- This topic has 212 replies, 55 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
- Total Posts 170
I just wonder if it was a set up.
Conspieracy theory I know – but I see no reason why such a successful trainer, in such a race would have tried to cheat the rules – even more so when he also has a short priced favourite in the race.
This is not to say that he should not be punished as the event occured and what happens in his yard is his responsiblity – but its just all too suspect. A bit like 40 minutes into a drama on telly when the fat sweaty detetive nicks somebody and there is an hour to go and you are just waiting for Poirot to find the real reason behind the mystery…. just all a bit too coincidental.
Do jockeys get such bans or are they carried over to the next season?Surely banning a trainer for the summer is like banning a jockey for the winter? If I recall the jockeys are banned before the trial as well as after. Fallon was banned for a year before being found innocent! Could it be that jockeys are for the most part not part of the "brotherhood" in racing? A rather friendly decision I would have thought. I wonder will the Queen react like the Aga Khan and move her horses to Ireland?
Gaz,
I think the best answers to your two questions are contained within the text of the BHA enquiry report, posted on the first page of this thread.
AP
I think the punishment was about right, although a month or two longer ban might have been better. The size of the fine is largely symbolic in this particular instance, as Henderson is a wealthy man who will have no difficulty finding the money to pay it.
I don’t buy into the conspiracy theory about the "randomness" of selecting the horse for testing. I don’t think there was a tip-off of any sort. You’re always going to get this gossip when a random test proves positive, whoever the horse’s connections happen to be.
Henderson is being a little disingenuous about the welfare aspect of his/his vets actions in administering the drug. If a horse "needs" this drug to able to race, then a better welfare course of action would be to retire it from racing altogether (and not breed from it, of course).
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.
From the sounds of it he suspected, but didn’t know for sure she would have a problem – don’t forget that there are studies suggesting that 70% or more of horses in training will bleed but presumably not all of those severely enough to affect their performance.
It would appear that the drug given was intended to speed up recovery from a possible bleed rather than prevent bleeding, so it’s not like lasix for example. I’m not terribly impressed by the vet claiming not to know it was banned – or that he presumably advised Henderson it would help the mare recover, when in fact it was likely to be ineffective by racetime (ie he was being paid for something that even if legal wasn’t delivering what was promised).
What concerns me from the report is the refusal of the vet to attend, and the statement he gave which refers to it being used by his training *clients*…
NOT LONG ENOUGH, MAKE IT A YEAR AND HAVE DONE WITH IT, THEY NEED TOO MAKE AN EXAMPLE OF HIM.
CHEATS NEED DRUMMING OUT THE SPORT…
NOT LONG ENOUGH, MAKE IT A YEAR AND HAVE DONE WITH IT, THEY NEED TOO MAKE AN EXAMPLE OF HIM.
CHEATS NEED DRUMMING OUT THE SPORT…
Agreed.
Surley the vet should have told him roughly how the drug would remain in system and if needs be taken a sample the day before and checked, he could have pulled her out of the race particularly being a horse owned by her Majesty.
Send him too the tower… One is not amused…
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."
Would anyone know whether Mr Main is the husband of Heather Main, who has been training out of Kingston Lisle with ex-Henderson, Jamie Snowden and John Hills animals since April? Genuinely no idea myself.
gc
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
Although the actions of the vet, at the time and subsequently have been rightly questioned. We have to be careful in assuming any greater blame on his part. He actions may result from not wishing to drop Henderson futher in it.
Honourable men and all that – If in doubt say nowt
If the ban had applied in 2008 it would have deprived Nicky Henderson of 13 runners and 3 winners, roughly 2.5% of his runners and winners during the year.
It’s blindingly obvious to me that the BHA had information here. This is not a drug you would routinely test for- you can bet your life some disgruntled ex-employee or other jealous party has dropped him and the vet right in it.
That doesn’t defend what they did, but does explain the otherwise million-to one coincidence of testing this particular animal for this specific agent.
I’d say the BHA had the punishment about right- as others have said the taint of the affair is the worst part for NH. The vet can expect to be investigated by the Royal College very soon.As previously stated the 3 month ban looks pretty meaningless and although £40,000 may sound a hefty fine I would hazard a guess that Henderson is not going to struggle to pay it. I would have thought a 6 month ban and no fine would have sent out a much stronger signal and also appeased some of those who may see this as a lenient/convenient punishment.
- Total Posts 17716
Reading through that, it seems quite a lenient punishment to me, especially as the 3 month ban from entering horses is almost meaningless at this time of year.
I’m not just getting at you TDK but at anyone who thisnks this is lenient.
It’s not the fact it’s meaningless it the fact the haven’t taken his past record into account.
If some stole a credit card e.g and it was their first offence at the age of 58 what would the sentence be in a court of law?
Despite that person did it for personal gain most judges would hit him with a suspended sentence Yes? No?
So please someone explain to me why the BHA are so far up their own backsides they think this is fair.
I see no logic or compassion in this decision whatsover. Could they not have suspeneded the sentence?
I know someone said there should be consistancy but that’s strictly for the birds. It’s like saying we can’t tell the good guys from the bad.The ones are out to defraud and the ones who do something thinking it’s for the best or simply made an out of charachter error.
.
" The real situation, in the panel’s view, was that Henderson was very much aware of the
systematic omissions
from the medicine book. These omissions were
calculated to conceal
giving a prohibited substance.
"…The real vice was that
this was but one example of the use of a prohibited substance in knowing breach of instructions
. The omission of any mention of the injection in the medication book was
part of a systematic attempt to conceal from investigation the use of TA
."
seems to me what they’re saying is that this wasn’t an "out-of-character" one-off.
seems they’re saying there has been systematic and calculated concealment.
i’ll ask you again Fist from the other thread, please reconcile for me your word "honest" with the words "calculated to conceal" ?
not "innocent misrepresentation", not even "negligent misrepresentation", but "calculated to conceal".
do you regard "systematic, calculated concealment" of drug administration as normal and unremarkable – ie honest – practice, and is that the common view of GB racing folk?
best regards
wit
- Total Posts 17716
Honest is where you put your hand up and say "Yes there were other occassions in the low single figures"
Nicky could have easily said it was a one off and they could have not have proved any differntly.
You say it seems to you "Bla bla bla"……..is that the way you think?
He must be a liar because it seems to you they are saying.
The fact is in any court in the country if someone stood up and said it seems to me the word Objection would be the first thing you would here.
The only real evidence they have is that of the man who admittedthere were in fact other occasions.
From there they are making out like there were many then covering there asses by saying they don’t know whow many after the damage is done.
So let’s give Nicky the benifit of the doubt here and say he is telling the truth and there were for talking sake 4 other times.
Were his reasons for doing so greed? personal gain or for the good of a horse suffering from a bleeding disorder?.
Cyklokapron does not make a normal horse run faster it can put a sick horse on a level playing fiied with normally healthy horses.
So Joe bloggs reads "performace emhancing drug" "seems to me what they’re saying is that this wasn’t an "out-of-character" one-off" and to him Nicky becomes a trainer who drugs all his horses.
The truth is it is not in the true sense of the word performace emhancing and what you seem to think doesn’t mean **** when it comes to the truth.
This was a tiny tiny minor offence and the punsihment does not fit the crime….as Nicky says "Very Harsh" and I am 100% behind him on that.
I really don’t care if I offend anyone assocciated with the BHA as they don’t seem to care that they just crucified a man who has put more into the game than the whole lot of them put together.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.