- This topic has 290 replies, 76 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
- Total Posts 17716
That 3 month delay thing is a completely ruse to try and get the inevitable ban run over summer. Completely cheating the system, though the system is hopeless anyway – shows a complete lack of integrity and morality about all the parties
If Johnson is found in breach of the rules, in the de-nerving case at least, he’s likely to be banned for considerably
more
than a mere month or so. Rather than showing the "system is hopeless", the delay shows that maximum care is being taken to get things right. It is evidence for BHA’s integrity, not the reverse. Summary justice is no justice at all, and would be challenged in the
real
courts – as any verdict may be, in any case.
Why is there no action on the dependence then? He is simply allowed to keep going without any consequences until the trial?
Why is there no action on the dependence then? He is simply allowed to keep going without any consequences until the trial?
Innocent until proven guilty????
Many posters on this thread seem to be making a presumption of Guilty until proven innocent.
Just in case anybody thinks I am defending the allegations made, if Johnson is found guilty I would want to see him banned for several years.
When the Crown is ready to proceed to trial and the defence request a delay before proceedings there must be a hearing for the judge to decide whether or not to grant this. Did they have a hearing for this?
The presumption of innocence is only necessary in the
legal system not an extra-legal quasi judicial system
If you knew anything about the legal system you would know an action on the dependence is NOT a presumption of guilt it merely secures the action. If the action upon which the interim decree is granted does not proceed for whatever reason then the penalty on the dependence is repaid and the party suffers no loss whatsoever.
- Total Posts 17716
Many posters on this thread seem to be making a presumption of Guilty until proven innocent.
Just in case anybody thinks I am defending the allegations made, if Johnson is found guilty I would want to see him banned for several years.
I’d go further: I would not want to see Mr Johnson granted a trainer’s licence again –
IF
he is found to be guilty of de-nerving.
Until then, any interim ban would be challenged in the courts as restraint of trade. This is a BHA hearing concerning breach of the Rules of Racing, not a Criminal Law Prosecution.
If Johnson were to be found guilty, the way might be open to that too, which would put him in a different court (in every sense). But that is hypothesis, not current reality.
Innocent until proven guilty????
Like Kieren Fallon was presumed innocent?
And in certain cases (eg alleged child cruelty etc) the person who is alleged to have committed the crime is rarely (if ever) allowed to continue their day-to-day job until the investigation is complete.
(Obviously I appreciate that child abuse is in no way comparable to the allegations against Howard Johnson but the principal still stands)
I dont remember such leniancy being shown to Karl Burke and the Fallon case is just another inconsistency.
Johnson is guilty of removing the nerves the post mortem proved it that his horse nerves were removed. Had that not occured he prob would have done it to more horses.
He should have been banned immediatly…pending an investiagtion. Instead of the dog wagging the tail its the tail wagging the dog from my perspective
I would say there are shades of fraud about the whole thing. He deliberately ran a horse with an injury (neurectomy’s are only used where a horse is permanently lame) knowing it was going to break down at some point. Is this not unfair to people betting money on the race?
Given the nature of the offense (equine welfare) then any delay in allowing Howard Johnson to prepare his case should also correspond with a complete ban from all licensed premises (ie. those where horses are kept in licensed yards, racecourses etc. until the case has been heard.
"I’d go further: I would not want to see Mr Johnson granted a trainer’s licence again – IF he is found to be guilty of de-nerving
Until then, any interim ban would be challenged in the courts as restraint of trade"
Where there is a charge for an offence of dishonesty, any restriction on practising the business related to the charge would likely be a legitimate action in pursuance of protecting the company/business and it’s customers. Why have the Company Directors Disqualification Orders?
I am not aware that his training business is a limited company but even in an unlimited business, allegations of dishonest business conduct are taken very seriously.
This is not just a welfare issue. Keiron’s was a charge of dishonest conduct hence the interim ban. I feel this precedent could be applied to Howard’s case but in any event the BHW has no concept of precedent hence the arbitrary administration of purported "justice"
Don’t forget he has also been charged with administering steroids to three horses in his care as well.
While I’d have like to see it dealt with sooner – especially given the length of time since Striking Article died – I would far rather that it was dealt with properly, even if that means delaying things to give JHJ more time to prepare his case. As has been pointed out this is potentially far more serious than a couple of months ban – if it is deemed "wilful cruelty" then it could be up to 10 years.
I do wonder how they knew to do a post-mortem.. didn’t think it was usual in a case like that.
Was it because of the surprise at seeing the horse on the racetrack so soon after what had appeared to be an injury that was at the very least season ending?
Is six months time enough to prepare ones case?When the law is not on your side argue the facts; when the facts are not on your side argue the law, when neither is on your side ask for time.Witnesses may die, evidence may get lost,it is your only avenue of escape.Seems like Johnson wants more time!Some here have even suggested that July is the date; 6 months to prepare for a trial where the defendent has admitted the crime. Shakespeare spoke of the law’s delay,the insolence of office. Perfect example here.
De-nerving is despicable cruelty, bordering on evil. Animal cruelty makes my blood boil. Anyone willing to have such procedures performed on a horse doesn’t deserve to stand within 20 miles of one ever again. I’d want the culprits gelded – vets included.
De nerving is okay i think if the horse is not severely lame and it is retired after and put out to grass. NOT okay if the horse is going to be ridden because the de nerved leg is then under pressure.
Interesting stuff here , no doubt Justice will be done eventually , however I do wonder if we will ever hear any more about the 6 bent Jockeys …that would surely mess up the RFC programme of bolstering their propaganda ….it is my opinion that these will go unhindered , and all for the glorious image that RFC are trying to portray
Talk about Rotten apples
Ricky
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.