- This topic has 290 replies, 76 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
- Total Posts 17716
Any sympathy I feel is overshadowed by what I feel for Striking Article who seemed such a tough and genuine horse. It’s all terribly sad on so many levels.
Eloquently put.
Firstly I want to thank Silvoir. I still think the plain guilty/not guilty should have been known when the hearing concluded, but Silvoir has been very decent in coming here and explaining things and (as Corm says) banging his head on the wall. I’m delighted with the result though and have read through the panel’s report a couple of times.
First read through of the report all I could think was – that poor bloody horse. Ok, the op might have stopped him feeling pain but how did it address the thing that was causing the pain and threatening to damage his foot? I know the Monet’s case proves it can be worth persevering but this didn’t seem to be addressing the root of the problem at all.
Seeing JHJ’s comments this morning he just doesn’t seem to get it, does he? Even if someone does have it in for him, if he hadn’t been doing the wrong things then he’d still have his license. And so what if the mysterious informant was paid? By speaking to the BHA whoever it was was endangering their job and possibly their chances of any future job. Being brave is good but starving for it is foolish.
I’ve heard rumours for long enough that I’m not sorry that he’s gone. Sorry for his staff and those who made a living from the yard but not JHJ. Not feeling the love towards Wylie either.
Pinza
I’m sure we all agree that the welfare of racehorses is important.
With the wonders of technology, I cannot see that it would be an onerous task to have a central database of the medical records of each horse in training.
The BHA racing admin deals with jockey suspensions, horse entries, apprentices, etc. etc. including sending happy birthday messages to licenced individuals. I’m sure collating medical records of horses is well within their capabilities.
If you feel the responsibility of adhering to the rules of racing would then shift from the trainer to the BHA fair enough. Leave that responsibility with the trainer.- Total Posts 17716
Pinza
I’m sure we all agree that the welfare of racehorses is important.I expect we do.
With the wonders of technology, I cannot see that it would be an onerous task to have a central database of the medical records of each horse in training.
Judging from similar projects known to me in the business world, it would require custom-tailored software which would be extremely complex – and more to the point phenomenally expensive – and take years to develop, test and implement. It would then require permanent, highly trained operatives, back-up systems and fool-proof security, with an annual expenditure running into (at the very least) hundreds of thousands of pounds. And you know who would have to fund all that? You, the punter.
The BHA racing admin deals with jockey suspensions, horse entries, apprentices, etc. etc. including sending happy birthday messages to licenced individuals. I’m sure collating medical records of horses is well within their capabilities.
I’m sure it is. But – although Weatherby’s and not the BHA deal with the massive and lucrative business of race entries, fees and prize money, banking and other matters of central administration – the BHA is stretched to its limit. Some would argue,
beyond
its limits. See above for the likely huge cost of adding on such a massive system (8000 or so horses in training at any given time, plus mares, stallions, foals and yearlings, plus the necessary adds-ons to deal with testing of horses visiting from overseas … and that’s scraping the surface!)
Given its contract with BHA, it is in fact likely that Weatherby’s themselves would have to administer any such scheme, on behalf of BHA, as a private company, at immense cost to the racegoing public.
If you feel the responsibility of adhering to the rules of racing would then shift from the trainer to the BHA fair enough. Leave that responsibility with the trainer.
It is not even a runner. BHA are not fools: they are much better off having outside agencies to blame – the vets – on the rare occasions on which things go wrong. And they have enough to do policing the sport day to day as it is, without turning Weatherby’s into a kind of annexe to Kafka’sCastle
..
Agre it’d be impractical, and probably unecessary, to have full medical records centrally ogged for each horse.
But I still maintain that some sort of system to license vets working with racehorses in training would be wholly workable.
Owners are licensed. Trainers, jockeys and jockeys agents even I think.
Working with racehorses is specialised. There are a host of detailed procedures and requirements that a racehorse vet needs to understand. Having some srt of licensing system in place (and I would guess it could be set up relatively easily and cheaply alongside existing licensing systems, utlising the same software) seems to make blindingly obvious common-sense.
Make a cock-up (or series of) and you lose your license to work within racing, while perhaps not being struck off from your profession altogether.
- Total Posts 17716
Working with racehorses is specialised. There are a host of detailed procedures and requirements that a racehorse vet needs to understand. Having some srt of licensing system in place (and I would guess it could be set up relatively easily and cheaply alongside existing licensing systems, utlising the same software) seems to make blindingly obvious common-sense.
Make a cock-up (or series of) and you lose your license to work within racing, while perhaps not being struck off from your profession altogether.
Working with racehorses is indeed specialised. The BVA (and the ARVS) have a fund of specialised knowledge, run courses and consult with BHA on a regular basis, both formal and informal.
Given the concentration of resources on Equine health management the BVA deploys, and the close professional relationship which they already share with UK Racing (there are, for instance, several scholarships for undergraduate and postgraduate veterinarian training provided by BHA) it’s understandable that setting up any sort of formal "UK Racing License" for the whole profession would be considered to show a lack of trust in the BVA which would amount to a slap in the face.
With all due respect to agents and jockeys, vets are in a different league. They undergo an immensely long, intense and thorough training before being licensed and allowed to practise professionally, and are policed by and answerable to their own Association. They also have to keep retraining accreditation going throughout their careers.
At the moment there is a healthy commonality of interest between BHA and BVA: it is surely a good thing that the BVA struck off their member who was found to have given unreliable testimony to the BHA in the Henderson case. The idea of his being able to continue to practise on animals other than racehorses doesn’t make any legal or ethical sense, as it would put BVA in a false "two-tier" situation.
To add further "licensing" would therefore be unnecessary duplication, as well as creating a loss of trust between two bodies which work very amicably together, both professionally and ethically. I do not think that "common sense" (blinding or otherwise!) could really devise any healthier process than applies already, between BHA and BVA/ARVS.
Pinza,
You accept that the ARVS support the accreditation of racecourse vets. Why would the extension of that accreditation to cover racing yards be a slap in the face to the BVA? Do you believe that they disapprove of the ARVS stance on racecourse accreditation and this might push them over some imagined edge?
I don’t know what business you are in but if you think the management of vet reports emailed to the BHA is such a complex and expensive task for a software designer, I’d be happy to do some consultancy for you and those who share your views in this – I could save you an awful lot of money.
The system would work like this:
A vet carries out work for a trainer: the report that he
currently
does for the trainer’s record book is emailed to the BHA and the trainer simultaneously.
The BHA make it clear to the trainer that he/she remains responsible in exactly the same way as they currently are. There are no ‘legal implications’ arising from the fact that the BHA also hold copies of the vet reports.
Nor do they need to monitor them daily. At the moment BHA officials are entitled to enter a yard without notice and check all records. That entitlement is simply broadened to "We reserve the right to check the vet reports submitted to us at random and take any action we deem necessary."
Any vet found to have been in connivance with a trainer before the submission of a report to the BHA risks losing his/her BHA licence.
If a trainer knows that the vet’s report he/she has just received is also sitting in the BHA files and that any report is subject to a random check (the trainer does not even have the ‘comfort’ of knowing that a BHA official needs to be on his/her premises before the records can be checked) then I think the welfare of horses and the reputation of racing can only benefit.
As I’ve already mentioned, I believe such a procedure would also be welcomed by most racing vets as it would make trainers much less likely to try and exert pressure on them to ‘spin’ reports.
You state that there are only two recent cases of questionable behaviour by vets. If you believe that all other trainer/vet relationships work on a strictly principled basis of non-interference by the trainer, I think that many on this forum will be surprised at your apparent naivety.
Pinza,
You accept that the ARVS support the accreditation of racecourse vets. Why would the extension of that accreditation to cover racing yards be a slap in the face to the BVA? Do you believe that they disapprove of the ARVS stance on racecourse accreditation and this might push them over some imagined edge?
I don’t know what business you are in but if you think the management of vet reports emailed to the BHA is such a complex and expensive task for a software designer, I’d be happy to do some consultancy for you and those who share your views in this – I could save you an awful lot of money.
The system would work like this:
A vet carries out work for a trainer: the report that he
currently
does for the trainer’s record book is emailed to the BHA and the trainer simultaneously.
The BHA make it clear to the trainer that he/she remains responsible in exactly the same way as they currently are. There are no ‘legal implications’ arising from the fact that the BHA also hold copies of the vet reports.
Nor do they need to monitor them daily. At the moment BHA officials are entitled to enter a yard without notice and check all records. That entitlement is simply broadened to "We reserve the right to check the vet reports submitted to us at random and take any action we deem necessary."
Any vet found to have been in connivance with a trainer before the submission of a report to the BHA risks losing his/her BHA licence.
If a trainer knows that the vet’s report he/she has just received is also sitting in the BHA files and that any report is subject to a random check (the trainer does not even have the ‘comfort’ of knowing that a BHA official needs to be on his/her premises before the records can be checked) then I think the welfare of horses and the reputation of racing can only benefit.
As I’ve already mentioned, I believe such a procedure would also be welcomed by most racing vets as it would make trainers much less likely to try and exert pressure on them to ‘spin’ reports.
You state that there are only two recent cases of questionable behaviour by vets. If you believe that all other trainer/vet relationships work on a strictly principled basis of non-interference by the trainer, I think that many on this forum will be surprised at your apparent naivety.
Thank you
steeplechasing
.
You have saved me trying to reply to Pinza (and Cormack). I could never have said what you have said so clearly and concisely.- Total Posts 17716
You accept that the ARVS support the accreditation of racecourse vets. Why would the extension of that accreditation to cover racing yards be a slap in the face to the BVA? Do you believe that they disapprove of the ARVS stance on racecourse accreditation and this might push them over some imagined edge?
The ARVS position has been negotiated and approached slowly over a number of years, and is still (as you can see) conditional on certain important criteria being met by BHA. It has not happened yet, and ARVS represents a tiny sub-group of the profession working with racehorses and breeding generally.
I don’t know what business you are in but if you think the management of vet reports emailed to the BHA is such a complex and expensive task for a software designer, I’d be happy to do some consultancy for you and those who share your views in this – I could save you an awful lot of money.
The systems development costs are largely at the BHA’s database and query end, not at the vets’. They, though, would have to tabulate the information they were providing in pro-formas which would also take development time and money (as well as time and money for the vets to fill in).
This system would have to be developed with complete security to ensure total confidentiality (even if the owners gave permission for the information to be put into the public domain). If you think your
press-the-email-button
idea amounts to security, then I don’t know what to say.
As I’ve already mentioned, I believe such a procedure would also be welcomed by most racing vets as it would make trainers much less likely to try and exert pressure on them to ‘spin’ reports.
This "zero tolerance" policing solution from a third party (remember, it would have to be Weatherby’s doing the monitoring, not BHA who are neither resourced nor technologically equipped for such a major auditing task) would certainly not be welcomed by the BVA. Have you canvassed any individual vets as to your idea? My feeling is that the idea of them giving a "welcome" to your designated procedure is wishful thinking.
You state that there are only two recent cases of questionable behaviour by vets. If you believe that all other trainer/vet relationships work on a strictly principled basis of non-interference by the trainer, I think that many on this forum will be surprised at your apparent naivety.
Why would I believe any such thing? I would be appalled if non-interference were the rule. These days
"principled behaviour"
does not rule out trainer-led consultations. Quite the reverse. Indeed – as with human doctors, where the patient’s agenda and solutions are now the professional gold standard – the idea of paternalistic vets laying down the law to trainers went out with the flood. I feel that any naivety is, with respect, on the other side here!
- Total Posts 17716
Cutting through this fog of technological fantasy, the concealment or falsification of veterinary reports is already explicitly against BHA rules and liable to the strictest penalties (c.f. the Henderson case and James Main).
So quite how
Steeplechasing
‘s bureaucratic nightmare (by
Kafka
out of
Harriet Harman
) would make any difference to vets culpability in cases where the rules had been broken, I can’t see.
It seems to me that the Inside Intelligence reports fostered by BHA’s security arm are both much more effective, and infinitely cheaper than any unworkable and undesirable
"licenced vets and shared reports"
scheme, in policing the system.
I feel another
"agree to differ"
coming on!
I do not think that "common sense" (blinding or otherwise!) could really devise any healthier process than applies already, between BHA and BVA/ARVS.
The process surely isn’t that healthy given that we constantly have top trainers (who are presumably employing vets trained as you outline) falling foul of the regulations regarding prohibited substances and practices, some of whom then claim ignorance of the rules as a defence.
I know where you are coming from and appreciate (without getting into the detail of the software requirements, etc) that creating extra layers of red tape isn’t in anyone’s interests.
I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one (to avoid the inevitable twenty pages of ping pong with us both ending up in our original position). I think licensing vets to work with racehorses in training would be relatively straightforward and beneficial. You think it’s an unnecessary and costly additional administrative burden. Accurate summing up?
You accept that the ARVS support the accreditation of racecourse vets. Why would the extension of that accreditation to cover racing yards be a slap in the face to the BVA? Do you believe that they disapprove of the ARVS stance on racecourse accreditation and this might push them over some imagined edge?
The ARVS position has been negotiated and approached slowly over a number of years, and is still (as you can see) conditional on certain important criteria being met by BHA. It has not happened yet, and ARVS represents a tiny sub-group of the profession working with racehorses and breeding generally.
I don’t know what business you are in but if you think the management of vet reports emailed to the BHA is such a complex and expensive task for a software designer, I’d be happy to do some consultancy for you and those who share your views in this – I could save you an awful lot of money.The systems development costs are largely at the BHA’s database and query end, not at the vets’. They, though, would have to tabulate the information they were providing in pro-formas which would also take development time and money (as well as time and money for the vets to fill in).
<p style="color: #BF40FF]Perhaps in the model you envision, but not in mine. No new database would need to be created. Software exists which would make all emails easily archived to trainer, horse, date and any other heading you care to append to each.
press-the-email-button idea amounts to security, then I don’t know what to say.
If you think emails are not exchanged and stored by organisations where confidentiality and security is much more critical than it is for the BHA then it is I who doesn’t know what to say.As I’ve already mentioned, I believe such a procedure would also be welcomed by most racing vets as it would make trainers much less likely to try and exert pressure on them to ‘spin’ reports.
This "zero tolerance" policing solution from a third party (remember, it would have to be Weatherby’s doing the monitoring, not BHA who are neither resourced nor technologically equipped for such a major auditing task) would certainly not be welcomed by the BVA. Have you canvassed any individual vets as to your idea? My feeling is that the idea of them giving a "welcome" to your designated procedure is wishful thinking.
The deterrent for trainers is that the audit trail exists and that the reports are in the words of the vet, undiluted by ‘suggestions’ from the trainer.The tax man has your audit trail and mine – it doesn’t mean he has someone examining it every day.
And no, I have not canvassed any vets, nor do I intend to. I’m offering an idea, not a crusade. My take on vets’ reaction is an opinion – it might well be wrong, but even if it is, that is no reason, in my opinion, for the idea to be rejected.
You state that there are only two recent cases of questionable behaviour by vets. If you believe that all other trainer/vet relationships work on a strictly principled basis of non-interference by the trainer, I think that many on this forum will be surprised at your apparent naivety.
Why would I believe any such thing? I would be appalled if non-interference were the rule. These days
"principled behaviour"
does not rule out trainer-led consultations. Quite the reverse. Indeed – as with human doctors, where the patient’s agenda and solutions are now the professional gold standard – the idea of paternalistic vets laying down the law to trainers went out with the flood. I feel that any naivety is, with respect, on the other side here!
It’s little wonder you do not want any changes to your racing industry Shangri-La where trainers consult but never interfere, and where owners wouldn’t dream of asking questions when words like Neurectomy are put to them.Would the licensing of vets work?
Probably not a problem in Newmarket or Lambourn, but what about a stable many miles from other yards? Apologies if I have got your proposals wrong Corm, they seem a good idea but…
Say a horse has an injury in training. There are two vets the trainer usually calls on; one is on holiday and one out on a call (not available). There are many other unregistered vets around, but the nearest registered vet is 40 miles away. Does the trainer have to wait for a registered vet to get there? Prolonging the horse’s pain, when it might only take minor treatment to relieve that pain.
Also:
If all vetinary information is in a database. Is there not a chance it might actually encourage unscrupulous trainers to ask their vets to use treatments without any paperwork (or computerwork) what so ever?Without any medical records of treatment it might lead to horses consequently getting other treatment it would not have recieved had vets known of previous work carried out. Again a potentially dangerous situation.
Value Is Everything- Total Posts 17716
It’s little wonder you do not want any changes to your racing industry Shangri-La where trainers consult but never interfere, and where owners wouldn’t dream of asking questions when words like Neurectomy are put to them.[/color]
I think the
"agree to differ"
point has been reached, if you feel the need to misconstrue what I wrote (and think) so radically. The fact is
(1)
that trainers
do
interfere with vets opinions, and
(2)
I think they are correct in this day and age of "patient-centred" and "client-centred" ethics to do so.
Clear now? Good. I will retreat from your
pied-a-terre
in the bowels of Kafka’s
Castle
to the wholesome, cleansing air of
Shangri-La
…
(PS Interesting point made on the ATR’s Racing Forum today by Lee Mottershead, regarding family pressures on Graham Wylie. The serious illness of his daughter was about to bring on a radical downsizing of his string and of his attendances, it seems.)
The BHA has outlined that it acted on a tip-off relating to Striking Article when ordering the post mortem.
Full article on RP here – http://www.racingpost.com/news/horse-racing/howard-johnson-andrea-graham-wylie-we-acted-on-tip-off-over-johnson-says-bha/898563/top/
What is hard to swallow in this messy affair is the feeling from Johnson that he has somehow been hard done by. As if, because someone tipped the authorities off (as the BHA seem to be saying was the case), that becomes the issue, the morally reprehensible act in all this.
Personally I am delighted someone tipped the authorities off and I’d encourage any stable staff who know of any practices of this type occuring in any yard to do likewise.
Johnson seems unwilling to accept his own actions are what led to his demise. It almost comes across as if he’s thinking ‘it isn’t wrong if you don’t get caught’.
I, for one, am glad they did catch him.
Well done the BHA.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.