- This topic has 8 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 13 years ago by
.
- Posts
IMO it should be the same a al zarooni if its not then there should be a investigation in to it.. its exactly the same offence.. 10 years+++
It sounds like Butler’s transgressions arose from ignorance to the rules and the ingredients of the substance being given to his horses. In comparison, MAZ was deliberately doping his horses and intentionally giving them steroids. Butler was rather more co-operative with the BHA, also.
As a betting man, I would set the over-under line on Butler’s ban at
3 years, 6 months
. Which side would you take?
There is absolutely no comparison whatsoever with the Al Zarooni case.
If, as it currently looks, this case will also involve other, top, Newmarket trainers then it has the potential to blow the strict absolute responsibility rule out of the water.
This case could be one of the biggest challenges the BHA has faced in a long time.
It was stated on radio this morning that Butler administered injections himself. I would think that is a far more serious offence than having a qualified vet doing it.
I felt that Butler held his hands up as soon as he realised he had used a banned substance and felt that it was better to come clean early than be found out by a random testing of his yard. At the time it made me think how many other trainers out there might also come forward but none did.
Surely it’s the vets who prescribe and adminster these drugs and they know the rules regarding racehorses and banned substances. Records must be kept of how much and when a certain drug was prescribed.
He could have sat quietly and said nothing but he was obviously shocked to discover he had been inadvertently giving horses a banned substance so I think he should just be given a warning and his stable kept under strict observation.
Things turn out best for those who make the best of how things turn out...There is absolutely no comparison whatsoever with the Al Zarooni case.
What other way can they spin it, given the other circumstances, lol.
The old stanozolol is not really stanozolol when you (allegedly) inject it into a joint and not a muscle.If, as it currently looks, this case will also involve other, top, Newmarket trainers then it has the potential to blow the strict absolute responsibility rule out of the water.
Maybe diminished absolute responsibilty. BHA could buy that, lol.
This case could be one of the biggest challenges the BHA has faced in a long time.
With any luck.
If you don’t know the substance was banned is it still against the rules to administer it yourself?
If you don’t know the substance was banned is it still against the rules to administer it yourself?
Yes, ignorance is no defence. It is up to trainers to know the rules.
This case is different to the Al Zarooni case in that the steroid was contained in another substance. It is however, still the trainers responsibility to know what was in Sungate. The one redeeming factor for Butler appears to be that he did declare on his medication returns that he was using Sungate. Therefore it would seem that the BHA have some culpability as well.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.