- This topic has 290 replies, 76 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
- Total Posts 17716
… and whoever said that TV was useless as an educational tool?!?
We will have to wait a while for a result.
This from the BHA
The Disciplinary Panel hearing to consider charges against licensed trainer Howard Johnson adjourned on the evening of Thursday 21 July without concluding. An additional day is required and a date will be confirmed in the next few days.
Paul Struthers, Head of Communications for the British Horseracing Authority, said:
"Unfortunately the Panel were unable to hear all of the evidence in the time available. There were unforeseen issues arising in respect of a witness before proceedings began yesterday, and whilst both sides were confident that the hearing would still conclude in time, some of the other evidence presented and witness examinations took longer than anticipated.
"There is a possibility that the hearing could reconvene in early August but if not the next available date that all parties can attend is early September. We will confirm the date once all parties have agreed on it."
What a joke this….
Your going to allow this to maybe go on to September.
Its already a farce you given him 6 Months to make up a excuse for disgracing his profession but now this could no go on until September.
He should be banned indefintely until a decision is made about his future as a trainer.[deleted]
What a joke! How can it be acceptable for people to say they are ‘not available’ for a disciplinary hearing? They should be told the date and if they don’t turn up then the panel should issue a judgment in their absence.
I would imagine it is ALL those involved that have to be available on the same day as not all evidence or whatever heard yet.
So that is the specific BHA stewards or whatever that have been at the first two days, plus Howard Johnson, everybody’s legal reps, along with whatever witnesses or other folk they still need.
If you’ve ever tried to arrange any kind of meeting you’ll appreciate how hard it can be to round up a group of people in one place at one time – especially as this extra hearing date will only be being arranged now. So I can follow that bit.
However I do agree it has dragged on ridiculously already, don’t know why the disciplinary not being heard until now anyway?
From limited reports it all seems terribly simple anyway:
Horse had op
Trainer knew it had op and ran it subsequently
Op against rules (is there any suggestion of any ambiguity in rules or was it plain that not allowed?)
Trainer is licensed and so bound by published rules. If he chooses not to acquanint himself with the rules then that’s his lookout – ignorance no defence. Reported that HJ asked vet if horse could run again after op – not up to vet to say from rules point of view – only from veterinary/physical ability surely?One thing puzzles me – why did the horse have a post-mortem as surely not routinely done in racehorse deaths unless cause unexplained (and put down due to apparent leg injury wouldn’t warrant one – would it?) or are PM’s more common than one would expect? Or was horse insured (lots of racehorses AREN’T due to expense) and so PM done?
Without the PM trainer would not have been caught out as de-nerving would not have been discovered.
Re: Ketamiine – it’s vet use and desirability for theft featured in a Dick Francis novel too!
I may be repeating myself here, but I assumed the pm was done because everyone was so surprised to see the horse back on the racetrack after pulling up very lame in it’s previous race. Even me, with my total lack of knowledge about horses was surprised to see he was racing again. Much as I support northern racing [and the Wylies are a very important part of that] I’m disgusted that something like this is dragging on for so long when the integrity of our sport is under such scrutiny.
Theoretically, I suppose a post-mortem might be done if it had been suggested to the authorities that there would be something to find
I agree wholeheartedly with those who suggest that Johnson should simply be told when he and/or his representatives are to turn up. If he fails to do so then his license should be revoked until such time as the BHA can rearrange.
I agree wholeheartedly with those who suggest that Johnson should simply be told when he and/or his representatives are to turn up. If he fails to do so then his license should be revoked until such time as the BHA can rearrange.
I see where you are coming from and to a great extent I agree with your sentiments.
However we live in a litigious age and can you imagine the fun Johnson’s lawyers would have challenging such a decision in the High Court if that were to happen (not to mention the money they would make)?
Add to that the cost to the BHA of defending such an action, you can see why they would choose not to choose that particular path, especially when there is every possibility the courts would in all likelihood come down on the side of Johnson.
- Total Posts 17716
I agree wholeheartedly with those who suggest that Johnson should simply be told when he and/or his representatives are to turn up. If he fails to do so then his license should be revoked until such time as the BHA can rearrange.
In this far from ideal world, BHA would leave themselves wide open to legal challenge unless they bent over backwards to treat people as innocent until proven guilty.
Also the reason the hearing was adjourned was because of "unforeseen issues arising in respect of a witness before proceedings began"(unspecified) which led to the hearing going on for longer than had been anticipated. So we do not know whether the Howard Johnson team has engaged in filibustering or not.
Barristers for professional tribunals such as this tend to diary just the day appointed (it’s not an open-ended engagement, in the way a long court case can be) and so the Johnson team most likely do have genuine "other engagements" until August or September.
Frustrating, yes – but that’s the reality.
Also the reason the hearing was adjourned was because of "unforeseen issues arising in respect of a witness before proceedings began"(unspecified) which led to the hearing going on for longer than had been anticipated. So we do not know whether the Howard Johnson team has engaged in filibustering or not.
Barristers for professional tribunals such as this tend to diary just the day appointed (it’s not an open-ended engagement, in the way a long court case can be) and so the Johnson team most likely do have genuine "other engagements" until August or September.
Frustrating, yes – but that’s the reality.
Just to clarify, the "unforeseen issues" were not to do with any ‘gamesmanship’ on behalf of Howard Johnson’s legal team – it was simply an issue that had to be dealt with by the Panel and delayed the start.
The issue with dates, as you recognise, is arranging the diaries of legal teams – in this case there are five diaries that we need to get space in, and with three members of the legal profession involved, that’s not easy.
It’s frustrating, but it’s a fact of life.
- Total Posts 17716
Thanks to both Pauls: for the new date – and for clarifying that yesterday’s delay was not down to filibustering.
I understand the hearing will re-convene on Tuesday, 2nd August
Big O, I do hope as a Journalist there was no nefarious means by which you came by this info as you seem to have broken it before the BHA, RP and SL.
Or have you got a tap on Silvoir’s phone
the RP suggests that Silvoir tweeted it before midday – is the forum clock still running an hour ahead of BST?:
"Struthers then tweeted on Friday morning: "Howard Johnson hearing will reconvene on Tuesday 2 August and will conclude on that day." "
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.