Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
a) You are confusing guilt with sentencing. MAZ has admitted guilt, so there is no issue with that
b) It is common knowledge in all civilised societies that certain activities (murder, theft, arson etc) are regarded as criminal, so one couldn’t use ignorance of the law regarding those offences as a defence. However, the rules on steroids in Dubai are in direct contrast to those in GB, and MAZ is from Dubai. The drugs regulations are also much more complex than the laws on murder etc
The real issue here, which all the media have so far avoided, is this: are the Godolphin horses (legally) treated with steroids during their winter holidays?
If so, I for one could understand MAZ’s error of judgement
Len
Yes of course it is
Knowingly breaking the law is a more serious offence than unknowingly breaking the law
But he didn’t "own up" to knowingly breaking the rules. In fact, he denied that he was aware of the ban on steroids outside competition in GB
That’s what the appeal is likely to focus on
Mistakenly breaking the rules would carry a much lesser sentence
When the BHA announced the verdict, reference was made to a "vet’s assistant" and two "foremen" who allegedly had some knowledge of events
However, the BHA inquiry found MAZ guilty and imposed the sentence before speaking to any of the three, saying that they would interview them later
It is poor procedure to reach a verdict in any legal case without speaking to its three main witnesses, and the BHA will regret this at the appeal
Stevecaution – as I demonstrated on another thread, the disciplinary committee failed to prove that MAZ had knowledge of the restriction on use of steroids out of competition in this country. Unprofessional yes, but reckless? Who knows?
Len
Crisford told Nick Luck on C4 that MAZ had given 2 horses the drugs even though he knew the testers were on the way
Why would MAZ do that if he knew the drugs were outside the rules?
No, what I said was that there was evidence 2 years ago that his record-keeping wasn’t good
There is no evidence that he deliberately omitted the entries in April
That’s the factual basis on which cases like this should be decided
And here they are:
1) It’s unlikely that MAZ would have tried to get the drugs through customs in his suitcase if he had known they were illegal (ie not recognised by vets in GB) So much to lose, so little to gain
2) Handing over something to someone through a car window is not, as has been suggested by the BHA and the media, suspicious. Secret dealings are done behind closed doors, not out in the open where anyone can see them
3) The BHA claims that MAZ’s failure to record the drugs in his records is evidence that he was covering the matter up. But we know that his record-keeping has been habitually below standard – Crisford said that after the hearing
Len
I can list three pieces of evidence, all of which have been reported in the media, that suggest he may not have been aware of the rules
I am not defending the use of steroids or turning a blind eye to any particular results. That is a separate issue
I am pointing out that, in a situation that may best be described as a kangaroo court, with just a matter of days to gather evidence, MAZ has been found guilty of deliberately flouting the rules and lying to cover his tracks, when certain aspects of the evidence appear to suggest the opposite
His name has been blackened by the post-hearing comments and therefore he deserves the right to reply to those strong, and potentially defamatory, accusations by the BHA and Godolphin, in a similarly formal setting and with a lawyer to advise him this time
That’s how it works in this country
Godolphin were going to provide MAZ with a legal rep but they withdrew the offer late on and he was left to defend himself. Everyone at the hearing was astonished when he turned up on his own. On realising this, the BHA should have delayed proceedings
Regarding Ors’s comments:
Yes, what he did was unprofessional, and ignorance is not usually a defence in the eyes of the law. However, there is a huge difference between knowingly flouting the law and breaking it because you weren’t aware of it, and the punishment would always reflect that
Godolphin and Bittar both stated at the hearing that they didn’t believe him. It’s their word against his, they don’t appear to have any proof that he didn’t know the rules. In fact, his behaviour has been entirely in keeping with someone who genuinely didn’t know
Until that is established, he should be treated at the lower level of offence
Regarding your assertion that a disciplinary hearing does not involve the same level of proof as a court of law, I would say that everyone should have the right not to have it stated in public (by their former employer and the governing body of the sport) that they are a liar, unless there is proof
Len
Have been following this as a professional in legal matters
MAZ never claimed he didn’t do it, he said he did it but that he was unaware it was not legal in this country
To my eyes the BHA and Godolphin have not proved beyond doubt that he knew the rules. Negligent and unprofessional yes, but not the monster they are trying to make him out to be
I would have no doubt that an appeal is in order
He even had his legal representative taken away at the hearing – what sort of treatment is that?
More like a banana republic than a civilised country
Having to defend himself in his second language with all the intricacies of the case, astonishing. Godolphin and the BHA should never have allowed it to proceed with a solicitor to assist him
Unfortunately, the appeal could unearth an even bigger can of worms
Len
