- This topic has 16 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Interesting few paragraphs in todays BHA, Howard Johnson release.
KNOWLEDGE OF THE RULES OF RACING
One of the pervasive themes throughout this inquiry has been Johnson’s apparent disregard for the Rules of Racing. His admissions with respect to the Neurectomy Charges and the background facts relating to the anabolic steroid charges have revealed a cavalier indifference towards the Rules of Racing which govern not only the administration of the sport but also fundamental issues concerning integrity and the welfare of horses.
In recording our decision, it is right to note that Johnson was questioned in the hearing as to his knowledge of the Rules and the attempts that he made to keep up to date and acquaint himself with any changes to the Rules. His answers to these questions gave the Panel no comfort that Johnson, in relation to his activities as a licensed trainer, had sought to acquaint himself with the detail of the Rules of Racing or made proper attempts to keep up to date with the regular changes made to the Rules.
Johnson’s casual approach to the governance of horseracing is clearly evidenced by his failure to make due inquiry of the Rules in relation to the topics forming the subject matter of this case.
No such judgment handed down to Nicky Henderson, who last February told the RCV inquiry into the activities of James Main, that he was unaware that tranexamic acid was a banned substance or that he had no knowledge that it was against the rules of racing to give a horse anything but feed and water on the day of a race.
No “cavalier indifference” from, Nicky.
No “casual approach to the governance of horseracing” from, Nicky.Thats all right then, Nicky.
After you, Nicky…
The BHA panel actually concluded that Nicky Henderson’s claim that he wasn’t aware of the rules wasn’t credible.
It took the view that he was fully aware of the rules which is why he went to such lengths to conceal his breach of them.
In his initial evidence, Henderson claimed he didn’t know TA was a ‘detector’ ie that it could be detected. It would appear that he was quite happy to break the rules provided he couldn’t be caught.
It would appear therefore that the BHA consider a systematic breach of the rules arising from ignorance of them is a much worse crime than full knowledge of the rules and then embarking on a campaign of concealment to avoid systematic breaches being detected
I don’t see any equanimity in the conclusions drawn by the disciplinary panel when it comes to rule knowledge, Tuffers. In both cases each trainer claims ignorance of the relevant rules, but only in one case was censure issued.
Deliberately or not, Henderson displayed as much "apparent disregard" for the Rules of Racing, imo. Perhaps based on the lack of censure by the BHA the first time around, Johnson thought he’d get away with a similar story in evidence?
The comparison actually reflects worse on Henderson (on the issue of knowledge of the rules).
Whilst as stated above the panel clearly didn’t believe Henderson and thought him complicit in systematic wrongdoing, on this ocassion they actually accepted that Johnson did not know the rules.
This was evidenced by the fact that he wasn’t at Musselburgh on the day of Striking Articles injury and actually stated his ignorance by telephone on that same evening.
On the case of the steroid use it has harder to believe Johnson that he was not clear on the rules involved.
Bad business all round…fair punishment for Johnson, harder to see the BHA’s logic in dealing with NJH.Tough job improving the image of racing when two of the biggest trainers,Henderson and Johnson flagrantly break the rules about doping their horses and claim ignorance of the law in their defence which claim would be laughed out of court in any healthy society ruled by law(ignorance of the law does not excuse).Seems like in Henderson’s case it was accepted,hence the mild punishment.
I don’t see any equanimity in the conclusions drawn by the disciplinary panel when it comes to rule knowledge, Tuffers. In both cases each trainer claims ignorance of the relevant rules, but only in one case was censure issued.
Deliberately or not, Henderson displayed as much "apparent disregard" for the Rules of Racing, imo. Perhaps based on the lack of censure by the BHA the first time around, Johnson thought he’d get away with a similar story in evidence?
I’m agreeing with you in essence, CR, but just making the point that in Henderson’s case the panel were satisfied that he knew exactly what the rules were but decided to breach them anyway (and collude with his vet to conceal the breach). In Johnson’s case they accepted that he was completely ignorant of the rules.
Hence my point that clearly the BHA consider unknowingly breaching the rules (I accept Johnson may be quite fairly described as wilfully ignorant) is worse than knowingly breaching the rules.
Comparisons between the two very interesting.
Don’t know if you’re looking in Silvoir but if so could you distinguish between the two cases for us as there is clearly some questioning/confusion on how the rules have been applied.
I’ve also read this today regarding the verdict.
"This decision, and the action of the authority in investigating this case and bringing charges, demonstrates once more that British racing will take decisive and firm action when confronted with issues relating to welfare or integrity."
While firmly believing the BHA have got this one right I would be interested to hear how a summer ban for a leading jumps trainer whose focus is clearly over the NH season proper represented decisive and firm action when rules had been broken.
I am indeed looking in Corms. Will keep this brief because all if the above comments are either made by people who’ve not read the reasons to both hearings or have, but simply refuse to recognise key, major differences. Why people would do this I have no idea, other than to fuel some (possibly once in the dim and distant past holding occasional merit) prejudicial and out of date view about those that work for the regulator being from public school:
"Each cases warrants closer inspection of the facts. Anabolic steroids are prohibited except in wholly exceptional circumstances, as highlighted within our Rules. This is very different from a legitimate medication, even if administered at an entirely inappropriate and against the Rules of Racing."
Lots of huge, blindingly obvious differences, that I should really wait until 7 days to appeal has expired to lay out.
I am indeed looking in Corms. Will keep this brief because all if the above comments are either made by people who’ve not read the reasons to both hearings or have, but simply refuse to recognise key, major differences. Why people would do this I have no idea, other than to fuel some (possibly once in the dim and distant past holding occasional merit) prejudicial and out of date view about those that work for the regulator being from public school:
"Each cases warrants closer inspection of the facts. Anabolic steroids are prohibited except in wholly exceptional circumstances, as highlighted within our Rules. This is very different from a legitimate medication, even if administered at an entirely inappropriate and against the Rules of Racing."
Lots of huge, blindingly obvious differences, that I should really wait until 7 days to appeal has expired to lay out.
The specific charges are clearly different, Paul, but the inescapable conclusion is that the judgment in the Henderson case did not deal harshly enough with a trainer who went to great lengths including colluding with his vet; failing to record the administration of the prohibited substance in the required medication records; and hiding the administration under the term ‘pre-race check’.
If your argument is a welfare one then I again find it telling that in the Henderson case the panel were happy to conclude that Henderson acted out of concern for the welfare of the horse whereas Johnson acted out of disregard for the welfare of the horse and presumably used this as a key reason for the harsher sentence meted out to Johnson.
However, on the evidence of one of the assistant trainers, Moonlit Path would bleed 50% of the time she worked on the gallops. Henderson was therefore quite happy to continue to exercise a horse who was repeatedly experiencing the pain of bursting bloodvessels whilst knowing that she was too slow to have any hope of being competitive in a race and then raced her with a prohibited substance in her bloodstream designed to mitigate the effect of what he expected to be another burst bloodvessel in the race itself.
I also find it incredible that in relation to the Heather Royal case, the panel didn’t publish findings as to the reasons behind the administration of the dexamethasone and Henderson’s (by now well established) practice of failing to record in the medication records the administration of the substance. Bearing in mind the findings of the RCVS enquiry which concluded the failure to record the adminstration of TA was part of a concerted practice to hide Henderson’s knowing breach of the rules, it surely is incredible that the panel were not drawn to the conclusion that the failure to record Heather Royal’s medication was further evidence of an ongoing practice of attempting to conceal what Henderson knew to be a clear breach of the rules.
The Binocular fiasco again called into serious question the desire of the BHA to probe fully into Henderson practices in relation to the medication of his horses. Quite how anyone believed that the adminsitration of dexamethasone was for a ‘rash’ when one of its other clinical indications was for the sort of physical problem from which Binocular was know to suffer is anyone’s guess. The fact that the dose was so large as to still be showing up in blood samples many days after it would have been expected to have left the bloodstream is another damning fact. The idea that the medication was administered in the wrong place resulting in its slow rate of removal from the bloodstream again doesn’t hold water. This was the defending Champion Hurdler – the vet concerned would have been extremely careful to administer the drug exactly where he intended.
The only sensible conclusion to draw is that this was another case of Henderson believing the drug wasn’t a ‘detector’ and having been caught out in the case of Heather Royal took swift steps to ensure he wasn’t caught out with Binocular as well.
Out of interest, how many unannounced inspections involving bloodtesting of all Henderson’s horses have been carried out?
Thank You Paul – it’d be great if you could clarify the nuances for us once the appeal period has expired.
I’m sure you feel you’re banging your head against a brick wall on TRF at times but if these decisions and, as far as is possible, the reasoning behind them are clearly spelled out and questions addressed (even where the answers appear obvious) then it surely helps spread the message that racing is leaving the past behind (in the respects alluded to in this particular thread).
Folks as you know I am not the biggest fan of the BHA , but do appreciate Silvoir for what he does …..like defending the indefensible…on a daily basis
How about we back off and let him explain when the time is right
Ricky
It is assumed that it is important for future cases that people know exactly the attitude of the authorities towards both willful ignorance and colluding with the vet to hide from the authorities the practice of illegal medication.It seems from the punishment that the latter is mildly frowned upon.I find myself totally confused.(The example of Rory McElroy in the PGA should be considered.He was given medication to ease the pain of tendon strain and allowed to continue when not suffering the pain might lead to unfelt further injuries.)
I just read the most recent post and was amazed that such incoherent stuff could be written by yours truly.I am presently on strong medication to handle nueropity. I wonder could that be to blame? Perhaps those involved with medicating horses are also on medication.
I’m not trying to fuel any prejudicial and out of date view.
The Panel in the Henderson case concluded that
– he was aware that TA was a prohibited substance.
– the explanation of the use of the word "detectable" was not plausible.
– omission of reference to TA in the medical records showed concealment.
– they did not feel Henderson’s refusal to blame subordinates stood up to analysis.While I recognise there are clear differences in the charges brought, am I right in assuming that Panel’s only apply sanction based on the actual breaches of the rules of racing and the issues such as concealment and implausible evidence are not considered when punishments are decided?
I look forward to reading Paul’s comments after seven days and appreciate the fact he is prepared to answer questions.
I doubt this happens in many other sports.
I also very much appreciate Silvoir’s taking the trouble to assist us in understanding how these decisions are reached.
Whilst we are waiting for the 7 days to elapse, I wonder whether Paul is able to reveal whether following the findings of the RCVS enquiry into James Main it considered whether there was a case for Henderson to answer in relation to rule A41 which reads:
41. Involvement in corrupt or fraudulent practices in relation to racing
41. A Person who
41.1 is guilty of the commission of any corrupt or fraudulent practice in relation to racing in this or any other country,
41.2 conspires with any other Person for the commission of such a practice, or
41.3 connives at any other Person being guilty of such a practice,shall be taken to have contravened a requirement imposed on him by these Rules
My own view is that the carrying on for several years (according to the evidence of James Main) of a practice of concealing the administration of prohibited substances by failing to record them in the stable’s medication records and colluding with the veterinary surgeon to hide their administration in his clinical records is a clear case of a ‘corrupt or fraudulent practice’.
I note that the ‘entry point’ for the penalty for breach of this rule is a three year disqualification.
Clearly the two cases are very different , however there are similarities in the concealment of the truth by the two trainers. I would be very surprised if the BHA could have read the findings of the RCVS investigation and NOT thought there was good cause to haul Henderson back in . If we didn’t think it was simply the old school tie that kept Henderson from the drop , we would only be left with unfathomable inconsistencies to ponder. The RCVS found that Henderson and his vet had systematically falsified records for a long long time in order to conceal the fact that they were medicating horses on raceday . Henderson claimed he was unaware that horses could only have food and water on raceday. As I understand it the substance involved has not always been detectable ? …or "a detector" in his own words! Is it any wonder when he is allowed to continue training that people start to wonder if preferential treatment has been shown , for whatever reason?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.