- This topic has 212 replies, 55 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
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?
Spot on TDK – I have about as much confidence in the British Racing authorities ability to detect illegal drugs as I do the democratic process of Zimbabwe.
Not all performance enhancing drugs are illegal and I often wonder what exactly is illegal and legal within British racing?
As I understand it a horse can only be tested for a drug if it’s registered as "in training", removing it from licensed premises and registering it as "out of training" would enable any unscrupulous individual to avoid detection in a particular horse?
Is it illegal (under the laws of British racing) to train a horse on a performance enhancing drug or just to run them with it in the system?
…. I often wonder what exactly is illegal and legal within British racing?
As I understand it a horse can only be tested for a drug if it’s registered as "in training", removing it from licensed premises and registering it as "out of training" would enable any unscrupulous individual to avoid detection in a particular horse?
Is it illegal (under the laws of British racing) to train a horse on a performance enhancing drug or just to run them with it in the system?
can’t immediately see those timing nuances in the rules.
the basic rule seems to be Rule 200:
=================================
Part 20. Prohibited Practices and Disqualifications of Persons
——————————————————————————–
200. Any person who administers or attempts to administer or allows or causes to be administered or connives at the administration to a horse of a Prohibited Substance with intention to affect the racing performance of that horse in a horserace or with knowledge that its racing performance in a horserace could be affected shall be guilty of a breach of the Rules and may be declared a disqualified person or otherwise penalised by the HRA under Rule 2 of these Rules.
=====================================
I suppose technically if Barbaro had been in GB and connections had been healing his leg facture so that he could race again, his treatment would have fallen within that prohibition (on the basis it would affect his racing performance to race on four legs rather than three) ?
Then there are all the Instructions here:
http://rules.britishhorseracing.com/Ins … 00&depth=2
including the following in C1:
====================
1. Definition"Prohibited Substance" means a substance originating externally whether or not it is endogenous to the horse which falls in any of the categories contained in the List of Prohibited Substances set out in Paragraph 2 below.
"Substance" includes the metabolites of the substance and the isomers of the substance and metabolites.
2. List of Prohibited Substances
The HRA give notice that the following are Prohibited Substances under the Rules of Racing.
Substances capable at any time of acting on one or more of the following mammalian body systems:
the nervous system
the cardiovascular system
the respiratory system
the digestive system
the urinary system
the reproductive system
the musculoskeletal system
the blood system
the immune system except for licensed vaccines against infectious agents
the endocrine systemEndocrine secretions and their synthetic counterparts
Masking agents
For the purposes of clarity Prohibited Substances include:-
Anti-pyretics, analgesics and anti-inflammatory substances Cytotoxic substances
Antihistamines
Diuretics
Local anaesthetics
Muscle relaxants
Respiratory stimulants
Sex hormones, anabolic agents and corticosteroids
Substances affecting blood coagulation==============================
best regards
wit
What really gets my goat is that Henderson gets away with a non sentence – three months when he hasn’t got many runners anyway, when if it had been Joe Bloggs trainer he or she would have received a penalty which would have put most trainers out of business.
But what really wrankles is this.I have and still do own horses, decent ones, but like many thoroughbreds they are prone to injury and illness. I’ve spent a great deal of money in treating them. More to the point in determining their treatment, I had detailed discussions with the vet and the trainer as to the length of the treatment and how long it will take post treatment for the medication to get out of the system and when they could race again. I ‘ve even paid for blood tests close to the time when they were being entered to make sure the medication had cleared. I’d suggest the majority of owners/trainers would take a similar view.
Yet, Henderson, who according to the disciplinary findings has been systematically treating his horses on the day of the race, has deliberately
tried to cover up his use of illegal substances. So, I ask, how many times have his horses won because they were on illegal medication and, how many honest owners have been deprived of prize money because of his activities?The discipinary panel said they mitigated the sentence because of his ambassadorial role. Oh sure, what does this mean, that he makes himself available to racing channel interviewers and has a convivial relationship with racing journos? Or what?
Personally I think he should have been banned for entering horses for at least a year, which would have got him
out of racing for good and sent a warning to any other like minded trainers.
If the moral crooks aren’t got out of racing then I ask myself what is the point of paying £18k a year to run a horse honestly when that horse is disadvantaged because it is run honestly ?
richardThanks Blue. And thanks Wit, for affording me your patience. I understand your knowledge of the details of the case is no greater than the rest of us but I think I speak for all of us when I say we appreciate your reasoned and considered views on these weighty subjects – you are after all our TRF’s Legal Eagle – offical or otherwise
I have to say I’m still trying to come to terms with all this. The implications are potentially far reaching and I’m not sure I’m prepared to fully recognise them. Anyhow I suspose I’ll just carry on nevertheless.
- Total Posts 17716
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
Do you understand the word Patronising? You come across as a pompus ass trying to sook up the BHA’s backside to be honest.
I stand by what I said Nicky Henderson did not deserve this very harsh punishment. A 3 month ban and a 40k fine for a first offence.
By first offense I mean the first time he has been up on this charge. Whether it was a one of or normal practice does not change the fact the man believed what he was doing was for the good of the horse. This is not some jockey snorting coke or having a string of punters laying and backing horses for him this is a man who cares about racing and cares about his animals.
Let’s look at this drug and it’s uses. It used during cardiac surgery to prevent excessive blood loss. It’s used during Orthopedic Surgeryn get a tooth taken out and the dentist hands you a gass of it to wash your mouth out and help stop the bleeding.
It is in no shape or form a performance enhancing drug as the BHA call it.
An equaliser at best.If Nicky had for the first time gave a horse a jab that made him run like the wond and win some race at Sedgfield I would be amazed but the first to say ban him.
Can I ask you did you read Rory’s latest thread?
Seems Tim Dreaper ran Ten Up on this drug when he won the Gold Cup and made it common knowledge. He stated the horse couldn’t get a mile without it.
Now if the BHA think the Queen or Joe Smith’s trainer should not be allowed to treat a sick horse but Nicky says stuff it I do the I am 100% behind him.
This wasn’t a case of Nicky trying to cheat anyone and that is why the man feels he was harshly treated.
You want to tell me how wondeful the BHA are go ahead but it will fall on deaf ears.
I believe in justice but I also believe in leniency when it is called for. Nicky Hendeson is not a common criminal but they have treated him like one.
The BHA are no better than a bunch of hanging judges who should get their act together. Great isn’t it, we can treat our women. Hell we can even have a swig of the stuff ourselves but can Nicky give it to a sick horse……..oh no say the BHA we can’t have that…….silly silly people.
The moden game you say. Yup! and what it needs is some modern fair thinking people which the BHA certainly are not
.. Do you understand the word Patronising? You come across as a pompus ass trying to sook up the BHA’s backside to be honest.
I stand by what I said Nicky Henderson did not deserve this very harsh punishment. A 3 month ban and a 40k fine for a first offence.
By first offense I mean the first time he has been up on this charge….
"Pompous ass" is what you called Mr Frisk on the other thread when you lost the argument there, and I’m happy to be in his company.
Seems you get into name-calling every time logic or understanding of the English language runs out on you.
Along with a juvenile mentality (albeit in an old body) of "stick it to everyone in authority".
You clearly can’t or won’t address the point about "systematic", which is the main thing coming out of the findings.
As for "first time up on this charge" – maybe Bernie Madoff should have tried that one?
The rule says "don’t drug", not "don’t drug in order to make money", so whether or not there was personal benefit has nothing to do with it.
The rules are there for integrity of racing – ie a level playing field – and the welfare of horses. They’re not there to be messed around with by any trainer who thinks he knows better.
You play by the same rules as everyone else – and yes that does mean respecting their administration, difficult though that may be to grasp for some.
Go read and address the report’s findings rather than make up scenarios to justify your knee-jerk reactions.
best regards
wit
As the Learned Wit has been at pains to point out we know sod-all about the full facts of the case and can only act as judge and jury based on the evidence presented in the BHA Report.
It takes much assimilating and pondering but for me the most pertinent and damning point on first reading is:
21. The Panel furthermore concluded that the systematic omission from the Medication Book of any reference to administration of TA to his horses shortly before races showed not only concealment of a breach of Instruction C9 (the ban on same day administration of anything other than normal food and water) but also knowledge that TA was a prohibited substance.
Assuming this is the whole truth it matters not a jot what the medication actually was – ‘performance enhancing’ ‘dope’ ‘harmless’ or whatever – but is simply a black-and-white case of dishonesty and the surreptitious, knowing concealment of the administration of a day-of-race prohibited substance.
Dishonesty and duplicity, reasons enough to be punished in my view. I think Henderson should breathe a sigh of relief at his 40K fine and a three-month low season slap-on-the-wrists ban. No idea if the punishment fits the crime but had it been 100K and a year’s ban I wouldn’t have raised an eyebrow.
The BHA come in for a lot of – for the most part – warranted criticism but in this case I think they should be afforded a quiet ripple of applause.
It is noticeable that two of those on this thread most annoyed with Henderson and at the leniency of his punishment – The Cheekster and Richard – are both ‘hands on’ in racing. May I suggest their opinions carry greater weight than those of we outsiders.
Finally, in view of the horse being owned by the Queen, do you think it possible that Henderson felt under some pressure – subconciously or otherwise – to try and get ‘the very best’ out of what has transpired to be an all but useless mare.
An able trainer, gentleman, likeable, ambassador-for-the-sport blah, blah, blah.
Means nothing. If you commit a ‘crime’ you should be judged in the same manner as any John Doe: without prejudice, without favour
Yours etc.
A pompous donkeyNow we here the drug cheats going to be able to run Caracciola in the Goodwood Cup under Barry Hills’ name – provided the horse has been with Hills from the entry stage. Disgraceful from the BHA.
Drone and others have quoted the first part of Paragraph 21. That part is damning enough. However the paragraph goes on:
Henderson’s explanation for the omission of any record of TA administration on 19 February to MOONLIT PATH and for the omission of any record of the previous ocassions when it was given to other horses was this. He assumed that the omission was deliberate and was decided upon by one of his assistants (probably Tom Symonds in the case of MOONLIT PATH). He thinks they must have done this because they were aware of the Instruction C9 ban on race day treatments, (of which he himself was partially ignorant because he thought it was only a ban on giving anything other than food or water when on the racecourse).
It seems from this that he has tried to drop young Tom Symonds well and truly in it — it’s little surprise that Henderson’s barrister would not agree to Tom being called as a witness — and has attempted to wriggle out by presenting some preposterous, unbelievable story about being ignorant of the rule. Not, imo, the actions of an honourable man.
I imagine as people on horseracing forums, and in the media, read and digest the full enquiry judgement published on the BHA website, they will be less and less inclined to leap to Henderson’s defence.
Now we here the drug cheats going to be able to run Caracciola in the Goodwood Cup under Barry Hills’ name – provided the horse has been with Hills from the entry stage. Disgraceful from the BHA.
That’s a bit strong isn’t it? Why should the owners of Carracciola be punished?
They shouldn’t but the 3 month ban effects horses trained by Nicky Henderson and they have sent their horse to him, as such due in part to the wording of the investigations wording it seems fair to assume that it wasn’t just Moonlit Path who was receiving medical aid on the day of the race – it was likely that his other horses were too.
Simply removing all your horses and sending them to another trainer whilst still leading them up etc. seems the big loophole in British racing, no doubt any training % of earnings from the Goodwood Cup will duly be handed over to Henderson to help pay the 40k.
As for "first time up on this charge" – maybe Bernie Madoff should have tried that one?
Not only amusing, but highly profound as well.
A three month ban during the summer months for a top national hunt is hardly what I’d deem punitive.
But then, maybe I’m just cynical.
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
Ban him from all Horse racing yards, sales etc for the duration of the ban and make it a year.
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.
From the RP:
The wife of Henderson’s vet James Main, trainer Helen Main, is understood to be preparing a statement clarifying his role in the affair.
Helen or Heather? RP or GC correct?
Or are they sisters-in-law?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.