- This topic has 212 replies, 55 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
Surely the fine has greater implications than the 3-month ban?
I fully understand that, but I feel £40k for stopping a horse bleeding is way too much.
- Total Posts 17716
I
This wasn’t race fixing or anything like that he was trying to look after his horse, however rules are rules and if you break them you have to pay the penalty. We want and NEED the BHA to police the sport properly. I think they’ve done rather well in this case.Nor was it race fixing when Robert Winston got a 12 month ban, and has seen his career go down the pan ever since.
The irony is, had Marcus Foley known of this, and someone he told subsequently laid the horse, he would face far heavier censure than those that actually perpetrated the deed.
Intregity – my rear end!This wasn’t race fixing or anything like that he was trying to look after his horse, however rules are rules and if you break them you have to pay the penalty. We want and NEED the BHA to police the sport properly. I think they’ve done rather well in this case.
.
If this were the case Ian any trainer could run any horses on any drug provided it improved their welfare. The main ones I’m thinking of are bute and lasix which both aid the prevention of bleeding – and as such improve animal welfare.
If Henderson was that concerned about the mares welfare to have to break the rules to give her drugs maybe he shouldn’t have been running her in the first place.
This wasn’t race fixing or anything like that he was trying to look after his horse, however rules are rules and if you break them you have to pay the penalty. We want and NEED the BHA to police the sport properly. I think they’ve done rather well in this case.
.
If this were the case Ian any trainer could run any horses on any drug provided it improved their welfare. The main ones I’m thinking of are bute and lasix which both aid the prevention of bleeding – and as such improve animal welfare.
If Henderson was that concerned about the mares welfare to have to break the rules to give her drugs maybe he shouldn’t have been running her in the first place
.
I think thats a very fair point.
I think its important we don’t get a two wrongs make a right situation here. Although it is amazing how common sense can prevail at the BHA when the "right" people are involved.
Pity such common sense wasn’t applied in the case of the 6 times champion jockey.
Henderson is a very lucky man and any trainer of lesser standing would have faced a far more severe penalty.
He was found to have knowingly broken the rules on more than one occasion – "the panel has no way of knowing how frequent(ly)" – and systematically covered up the fact.
The panel then accept his assurance, in the face of the above finding, that his main motive was the welfare of the horses involved rather than to improve performance. They don’t offer any argument as to why they accept this assurance (point 30).
They even take into account when deciding the penalty that the drug probably wasn’t as effective as Henderson thought it was going to be (point 31).
Then there is point 34, where they refer to Mr Henderson’s "enormous contributions to the sport".
Does he deserve such consideration? I don’t think so. If anything the more logical thing to have done was to treat him even more severely than an ordinary trainer.
Incidentally, the vet Mr Main does not come out of this well, which is a serious matter given his standing in the sport:
"He is the Senior Veterinary Surgeon at Newbury racecourse. He sits as the NTF representative on the Veterinary Committee and on the Counter Analysis Advisory Committee of the BHA. He is also the NTF’s Veterinary Advisor."
Might he be warned off?
I think the BHA have just about got it right on this one.
They cannot be accused of sweeping this under the carpet and a £40k fine is not insignificant.
Although the ban on entries may smack of tokenism it is a pragmatic approach. Had they gone for a full scale ban, which would have not only had implications for Henderson but for all his staff as well, then you could have been sure as night follows day the decision would have been taken to the courts.
Certainly the record keeping waqs unsatisfactory and it certainly looks as though what was happening has been covered up. I believe the motive for administration of the drug was welfare based rather than performance enhancing.
As I initially observed and others have picked up on the role of the vet in this entire saga seriously needs to be looked at.
I don’t know if Paul S wants to comment on this in an open forum, and I understand if he does not, but will the BHA be looking further into the involvement of the vet or is this matter mow closed?
Nicky Henderson’s ban will cover 56 jump meetings (average of 0.6 meetings a day).
In the months Jul-Sep 2006, 2007 and 2008, NH ran 31 over jumps and 12 on the flat. In three years.
Bit like getting a 3 month driving ban in Norway in December…..I’d take it.
- Total Posts 170
I think some are being a little niave about this when viewing that he cannot have runners for 3 months. This will not hurt him in that sense – but it will in many others.
Henderson, has now be tainted with a black mark. I.e. If he wins the Champion Hurdle again in March, every story will bring this finding up again at some point of the story.
It won’t just disappear when he returns. Every interview will make some form of reference to it. This will hang around like a bad smell and for someone, who I believe is proud of his reputation and standing – this will hurt a lot more then £40,000. I would guess that is just about his cut from winning the Champion hurdle last year.
I am afraid mud sticks in the press and the media.
Personally, I will not have it was a random sampling. I cannot believe we are expected to believe that. The BHA must have a whistle blowers line and I would guess a call was made to it. If this is the case I would not expect them to admit to this anyhow! I am not saying the guy on here is lying but more likely just not up to speed with every intricacy of the case. If you ask your boss a telling question 90% of the time he will straight bat it back to you.
How many random horses are tested in the UK? What percentage of those are not beaten favourites? I would hazard a guess, an incrediably low percentage. I..e NH has either been very unfortuante to be ‘caught’ or someone told a tale….
Here are the figures on dope testing taken from the BHA website:
2004 2005 2006 2007
Number of Runners 92761 94659 94610 93719
Samples Analysed 8816 8758 9086 9035
Positives confirmed 11 9 21 7
% of tests proving +ve 0.13 0.10 0.23 0.08Testing Procedures
Horses are selected for dope testing by the Racecourse Stewards, usually on account of their performance in a race (e.g. a beaten short-priced favourite, a long-priced winner), but the Stewards have the power to test any horse as they see fit.Once selected, they are escorted away from the unsaddling area and taken to the dope-testing unit where they are identified from their passport and/or microchip and examined by a Veterinary Officer.
Paul / Happy – at this stage I can’t comment on the vet in question. Sorry.
As for the testing, I totally understand that it is very hard to believe it was just coincidence but if it isn’t then I’m not being told it.
Is there a list of what is tested for by any chance Alan?
We don’t publish what we do and do not test for, but I think at the last cound it’s thousands of substances, including substances such as anabolic steroids (to address your earlier point).
Is there a list of what is tested for by any chance Alan?
We don’t publish what we do and do not test for, but I think at the last cound it’s thousands of substances, including substances such as anabolic steroids (to address your earlier point).
Thanks for clarifying Paul
Personally, I will not have it was a random sampling. I cannot believe we are expected to believe that. The BHA must have a whistle blowers line and I would guess a call was made to it. If this is the case I would not expect them to admit to this anyhow! I am not saying the guy on here is lying but more likely just not up to speed with every intricacy of the case. If you ask your boss a telling question 90% of the time he will straight bat it back to you.
Why does that matter? Presumably the trainer wouldn’t know for certain before the race that his horse would finish well down the field and therefore be unlikely to be tested.
Does the mare have a history of bleeding or bursting blood vessels? ? ?
Alan, a couple of questions if i may please.
How do the BHS test this, is it the same with an athlete where 2 samples are taken at once, if the first one is positive, then the second sample (which is kept at frozen temp.) is then tested to confirm the initial result? ? ?
How do the BHS view the fact that Cyklokapron can improve sporting performance of an equine animal? ? ?
Many thanks.
Typical of how racing gets into the News and Media headlines from something which shows it in a negative light.
You can bet BBC News will showcase it even though they showed nothing in the News of the Big Races when it was Royal Ascot.
3 months if he was given his punishment in October or November would have destroyed him as all the owners with horses which were primed would have been moved or maybe a new trainer on a 3 month contract like a caretaker boss might have been brought in to Seven Barrows.
What i cant understand is why was the meeting held in private and not in public so racing fans and other people in general could witness what was being said and recorded.
Not being someone who works with or knows the intimate details about looking after horses maybe a list could be put up of what is allowed and not allowed to be used on treating horses?
It is shame but Nicky will be back, He is still one of the best trainers in the country.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.