- This topic has 212 replies, 55 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
Curiouser and curiouser this.
‘I didn’t know it was banned, but somebody else (in the yard) obviously did.’
In all honesty, this stinks.
I have read that the BHA rule states
nothing but normal feed and water
should be given to a horse on the day of the race.
How much more simple can this rule be?
The vet was requested to administer the drug on the day of the race. By whom? Who is in charge of the horses? The vet, the trainer, the owner, or others?It’s now quite clear why Henderson’s QC was so anxious not to have the vet Main, or the trainer’s assistant Symonds, give evidence at the original enquiry.
Also, Main’s evidence that Moonlit Path had a ‘chronic history of bleeding’ is also fairly remarkable, since the mare had never been involved in a race in her life. If she was bleeding after being galloped at home, what on earth was she doing on a racecourse?
AP
apracing
It’s now quite clear why Henderson’s QC was so anxious not to have the vet Main, or the trainer’s assistant Symonds, give evidence at the original enquiry
Not to me. Could you explain? Would it compromise the forum if you did?
Also, Main’s evidence that Moonlit Path had a ‘chronic history of bleeding’ is also fairly remarkable, since the mare had never been involved in a race in her life. If she was bleeding after being galloped at home, what on earth was she doing on a racecourse?
One reason I guess (for the above question) might possibly be for breeding or selling purposes but according to Mr Henderson, if he’s been quoted correctly, it was to give her a nice time. As you seem to suggest, I also don’t think an unraced 6yr old, with a chronic history of bleeding, should be at a racecourse.
Nor,
Well what they’ve said in evidence this week certainly wouldn’t have helped Henderson’s defence at the BHA enquiry.
Symonds has made it clear that he had no doubts that giving the injection on the morning of the race was against the rules of racing – something you’d think he might have mentioned to his boss.
AP
Thanks AP
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons have a website where they list disciplinary results. It will be interesting to read the one on Mr Main when published.
Skimming through previous hearings I noticed a vet was suspended for failing to make animal welfare hisprimary
concern.
I suppose it could be argued Mr Main did make animal welfare his primary concern. After all, he did not enter the horse for the race, everyone knew she was a chronic bleeder, everyone should have known the BHA rule, and he was doing the best he could to protect her.My opinion of Nicky Henderson has not improved after reading about this case. It stretches credulity in my view that he didn’t know exactly what was going on in his own yard on race day and the full implications of same. It seems very convenient to blame the vet, who in most cases such as this, is merely doing what the client asks him to do.
There was obviously a belief that this stuff "didn’t test" which is only true until they start looking for it.
Might not be as inclined to shout home the handsome horses with the breastgirths from now on.Carvills,
That the vet was acting on clear instructions from the stable is indicated in paragraph 17 of the original BHA judgement, reproduced on the first page of this thread.
And rule 49 suggests that claims of ‘I didn’t know’ aren’t a valid defence for the trainer:
49.1 A Trainer must, in particular, make himself familiar with and comply with all other requirements of these Rules that apply to him directly.
AP
Reading that Mr Main put Mr Henderson’s career in jeopardy I checked the RCVS’s website on ‘maintaining practise standards’.
18.Case records should include details of examination, treatment administered, medication prescribed and/or supplied, radiographs, the results of any diagnostic or laboratory tests and advice given to the client. It is prudent to include notes of telephone conversations, fee estimates or quotations, consents given or withheld and contact details.
The word should is used, rather than must.
22. If the client’s consent is in any way limited or qualified or specifically withheld, veterinary surgeons must accept that their own preference for a certain course of action cannot override the client’s specific wishes other than on exceptional welfare grounds.
This would seem to indicate that a client’s wishes cannot be overridden unless there are exceptional circumstances.
So, what would have happened if Mr Main had refused to medicate and the horse suffered?
Could he have prevented the horse from racing that day?
Is there such a thing as a ‘warning notice’ that he could have issued stating why he did not medicate and why he thought the horse should not be racing?
And I know I have asked before, but who has the ultimate authority over this horse?Nor,
I’m not aware of any means by which a vet could prevent a trainer from racing a horse – he can only advise. Presumably he could contact the official racecourse vet off the record, and that vet would have the power to get a horse withdrawn if he could satisfy the stewards that the horse was unfit to race. But I can’t imagine that would do his business much good in the long term!
As to authority over the horse, if I understand your question correctly, that rests solely with the trainer. Every registered owner signs a form called an ‘authority to act’, when he first employs a trainer. That form is lodged with Weatherbys and authorises the trainer to make entries and declarations on behalf of the owner.
Aagain, it seems reasonable to assume that a trainer that ignores or overrules his owner, isn’t going to have a long running career as a trainer.
AP
Thanks AP.
If this is the complete picture (and there are no hidden clauses), the trainer has overall authority, including welfare issues, and need not listen to the vet’s advice if given. The vet cannot intervene with decisions made by the trainer unless there are exceptional circumstances. The vet could refuse the trainer’s instructions but what would be the consequences for his Practise?
How then can it be considered that the vet put Mr H’s career in jeopardy. Did the trainer not do this all by himself?
Following on, why does Mr H now seem to be whitewashed by some parts of the media, whilst the vet is considered the major villain?
If I was the owner I would not be inclined to want my horses trained by a trainer who decides to race one with a chronic bleeding problem, then considers the need for a drug on the morning of the race when this is against the simple rule of ‘only food and water’.
The vet could have saved Mr H, and himself, by refusing to obey instructions but would the trainer then have been able to get another vet to comply?Whether it seems reasonable or not it does not in fact happen.Mr.Henderson continues to lead in winner after winner while the vet is condemned to the ranks of the evildoers.
James Main has been struck off by the RCVS. Nicky Henderson hardly comes out of it smelling of roses. A couple of extracts from the RCVS committee’s findings:
The Committee was unimpressed by Mr Henderson’s evidence
and were surprised by his apparent lack of knowledge of the rules of racing.The Committee has considered very carefully the explanation put forward by Mr Main for the use of the term “pre-race check” on Moonlit Path’s clinical records, and indeed, on the invoice. It has concluded that the use of the term was, in effect, a protocol developed over several years between the practice and Mr Henderson to conceal the administration of tranexamic acid by injection to a horse on a race day….It is sure that the underlying purpose shared by both Mr Main and Mr Henderson was to conceal a breach of Instruction C9 when the BHA inspected the yard’s records.
Shady dealings in smoke filled rooms with hyphenated names, toppers and silver walkers. No wonder the working class vet got a fair hearing,between one and three in the afterrnoon.When do we rid ourselves of that meddlesome Curley fellow? Now to the club for a brandy.
I wonder if there is any further censure possible for Mr Henderson in the light of the Royal College’s findings? If they could conclude that he developed a protocol to deliberately conceal systematic breaking of the rules of racing is he going to be allowed to carry merrily on while the vet, in effect his employee, loses his livelyhood? Where’s the justice here?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.