- This topic has 212 replies, 55 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
Honest is where you put your hand up and say "Yes there were other occassions in the low single figures"
No, actually that’s called an admission. Sometimes it comes up front. Other times it comes when you’re backed into a corner. Admission of wrongdoing is not evidence of honesty to most people.
"Honest" is not doing in the first place something that a jury considers dishonest.
Quite clear from what you say that you consider his acts honest, therefore acceptable practice.
That’s exactly the kind of attitude that regulators are up against in trying to get some integrity into the modern game.
You know sod-all about the facts; I know sod-all about the facts.
Difference is that I put faith into the independent tribunal that does know all about the facts.
You however rubbish them for no better reason than you simply can’t conceive somebody could be anything other than a "good chap".
You’re like the mother who maintains without knowing or caring about the underlying situation "my boy could never have done that".
So you think then they’ve got it in for him then, and enjoyed the whole exercise?
Do you actually understand the meaning of the word "systematic" ?
best regards
wit
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.
Perhaps the trainer crucified himself by instructing a banned substance to be administered to the horse? Performance enhancing or not. I have no doubt that Nicky Henderson is a ‘good chap’, but you can’t have one rule for one and one for another can you?
Wit do you really think the Panel is independent?
The BHA pay the chairman of these secret tribunals.
Are they going to bite the hand that feeds them? If they gave a judgment that the BHA did not like they would not be hired again..
Why are the press not allowed into these secret tribunals if there is nothing to hide?
The BHA are prosecutor, judge and jury. It would be impossible to win a hearing in these circumstances.
If you appeal they set up a new panel to hear the appeal but they are also paid by the BHA.
Everyone is getting the BHA money apart from the person charged and the majority of them could not afford a legal team to match the BHA . Equality of arms?
The simple thing to do for anyone charged by the BHA is to admit your guilt at the earliest opportunity and get a lighter sentence because if you fight you cannot win and will get a heavier sentence.
Blue
How many other sports have open, independent, disciplinary hearings?
Why should racing be any different than say, football or rugby?
How many employers hold disciplinary hearings in public? Does yours? If you breached your employers disciplinary code would you want any disciplinary hearing heard in public?
The major BHA enquiries are generally headed by QC’s – are you suggesting they are effectively there as paid lackeys of the BNA? (I suggest you think carefully before answering that one because libel and defamation laws do apply to internet forums)
You seem very quick to criticise the BHA and their processes yet I do not see any constructive alternative being suggested by you.
No system is perfect but the processes used by the BHA are no different than those used by other sports and I would suggest it works very well. Just because you happen to disagree with a decision made by the process does not mean the process is flawed.
Paul
I am pointing out that the tribunals cannot be independent when everyone is paid by the BHA.
I do not disagree with the Henderson decision. I think it is a fair penalty.
I do not have an employer as I am retired but if I did nobody would have any interest in a disciplinary hearing of mine.
I am pointing out that the tribunals cannot be independent when everyone is paid by the BHA.
Who is supposed to pay then?
Criminal cases are prosecuted by The Crown. The criminal justice system is paid for by The Crown. Therefore applying your logic it is not possible to obtain a fair trial in a criminal case.
I think you are being very disingenuous to those who sit on the tribunals.
Again may I ask what would you suggest as an alternative?
I am pointing out that the tribunals cannot be independent when everyone is paid by the BHA.
Who is supposed to pay then?
Criminal cases are prosecuted by The Crown. The criminal justice system is paid for by The Crown. Therefore applying your logic it is not possible to obtain a fair trial in a criminal case.
I think you are being very disingenuous to those who sit on the tribunals.
Again may I ask what would you suggest as an alternative?
I don’t think you mean ‘being very disingenuous to those who sit on the tribunals’ because I suspect that is not possible in dictionary definitions of the word.I assume you mean that the tribunals that are being accused of being disingenuous,and unfairly so?
Drug testing in racing seems to be a random procedure as unfortunately not every winning horse is tested, never mind those that finish middle of the pack.
Therefore the suspicion surely must be; someone pinpointed that particular horse and/or trainer.
Mr. Henderson should be responsible for all the horses in his care. One of them had a drug administered which contravened the rules of racing. Prior to this, it would appear others had too. This is wrong and dishonest.
He argued he was considering the welfare of the horse.
But if a horse bleeds, should it be allowed to race?
And if 70% of them bleed, why does this happen? Is this a breeding problem or a natural event, therefore needing, as has been discussed within the media, medication rules to be changed?
Whilst we’re at it, should all horses be allowed to race on any drugs the trainer/vet deem to be necessary for the horse’s welfare, regardless of whether these drugs are considered aiding and abetting to winning a race?BC,
Personally I think its independent enough.
Its far from alone in being funded by the same body that brings the prosecutions, as Paul says with employers and the Criminal Courts, both of whom as we both know also have a default setting of no publicity.
I take your various points not as criticism of any individual adjudicators but rather as a re-run of the criticisms-in-principle made by those who felt the Jockey Club did the bare minimum to comply with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights when it changed its procedures in 2001.
We have since 2001 had at least Bradley, Mullins and Fallon open the JC tribunals in various respects to scrutiny in the High Court . In none of those reported cases did the High Court see anything other than sufficient independence and impartiality, careful and professional procedures and properly reasoned decisions none of which it found susceptible to supervisory over-turning by the High Court.
The conspiracist can always say that’s because the tribunals are very clever in disguising their bias and doing just enough to appeal-proof their actions.
One answer to that is to compare them against other racing jurisdictions – unless the conspiracy is then claimed to be global (which for me then really is into the realms of fantasy).
Another answer is that the Nagle v Fielden days actually are long gone and there really is now a professional spirit and capability abroad in the BHA. It actually does happen sometimes
Personally, one aspect which I think is too readily overlooked is that ultimately the BHA does still operate by contract as a voluntary association. There’s no legal right to participate / make money under BHA rules – the contract runs both ways.
As when you join any other club, you play by its rules so long as they are within the general law and natural justice – which each post-2001 challenge to the Courts has found to be the case with the way the BHA uses its contractual disciplinary powers.
best regards
wit
Honest is where you put your hand up and say "Yes there were other occasions in the low single figures"
Nicky could have easily said it was a one off and they could have not have proved any differently.
Cyklokapron does not make a normal horse run faster it can put a sick horse on a level playing field with normally healthy horses.
.
Did you actually read the transcript?
NH admitted that these visits by the vet on race mornings were routine affairs- it’s naiive to believe anything other than that this was going on for a long time and they were just found out in the end.As for saying that the drug put a sick horse on a level playing field with a normal healthy one, that’s exactly the issue with many therapeutic drugs including bute and the moral questions it raises about masking discomfort or illness in a dumb animal.
Wit, I see that the Panel refused the BHA’s application that Henderson pay costs.
What costs are these?
Do the BHA pay for Hendersons QC? Although not necessary the case with Henderson what happens in these cases if a defendent can’t afford proper legal representation – such as a young jockey or trainer? It would seem unfair trying to defend yourself against a QC.
Henderson’s admission that he administered the drug on many occasions makes one wonder just how many trainers do a similar thing – and how many perhaps administer other, more potent, perfomance enhancing drugs….
Henderson’s comments about the drugs being "detectable" were particularly interesting – leaving the impression that, as long as detection was very unlikely, it almost went without saying that the drug would be administered.
How confident are we that the drugs testing in this is rigorous enough? …and how confident are we that all performance enhancing drugs are detectable?
I don’t know the answers to these questions…
Pompete the BHA do not pay Hendersons costs. The costs in question were the costs of the BHA and they were asking Henderson to pay them.
If you are unable to pay for your defence you represent yourself. that is why I made the earlier point that it is best to plead guilty and don’t waste money defending yourself in a case you can’t win though having representation should lead to better mitigation.
I don’t know if the Jockeys association are looking at a scheme of funding
Wit thanks for your detailed reply. You are correct. I was not criticising individual adjudicators.
I believe the McKeown High Court challenge is coming up in September or October. Ian Winter QC is acting for him. He was on Fallons Old Bailey team. It is all very incestuous!!
Pompete,
Yes, I see in the decision:
=============================
36. The BHA suggested that this was a case in which it was appropriate to order Henderson to pay costs. The Panel disagreed. This was not a case in which he had imposed any special costs on the Regulator beyond those of dealing with the ordinary incidents of a disciplinary investigation.
=============================
Since I know sod-all about the case other than what I’ve read like everyone else not involved in it, I’m necessaily guessing but – by analogy to the costs rules in English criminal cases – I would imagine the costs sought by the BHA might be in the nature of costs incurred by reason of the prosecutor being "given the run-around" by the defendant.
For example, he keeps denying some point that – after the prosecutor incurs expert or investigator or similar costs to produce proof – he then caves in on and admits. Basically its to do with unreasonably wasting time and money.
So evidently the Panel did not think Henderson was involved in anything like that to make the prosecutor’s work anything out of the norm.
By similar analogy – ie again guessing rather than knowing – I would very much doubt the BHA would pay for Henderson’s QC. A Defendant will get costs out of Central Funds if its the prosecutor that has been unreasonably "giving the run-around". Plus the decisions went against him – unusual to get costs awarded to you in that event.
For the impecunious licensed person appearing before the Panel, again I’m guessing but I don’t think there is anything in the nature of legal aid – though its possible in fact there might be under insurance policies of the Jockeys or Trainers associations.
If not, I seem to recall officers of those associations sometimes showing up as "next friend" to help the less organised / articulate defendants.
A cunning defendant could actually find self-representation working to his/her advantage – most adjudicators faced with a defendant-in-person will lean over backwards to compensate for the otherwise perceived disdavantage of not having professional representation.
The adjudicators will in such a case be acutely aware of not exposing themselves to any potential allegation that the defendant’s case was not fully explored and that the decision was as a result not properly arrived at or – as BC says – that mitigating circumstances were not duly explored in assessing the sanction after a finding of guilt.
best regards
wit
Since I know sod-all about the case other than what I’ve read like everyone else not involved in it, I’m necessaily guessing but – by analogy to the costs rules in English criminal cases – I would imagine the costs sought by the BHA might be in the nature of costs incurred by reason of the prosecutor being "given the run-around" by the defendant.
For example, he keeps denying some point that – after the prosecutor incurs expert or investigator or similar costs to produce proof – he then caves in on and admits. Basically its to do with unreasonably wasting time and money.
Spot on – if you look at the Gingell ruling he denied everything initially and said the tests were flawed etc. etc.
As a result a whole new range of extensive tests were carried out.
When he later admitted what he had done they decided to charge him the costs of the extra testing.
But it decided to exercise its Rule 2 (vi)(b) power to order a payment of £2,500 as a contribution to the costs of scientific investigations, as well as the legal costs, that were incurred in investigating the various arguments that Gingell had deployed before he eventually came clean.
[/color:1z69agpe]
?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.