wealthy)
parvenus
who don’t happen to be as high up the social scale. That is a grave accusation to throw at any British public body, and needs backing up with evidence.
If you don’t have a specific example of one of these "poorer" trainers who has been treated worse for the same offence as Henderson, or as badly for a lesser one, then your accusation reads (to me, with respect) like a dollop of old-fashioned class envy. Surely we’re past that sort of thing nowadays?
Point 34 of the BHA decision:
34. It was also recognised that Henderson has made enormous contributions to the sport over many years both through his professional and charitable activities. It is all the more unfortunate that someone of his high reputation should be subjected to the penalties that the nature of his conduct required.
- Total Posts 17716
Many thanks,
Monkey
. This paragraph made it clear that the length and scope of Henderson’s ban took into account "previous good conduct", and personal unpaid work for the good of the sport.
Nothing here in the way of a "Toff’s Charter"!!
In my opinion, I’m not convinced (as you are) that there’s anything more to be gained by another formal sniff around the dirty linen. It’s time the whole business was laid decently to rest. Life moves on.
The RCVS enquiry had access to all the witnesses and more evidence, the BHA enquiry did not. It would therefore be remiss of the BHA if they did not re-examine their findings in light of the new evidence.
- Total Posts 17716
No Colin, Pinza is on a
wind-down
mission!
Unlike most of my fellow posters, I believe it’s time to move on and stop complaining about
special treatment for toffs
, something for which there’s no evidence.
Pinza,
David Flood was found guilty of breaking exactly the same rules as Henderson when he injected a horse with bute on the day of a race.
He was disqualified for two years – his business definitely was affected.
I’ve no sympathy for Flood, but I can certainly see a marked difference between his punishment and that imposed on Henderson, a difference that far exceeds any comparison of the circumstances.
I have no expectation of altering your desire to brush this affair under the carpet, but does the Flood example at least indicate to you why some of us are unhappy in the light of the fresh evidence.
AP
Well said, Alan.
Pinza, if you don’t think people are treated differently according to their background/connections then I feel you are guilty of not wanting to see it.
Colin
The Jockey Club, the previous regulator, was a protective body who employed PR people to do just that, protect the racing industry from unsavoury publicity.
I had some very interesting conversations with one such gentleman long after the JC’s demise and he was not complimentary about them at all. Unfortunately he did what he was paid to do.
The BHA also seems a somewhat protective organisation. AP’s example shows the disparity of punishment between those who are well connected within racing, and those who are not.
What the BHA does not seem to realise, or chooses to ignore, is that we can now directly source factual information and make comparisons and draw our own conclusions. No longer can all matters be hidden or relevant facts excluded. This protection serves only to allow problems to continue, as it has done over many decades.
The RCVS seems to operate under a different objective, hence the removal of a vet’s licence.- Total Posts 17716
Unlike a previous poster I will not be patting "Alan" on the back.
Anyone passing the David Flood case off as comparitive to the circumstances and situation involving Nicky Henderson is only trying to muddy the waters further. The two cases involve entirely different substances and entirely different individuals, before the tribunal in entirely differing circusmstances. None of it has anything to do with "class" either.
Anyone who doesn’t think someone of long standing good repute is entitled to be treated differently does not accept or understand the concept of goodwill. Nicky Henderson didn’t just stroll into the title of "well connected" ….. he earned it over many years.
Some need to seriously examine their own motives for wanting to continually beat this drum. There’s a huge gap between rumour, innuendo, individual perceptions and FACT.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.