- This topic has 31 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
I see Aidan O’Brien has been fined and warned of a future UK ban for his horses, over a disagreement with York vets hours after the Dante, for an incident that had no material bearing on the outcome of that race. Yet the running and riding of Get Me Out Of Here at Ascot in October or Synchronised at Cheltenham earlier this month don’t even merit a single question from the stewards on the days involved.
I read above that Coolmore paid 60 million for So You Think.In light of that is seems like the fine of 10 thousand is chicken feed to the firm of Coolmore/Ballydoyle.
It’s not the amount of the fine that’s important it’s the principle.
Refuse to trot up a lame horse when the vets have already examined it to their satisfaction – incur the BHA’s wrath.
Run a horse obviously not on its merits – not a whisper.
The governing body don’t seem to have a clue what is important in British racing.
Has there ever been an explanation as to why the stewards wanted a second look at Cape Blanco?…I haven’t seen one.
Can someone with more vetinary knowledge than I, please illuminate why the stewards would want trot a lame horse once or twice after a race. I can clearly see why they would be authorised or compelled to do so before a race but why after when I would have thought bandaging and icing any injury would be the priority.
I am genuinely puzzled…can someone help?What a way for the BHA to end the year. Dishing out the most pointless of fines under a ridiculous charge that doesn’t fit for the “crime.”
I’ve seen some have been saying the BHA’s only real powers in the future (and now) are/will be regulatory – if there’s a god, please help, because they‘re worse at regulating than they are trying to resolve the Levy situation.
If only the BHA stewards paid as much attention to amazing improvements in form as their vets do to a lame horse being looked after by an experienced team…..
We can only wonder if Aidan O’Brien would have been banned in some way if he had pleaded not guilty, and resulted in “Harry Findlay” style case number two. It’s safe to say pacemakers are a bigger issue than a lame horse being looked after by an experienced “team.”
They (BHA) are very confused as to where they stand on "animal welfare" issues.
I don’t know why AOB was asked, but the fact is he was asked. Therefore his team should have done what the stewards asked.
Therefore, a fine is the only thing to do. Otherwise it sets a bad example, making the breaking of rules more likely in future.
Any comments by Paul Struthers would be interesting.
Value Is EverythingHe admitted he was guilty but he said he thought it was insane.
I not sure either he is contradicking himself or is just drying to bury this.
Big of a joke process though. Happened in May and now its December
Already the Aga Khan is not racing in England.If Aidan is naughty again they threatened to ban the Ballydoyle horses from racing in England. Pretty soon there will be no horses racing in the Derby if this continues.What a boost for the English trainers.Maybe Frankie could win one for the gipper,I mean for for the Sheik.
The handler was instructed to trot up a lame horse by the vets and was instructed by obrien not to , then told to report to the stewards but told by obrien not to go to the stewards but set off for home. He pleaded guilty to refusing to cooperate and quite rightly said that what he’d been instructed to do was insane. I’m surprised the arsepca haven’t stepped in and questioned this madness especially as the BHA have made such a public spectacle of it . Find me a trainer anywhere who would get a lame horse back out of the horsebox to "trot it up" for anyone , vet or not.
- Total Posts 17716
Insane just about sums it. The question is why can’t the BHA see it that way? Are they bound to the letter of the law or are they allowed to use common sense? Wouldn’t be the first time a judge said I know this wasn’t your fault but the law says I must find you guilty.
Here is the full transcript of the press release from the BHA
RESULT OF A DISCIPLINARY ENQUIRY HEARD ON 3 AUGUST AND 8 DECEMBER 2010 (AIDAN O’BRIEN / CAPE BLANCO (IRE))
The Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) met on 3 August and 8 December 2010 to consider the case of Aidan O’Brien, a Licensed Trainer in Ireland, and Pat Keating, an employee of Aidan O’Brien.
Topics for Enquiry.
The Panel enquired into whether or not Aidan O’Brien acted in breach of Rules (A)30.1, (A)37 and (B)83 of the Rules of Racing in that he
Encouraged and/or caused Pat Keating to refuse to comply with an instruction given by the Stewards at York, namely an instruction that CAPE BLANCO (IRE) be trotted up before the BHA’s Veterinary Officer and the Senior Racecourse Veterinary Surgeon as part of their examination of the colt prior to the colt leaving York racecourse;
Encouraged and/or caused Pat Keating to refuse to comply with an instruction given by the Stewards at York, namely an instruction to attend a Stewards’ Enquiry into the refusal to allow CAPE BLANCO (IRE) to be trotted up before the BHA’s Veterinary Officer and the Racecourse Veterinary Surgeon as part of their examination of the colt prior to the colt leaving the racecourse;
On 13 May 2010 at York Racecourse, in breach of Rule (A)30.1, Aidan O’Brien acted in a manner prejudicial to the proper conduct of horseracing in Great Britain in that, knowing that CAPE BLANCO (IRE) had been involved in racing at York that day and was due to travel from the course after racing, and that the BHA’s Veterinary Officer and the Racecourse Veterinary Surgeon (“the vets”) knew this, and wished to carry out the full assessment of the horse’s fitness to travel before it left the racecourse, he caused Pat Keating to deny the vets the opportunity to complete their examination of CAPE BLANCO (IRE) to their satisfa_ction, and thereby prejudiced the ability of the BHA to safeguard the welfare of the horse, which the relevant authorities in England expect it to do.The Panel also enquired as to whether Pat Keating acted in breach of Rule (B)83 of the Rules of Racing in that he:-
1. Refused to comply with an instruction given by the Stewards at York, namely an instruction that CAPE BLANCO (IRE) be trotted up before the BHA’s Veterinary Officer and the Senior Racecourse Veterinary Surgeon as part of their examination of the colt prior to the colt leaving York racecourse;
2. Refused to comply with an instruction given by the Stewards at York, namely an instruction to attend a Stewards’ Enquiry into the refusal to allow CAPE BLANCO (IRE) to be trotted up before the BHA’s Veterinary Officer and the Racecourse Veterinary Surgeon as part of their examination of the colt prior to the colt leaving York racecourse.
At the outset of the hearing, Aidan O’Brien and Pat Keating each admitted the alleged breaches as set out in paragraphs 1 and 2 of their respective Topics for Enquiry. Following preliminary argument on 3 August 2010 there was an amendment to paragraph 3 of the Topics for Enquiry concerning Aidan O’Brien which he admitted in its amended form (as set out above) at the start of the second day of the hearing.
Dante Stakes 13 May 2010
The background to this matter arose following the ToteSport Dante Stakes at York on 13 May 2010.
CAPE BLANCO (IRE) won the race following which he was selected by the Chairman of the Panel of Stewards for routine post-race testing. The BHA Veterinary Officer, Lynn Hillyer was contacted and asked to organise the taking of a sample.
Lynn Hillyer had already observed CAPE BLANCO (IRE) coming off the course and noted that he was three tenths lame on his left foreleg. She felt it was clear that the lameness required further examination. Once CAPE BLANCO (IRE) completed his visit to the sampling unit he was inspected by the vets. The colt’s heart rate was low in the sampling unit and he was not distressed. Mark Collins, the Senior Racecourse Veterinary Surgeon, accompanied Lynn Hillyer to inspect the colt. CAPE BLANCO (IRE) was noted to have bandages on his left fetlock and the lad informed them that he had “bashed” an ergot a few days earlier. The bandages were not removed and the lad was asked to jog the colt for a few strides on grass. He obliged but the colt didn’t trot freely and was still lame. The vets assessed the lameness to be five tenths at the trot on the soft grass. The vets allowed the colt to walk quietly back to the stables (which are some distance from the winner’s enclosure and sampling unit at York) but decided that they should review the colt after the last race which was due off at 4.55pm. Both vets formed the view that a further examination was definitely necessary before they could allow the colt to travel from the racecourse.
After the last race the vets undertook a further examination of the colt whose leg had, by this time, been cooled, iced and bandaged. Lynn Hillyer, Mark Collins together with Charlie Cooke, another racecourse vet, went to the stables. They found the colt bandaged up and he appeared ready to travel. Mark Collins asked the lad if it was alright to remove the bandages on the foreleg and he agreed. Once the bandages were removed it was clear there was a sore area of skin at the back of the fetlock. Mark Collins conducted a routine examination of the colt’s leg and then asked if he could see the colt out of the box. The lad agreed and the colt was brought out and it was clear that the lameness had improved since mid-afternoon, the colt being perhaps about one tenth lame at the walk on the soft grass in the middle of the stable yard. Mark Collins asked the lad if he could jog the colt and it was made clear that he needed Pat Keating’s authority as head lad before the colt could be trotted.
Pat Keating refused to allow the colt to be trotted. The vets explained to him that it was just a question of jogging for a few strides on the soft grass. Pat Keating said that Aidan O’Brien would not allow it. Having received this refusal Mark Collins asked Pat Keating if he could speak directly to Aidan O’Brien by telephone as he was in Ireland. Mark Collins explained to Aidan O’Brien that he wanted to see the colt trot for 3 or 4 strides to ensure that he was fit to travel. Mark Collins explained to Aidan O’Brien that he considered the lameness was almost certainly related to the wound and that trotting would be of no detriment to the colt but he wanted to be sure that there was nothing else “going on” with the leg.
Aidan O’Brien indicated he wouldn’t allow the colt to be trotted. He said he was willing to accept responsibility for the colt and any injury that it had. Mark Collins made it clear to Aidan O’Brien that it was not a question of taking responsibility, it was a question of ascertaining whether the colt was fit to travel. Mark Collins felt that compared to the risks inherent in a long journey back to Aidan O’Brien’s yard in Ireland, including a flight over the Irish Sea, the risks involved in trotting the colt for a few steps on grass were absolutely negligible.
In the light of Aidan O’Brien’s refusal, Lynn Hillyer contacted Robert Earnshaw one of the Stipendiary Stewards on duty at York. Robert Earnshaw spoke to Pat Keating who informed him that Aidan O’Brien had told him not to let CAPE BLANCO (IRE) be trotted. Robert Earnshaw explained to Pat Keating that he should comply with the vets’ request. He further explained to Pat Keating that if he did not comply with the vets’ request he would have to come before the Stewards to explain his refusal as he was Aidan O’Brien’s representative at York.
Pat Keating was polite and apologised for not co-operating but made it clear that he would not allow the colt to be trotted up without Aidan O’Brien’s permission. He asked Robert Earnshaw to speak directly to Aidan O’Brien which he did. Aidan O’Brien informed Robert Earnshaw of his view that it was “insane” that the vet should request the colt to be trotted up because in his opinion it would only aggravate the colt’s injury. Robert Earnshaw explained that the vet merely wished to examine the colt to ensure he was fit to travel back to Ireland.
Lynn Hillyer asked to speak to Aidan O’Brien personally on the telephone to discuss whether in the light of his conversation with Robert Earnshaw he had consented to the colt being trotted up; there being some confusion on this point. She explained to Aidan O’Brien why in particular she felt it was important to see the colt trotting before sanctioning the colt’s return to Ireland. Lynn Hillyer was concerned since the risk of the colt aggravating any injury by travelling back to Ireland was, in her opinion, far greater than any risk associated with trotting up on grass. The purpose of her seeking to examine the colt was to determine whether he was in fact fit to travel or whether the travel might put him at further risk of injury. Aidan O’Brien remained adamant that the colt should not be trotted and Lynn Hillyer consequently referred the matter back to the Stewards.
Robert Earnshaw spoke to Pat Keating again who apologised but said his “guvnor” had now told him to leave. Robert Earnshaw instructed Pat Keating not to leave the racecourse but asked him to come and see the Stewards immediately. He said he wouldn’t come and that Aidan O’Brien had told him not to attend any enquiry and that he should leave as he had a plane to catch. Robert Earnshaw informed the Chairman of the Panel of the situation that had arisen and the fact that the head lad had refused on Aidan O’Brien’s instruction to attend an enquiry before them.
Submissions
In view of the admissions made at the outset of the substantive hearing, the Panel heard submissions from both parties as to the approach it should take with respect to the issue of penalty. Whereas the BHA accepted that Aidan O’Brien acted in what he perceived to be the best interests of his colt, it maintained that it was the responsibility of the BHA via its Veterinary Officers to safeguard the welfare of horses on the racecourse.
The Panel’s attention was drawn by the BHA to the Welfare of Animals and Transport Order. Reference was made to guidance issued by DEFRA on the interpretation of the Order as to the necessity of obtaining the informed opinion of a veterinary surgeon prior to commencing transport whenever the fitness of an animal is in doubt. The Panel’s attention was also drawn to DEFRA’s guidance to Local Authority Enforcement Officers which provides that any lame animal to be transported should have undergone veterinary assessment prior to transport.
On behalf of Aidan O’Brien and Pat Keating it was s_ubmitted that if there is to be a conflict between the authorities and a licensed person then it is best to be in relation to what is in the best interests of a horse. The Panel were informed that Aidan O’Brien had seen the colt on television after the race being trotted downhill and across a slope when lame. The colt had aggravated a pre existing over reach during the race and Aidan O’Brien was concerned during the second examination that further trotting would risk opening the wound unnecessarily and was not in the best interests of the colt.
The Panel was reminded that Aidan O’Brien’s horses are famously well cared for and that this colt had just won an important Derby trial. The Panel’s attention was drawn to the access that was allowed to CAPE BLANCO (IRE) during the second inspection. The Panel were reminded that the veterinary surgeons were allowed to remove the bandages, palpate the colt’s leg and to see him improve in the walk. As to the refusal to attend the enquiry, explanations were provided as to the need to catch a plane and the uncertainty of air travel at the time of the Dante following the ash cloud eruption in Iceland.
Penalty
In respect of Pat Keating the Panel has determined that no penalty is due. On both the occasions that Pat Keating refused to obey the Stewards, he was acting under the direct instructions of Aidan O’Brien. The Panel recognises the difficult position in which Pat Keating found himself in and as a result is content to let the matter rest with the finding of guilt following his admission to the facts.
As to Aidan O’Brien he falls to be censured not only for his breaches in causing Pat Keating to refuse to comply with instructions given by the Stewards, but also for acting in a manner prejudicial to the proper conduct of horseracing in Great Britain.
The BHA in their submission indicated that this matter should be dealt with by way of a fine. The Panel has noted this as well as the submission on behalf of Aidan O’Brien that any penalty must be a proportionate response to the breach.
The Panel has determined to approach the matter of the veterinary issues, as set out in the first and third topics for enquiry, as a single penalty issue. It has dealt with the refusal to attend before the Stewards as a separate issue.
Dealing with the second issue first, namely the failure by Pat Keating to attend the Stewards’ Enquiry, this was a blatant refusal occasioned by Aidan O’Brien’s direction. The Panel has little sympathy for the explanations that have been put forward regarding this breach. It would have taken Pat Keating a matter of 10 minutes to attend before the Stewards to explain his position. If necessary, Pat Keating could have made other arrangements to rendezvous at the airport with those transporting the horses. Any delay occasioned by Pat Keating complying with the rules and attending before the Stewards would have been minimal. The ash cloud was not mentioned on the day as a reason for haste. The Panel has noted Aidan O’Brien’s admission but it does not attract any credit – there was no realistic option available to Aidan O’Brien other than to admit this allegation.
The entry point for a breach of Rule (B)83 ‘Failure to obey Stewards’ is £150 with a recommended range of £100 – £1,500. Aidan O’Brien is a high profile internationally renowned trainer. It is incumbent upon him to set an example on the racecourse both through his own b_ehaviour and that displayed by his staff through his directions. Having refused the vets’ requests to trot up the colt then it was incumbent on Aidan O’Brien, through his head lad, to give a proper account of himself before the Stewards. Leaving the course in defiance of a reasonable request by the Stewards is behaviour which undermines the regulatory framework of racing in particular and sport in general. If an umpire or a referee asks a player to give an account of themselves, they do not turn on their heel and leave the field of play. So should be the case in racing and the penalty must reflect this position. To Aidan O’Brien’s credit a letter was subsequently written to the Chairman of the Panel at York, to apologise for any apparent discourtesy and to provide an explanation. That did not in the Panel’s opinion significantly enhance its view of the events on the day. The Panel has determined to fine Aidan O’Brien £1,400 for this breach.
In respect of the veterinary issues the parties agreed that the breach of Rule (B)83 should be treated for the purpose of the penalty guidelines as a ‘post race – refusal to allow a horse to be examined’. The entry point for this breach of the Rules is £1,200. In respect of the breach of Rule (A)30.1 the Panel has noted the entry point for the financial penalties of £2,000 within a recommended range of £1,000 – £10,000.
The Panel noted the admission to the allegation of Rule (A)30.1 and gave Aidan O’Brien credit for this. That said, there was little else about this episode which has reflected well on him.
Although partial access to the colt was allowed – Aidan O’Brien refused to allow the vets to complete their examination and by his direction Aidan O’Brien caused Pat Keating to breach the Rules. Racecourse veterinary surgeons must be allowed proper access to horses when seeking to ensure they are fit to travel from the racecourse, the more so when they have a flight to endure when returning home. The veterinary surgeons request was not in the way of a random test – there was a demonstrable basis for the intervention they sought. Moreover there was no ambiguity as to the basis for their concern which was clearly expressed to both Pat Keating and Aidan O’Brien.
As noted above Aidan O’Brien is a high profile trainer. The example he sets on the racecourse will be a matter of public scrutiny and as with any high profile individual their behaviour will set standards that others may try and emulate. For one in his position to act in a manner prejudicial to the proper conduct of horseracing in Great Britain is a very serious matter. The Panel has considered very carefully whether the proper approach on this occasion would be to deal with the issue by imposing a period of time during which horses entered in races in Great Britain by Aidan O’Brien were not allowed to race. The Panel has determined on this occasion that it is proportionate in all the circumstances to deal with the matter by way of a financial penalty and have determined that a fine of £9,000 is appropriate in all the circumstances. The Panel recognises that this is a significant sum and considers it properly reflects the disregard demonstrated by Aidan O’Brien for the concern of the vets and the proper conduct of horseracing in Great Britain
The Panel wishes to note that if Aidan O’Brien were to breach the Rules in similar circumstances again, this Panel would have no hesitation in acting to restrict the ability of Aidan O’Brien’s horses to run in Great Britain.
Aidan O’Brien will be fined a total of £10,400.
I think the subtext from teh BHA to Aidan is ‘stop f***ing us about, oh and merry xmas’
This bit caught my eye –
Lynn Hillyer had already observed CAPE BLANCO (IRE) coming off the course and noted that he was three tenths lame on his left foreleg.
3/10ths lame!! How on earth can you look at a horse and judge that he’s 3/10ths lame. Any horsemen out there shed some light on that? I note that when trotted later he’d gone 5/10ths lame so it may be vets technical jargon (i.e he looks a ‘bit lame’ and then he wet a ‘bit more lame’)
Surely it is sound medical practice to quantify any lameness Cormack?
I think AOB has been lucky not to get a ban.
Particularly when remembering delaying the start of the Derby (increasing time of his rivals in the paddock and decreasing time of his own horses), which could result in an unfair advantage. Where there is apparently no other person from Ballydoyle capable of saddling a runner.
And the Newmarket / Pacemaker affair.
AOB seems a serial bender / breaker of the rules.
Value Is EverythingGingermaster take the Coolmore horses out of the Derby and what have you got? Take Ballydoyle out of Ascot and the races become grade 2 insteas of grade 1. Nobody in their right mind would ban the multiple Ballydoyle horses from Ascot. They have Australian as well as Tipperary horses running there.Get real for goodness sake.The bookmakers would quit if the Tabor Smith Magnier operation failed to appear on their balance sheet.
Get real about what?
Just because Ballydoyle has the best horses, does not mean they can work under different rules to everyone else.Are you saying AOB should not get a ban because of who he is?
Value Is EverythingJust the harsh reality.They banned the Aga Khan and look what they got.People who contribute the most deserve more consideration than the once off people. Reality moment.Look how Henderson was treated when he doped his horse. They could have warned Aidan off for the winter months of dirt racing.Something like they did to Henderson.But to threaten him is really strange like some kind of stand off.Does the book say you can threaten a trainer about future conduct?Was Henderson threatened about future doping? It’s like they(the racing authorities) took it personal.Coolmore have contributed more to English racing than any other racing outfit and deserve a little respect.Just a little.They provided six of the twelve runners in Sea the Stars derby and were the only stable to challenge him for the rest of the season in England; what would the year have been without the Coolmore challenge? So I say show a little gratitude and respect and don’t go around flaunting your **** in public.
Coolmore have contributed more to English racing than any other racing outfit and deserve a little respect.
Uhh dont think so. The Maktoums are surely tops in that category.
Do agree that AOB does deserve some respect and that underhanded warning or threat or whatever else you want to call it was simply uncalled for.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.