- This topic has 11 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
Obviously not commenting on any individual cases but am I alone in thinking that the wives,husbands or partners of disqualified trainers shouldn’t be allowed to apply for licenses to operate from the same yard that has been involved in the offence that has caused the original disqualification because it overwhelmingly appears to be a way of circumventing the original disqualification and allowing the disqualified person to still be potentially involved.
A good example of how Racing always manages to complicate things that should be simple.
Disqualified cheating trainers (or jockeys) should be totally unable to be involved in licensed yards and the rules should go as far as they possibly can to uphold this.
Good question WFTW.
I believe a disqualified person is not allowed to have anything at all to do with racing and seem to remember a spouse getting in to trouble over this particular rule some time in the last few years. Am sure that partners are used often to get around the rule; with the disqualified person still unofficially in charge of the yard. Am sure checks are carried out from time to time but it does seem a loophole. I’d like to say don’t allow it. However, not sure about the legal standing. The partner is not the disqualified person and therefore (when applying for a licence) is presumed innocent. So as long as he/she has the qualifications it must be difficult for the authorities to turn him/her down.
Value Is EverythingDidn’t this happen with a high profile yard recently, that the female side of the relationship took over while the male side was clearly pulling the strings? Of course it’s completely wrong and shouldn’t be allowed.
A lot of the problem I think stems from the sports reluctance to deal with the dodgy stuff. I’m sure there’s a lot more doping going on than we’re made aware of. For example I was reading about that doping case at Cheltenham this year and the details were quite shocking- bloody syringes and so on. Quite shocking really.
Best isn’t disqualified. He received a six-month suspension in December last. His previous four-year ban was quashed on appeal.
This from The Guardian:
There are a number of conditions attached to the licence, which have yet to be finalised, however, including Jim Best not being allowed to attend any racecourse where his wife has a runner. He is also not allowed to represent her in any way, or make any comment on the horses in her training, to the press or media.
A statement issued by the BHA head of media Robin Mounsey read: “The licensing committee has made the decision to grant Mrs Best a combined trainer’s licence. We have been informed that some conditions have been attached to the licence, full details of which we await from the committee.
“The BHA’s position regarding Mrs Best’s application having gathered the relevant information to consider it, was that there were some matters of concern which meant that we felt that it should be referred to the licensing committee for further exploration and consideration. This is why we have a licensing committee, which acts independently from the BHA.
Judge, I’d be astounded if there is any doping going on. There might be some horses who are run unintentionally with a remnant of medication (legal meds, allowed in training but not competition), but doping to win/lose, I doubt it.
Such is the efficiency of analytical equipment these days, anyone who wanted to make a career in racing would be crazy to dope horses in his/her charge. The Irish ‘team’ were point-to-pointers and seem to me more like a Delboy operation than a proper training outfit.
This from a recent study in North America on the subject of cross-contamination in racehorses:
R. Steven Barker, a professor of veterinary physiology, pharmacology, and toxicology was director of the Louisiana State University Equine Medication Surveillance Laboratory fior 29 years until his retirement in 2016. He said some instruments now can go beyond nanograms (one-billionth of a gram) and
picograrns (one trillionth of a gram) to detect femtograms (one quintillionth of a gram)—
an amount so infinitesimal that most people cannot even grasp it.To put it in perspective, a nanogram is comparable to one second in 32 years: a picogram would be one second in 32.000 years: and a femtogram would be one second in 32 million years.
Barker explained that the insensitivity of equipment 20 years ago meant that if a laboratory detected a substance it most likely was of a significant quantity to indicate an intentional violation. But the
regulations applied then have not kept in step with new technology.‘They’re detecting levels that are pharmacologically irrelevant or insignificant. and they routinely come from the fact that these animals are living in a drug contaminated environment.‘ he
said.What about those recent cases though then with high profile trainers in Ireland and also Godolphin?
And don’t tell me those American horses that come over to Royal Ascot are clean!
Al Zarooni was using steroids out of competition (not for raceday). Still an offence and he got 8 years.
I’m not sure which Irish ones you mean?
Main point is that ‘doping’ as the general public understands it – giving a horse something that will have a drastic one-off effect in a particular race – happens so rarely that I cannot recall a proven example of it.
My feeling is that a compromise has been reached. I think the BHA were reluctant to grant a licence to Suzi Best for fear that Jim Best would be pulling the strings of the training operation. However, had Suzi been refused a licence she may well have ultimately prevailed in court on the basis that there was no legitimate reason to deny her one. Therefore, to save both sides money and reduce the time before Suzi can start training she has accepted the conditions pertaining to Jim that the BHA have attached to the licence. Apparently Jim is retraining as a hairdresser, I won’t be letting him anywhere near mine :)
I suppose the BHA had no other choice but to approve this application by the letter of their own laws. The lengthy delay (this decision was postponed multiple times) probably shows that they were desperately trying to dig their way out of a PR disaster. It feels like yet another woefully limp piece of work from our governing body – doubly inept after the shambles of the Lohn affair and retrial. Surely this is not far from a resignation issue for Nick Rust?
Jim Best has been found guilty of stopping horses. By no means just a rogue or any sort of Robin Hood figure, Best came across as an extremely unpleasant person in his trial – lying about riding instructions and doing his best to pin blame on a young jockey. In an ideal world, the BHA would have made life extremely difficult for Best, warned him off for good and prevented this loophole from being exploited. Apart from Mr Best being barred from the racecourses, one imagines it could easily be business as usual for the yard and one of Mrs Best’s charges may well emerge from the doldrums to land a psychic gamble at a gaffe track this winter.
Have no lessons been learned from the Paul Blockley case? With the trainer warned-off, his entire string swiftly moved into the hands of veteran permit-holder Roger Curtis. It was soon revealed that the portly Blockley was on the payroll as an unlikely stable lad and the horses were still being trained at facilities Blockley himself owned.
It’s unnerving that people like Blockley (husband of permit-holder Jo Hughes and previously listed among the staff on her website), Best and Graham Bradley (assistant trainer to Brendan Powell) can still be involved in the sport.
Al Zarooni was using steroids out of competition (not for raceday). Still an offence and he got 8 years.
I’m not sure which Irish ones you mean?
Main point is that ‘doping’ as the general public understands it – giving a horse something that will have a drastic one-off effect in a particular race – happens so rarely that I cannot recall a proven example of it.
Phillip Fenton.
No doubt other yards also at it
As to doping, I don’t share Steeplechasing’s confidence. As we were saying on a thread about yard switchers recently, there are a few yards who definitely arouse suspicion. Of course horses moving from small outfits are going to improve when going to a bigger concern (better facilities generating higher level of fitness, better staff, vets etc).
But what about these magicians (I could name two or three) who seem able to consistently improve animals from just about anyone? The yards in question have received horses from well-respected ‘top 10’ outfits and improved them by 10lbs or more on average. Often after 5-6 months gaps in their racecourse appearances.
Given that Al Zarooni and Wesley Ward’s M.O. is/was to load horses with steroids before giving them enough time off to get ‘clean’ for post-race drugs tests, I think people like Judgey have every reason to express their concerns. Just this week, a lowly point-to-point trainer was caught with a cobalt solution. Only naivety and carelessness led to that person being caught. It’s not hard to imagine a better organised top-level trainer getting away with something like this on a massive scale. I think an athletics-style ‘out of competition testing’ operation is the only way to be sure.
LS, do you believe then that horses are being one-off doped in races to either boost or hinder that single performance, because that’s what I’ve made clear I’m referring to?
No question that trainers are using substances that are legal out of competition and in some instances perhaps substances that are illegal in or out. I suspect that the latter are very few and far between and after Al Zarooni, if any of the top trainers are using steroids or other blatantly illegal drugs they must have a death wish for their yard, reputation, business and career.
Competent ‘small’ trainers are just as likely to improve a horse coming from a major yard as top trainers are when getting one from an outfit with poor facilities/less than competent trainers. Hard to come up with figures but I’d guess a fair percentage of horses – say a conservative 15% – are ill suited by temperament to a big yard. This is the type that thrives in a comparatively quiet operation where they can get pretty much all the attention they need. Conversely, some horses from small yards will relish new surroundings in a busy yard with plenty of company and lots to hold their interest.
And, if I’m remembering correctly, the BHA already carry out testing out of competition, with no warning.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.