[Nor1]

I’d like to have been a fly on the wall in ‘discussions’ between M. Owen and T Dascombe which led to young Kingscote losing the ride on Brown Panther in the St Leger. Given Mr Dascombe’s loyalty to the jockey in the past, I am assuming, perhaps wrongly, that Mr Owen made the decision.

There’s no denying his right as owner to choose who rides; I wonder if it is a ‘professional’ decision reflecting Mr Owen’s determination to make his racing venture a profitable business? If so, is it likely to alienate him, to some degree, within the racing ‘community’?

There’s no way of saying if the decision will prove right or wrong. Fallon has experience: Kingscote knows the horse very well.

But for me Fallon’s had his days in the sun; I feel sorry for the kid. If I was lucky enough to own the horse, he’d keep the ride.

Totally agree.
Richard Kingscote does not deserve this and I hope it does not knock his confidence. He seems to be a very decent young man from what I know of him. One jockey has already said "the b*****ds (this has not come from RK!)
Nothing against K Fallon but I long for the day when jockeys work together against this type of behaviour from owners and trainers. Until this happens (and my guess it never will), most jockeys will always be the peasants and the control will stay with their masters.

[Nor1]

Pinza,

You accept that the ARVS support the accreditation of racecourse vets. Why would the extension of that accreditation to cover racing yards be a slap in the face to the BVA? Do you believe that they disapprove of the ARVS stance on racecourse accreditation and this might push them over some imagined edge?

I don’t know what business you are in but if you think the management of vet reports emailed to the BHA is such a complex and expensive task for a software designer, I’d be happy to do some consultancy for you and those who share your views in this – I could save you an awful lot of money.

The system would work like this:

A vet carries out work for a trainer: the report that he

currently

does for the trainer’s record book is emailed to the BHA and the trainer simultaneously.

The BHA make it clear to the trainer that he/she remains responsible in exactly the same way as they currently are. There are no ‘legal implications’ arising from the fact that the BHA also hold copies of the vet reports.

Nor do they need to monitor them daily. At the moment BHA officials are entitled to enter a yard without notice and check all records. That entitlement is simply broadened to "We reserve the right to check the vet reports submitted to us at random and take any action we deem necessary."

Any vet found to have been in connivance with a trainer before the submission of a report to the BHA risks losing his/her BHA licence.

If a trainer knows that the vet’s report he/she has just received is also sitting in the BHA files and that any report is subject to a random check (the trainer does not even have the ‘comfort’ of knowing that a BHA official needs to be on his/her premises before the records can be checked) then I think the welfare of horses and the reputation of racing can only benefit.

As I’ve already mentioned, I believe such a procedure would also be welcomed by most racing vets as it would make trainers much less likely to try and exert pressure on them to ‘spin’ reports.

You state that there are only two recent cases of questionable behaviour by vets. If you believe that all other trainer/vet relationships work on a strictly principled basis of non-interference by the trainer, I think that many on this forum will be surprised at your apparent naivety.

Thank you

steeplechasing

.
You have saved me trying to reply to Pinza (and Cormack). I could never have said what you have said so clearly and concisely.

[Nor1]

Pinza
I’m sure we all agree that the welfare of racehorses is important.
With the wonders of technology, I cannot see that it would be an onerous task to have a central database of the medical records of each horse in training.
The BHA racing admin deals with jockey suspensions, horse entries, apprentices, etc. etc. including sending happy birthday messages to licenced individuals. I’m sure collating medical records of horses is well within their capabilities.
If you feel the responsibility of adhering to the rules of racing would then shift from the trainer to the BHA fair enough. Leave that responsibility with the trainer.

[Nor1]

In light of this and some of NJ Henderson’s escapades, I believe it is time that the BHA licensed vets before they can work on racehorses.

Licensed vets should then be obliged to submit all treatment reports direct to BHA,copied to trainer.

Excellent proposal. Let’s hope the BHA take it up. They could then advise ignorant trainers when submitted medical records indicate a possible breach of the rules if the horse is entered for a race.
Severe penalties could also be applied to trainers/vets who do not submit accurate medical records.

[Nor1]

Thank you Tuffers. The arguments I’d taken on board against this diuretic were largely to do with individual horse welfare, and of course of course the welfare of the breed. Making sure that habitual bleeders are shown up before going off to stud and passing on the trait, thus weakening the stock, has clear advantages.

There are two causes of bleeding. The most usual is where the intestines get out of sync with the diaphragm and slam into it causing the diaphragm in turn to squeeze part of the lungs against the chest cavity. This impact causes some of the delicate blood vessels in the alveoli to burst.

The other cause is an irritant (dust, pollen etc) in the airway.

I don’t see that either cause is genetic – the first is a natural consequence of the physiology of galloping flat out and the second is a product of the horse’s environment.

Read a very interesting article which says there is strong evidence that the tendency of bleeding in horses can be genetically passed on to the next generation through breeding.
Seems to make logical sense.
http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/ … n=20110616

[Nor1]

I hate the term mug punter.

Snobbish in the extreme.

Its no business of anyone what and how other people bet.

I also hate the term ‘mug punter’ and I don’t think I have ever bragged about any betting success. Unfortunately, incensed by this term, I succumbed.
I don’t believe the bookmaker makes money out of occasional 10p L15s, L31s, Yankees etc. Where they score is when gambling gets out of control, and single bets of hundreds if not thousands of £s are put on per race. This is when people can get into serious debt and even lose their homes.

[Nor1]

I very rarely bet. Honestly, that’s true. But I really enjoy analysing form, if time permits, on top class races.
Looked at the Derby, had doubts about the stamina of CH, picked PM, but didn’t back it. £2 win is my max outlay on a single bet so it wasn’t worth bothering. Still really enjoyed watching the horse win.
So my first bet this year was yesterday at Ascot.
I am one of those mug punters who enjoy L15s!! Did 5 horses this time, 10p win, cost £3.10 (Lucky 31?) which is splashing out a bit.
Got 3 winners (LolforDol 14/1,Rew 12/1, Juln 16/1) The other 2, WestA and Somach let me down.
Never mind. A bit of fun and a payout of £403.10. Should keep me going for a few years.

[Nor1]

I love the Derby and I thought it was a thrilling race today but I’m relieved it is all over, if only so that people can now finally shut up about the owner of Carlton House. The press and media act like the whole country are staunch royalists and the fawning and absurd sycophancy has got right up my nose I’m afraid. Mrs Windsor didn’t even breed the bloody horse.

Completely agree.
RMoore did the best he could on CH who I don’t think was bred to be able to stay a truly run 1m4f.
Regarding CBalding I still think she’s good regardless of being somewhat influenced by the hype of the Queen’s horse.

[Nor1]

Enjoyed the BBC coverage today. Sorted out the red button.
Fan of CBalding who is enthusiastic and knows her racing.
Not sure about the fashion bit.
Great not to have the betting odds continuously highlighted.
Instead there was time for the horses – brilliant.
And what a clever ride from JMurtagh in the Oaks. Was he on the best horse?

[Nor1]

Goodness me

Pinza

you have taught me in my old age to be very careful with what I write. Your play on words is simply amazing.
Mr H received a short ban. He was able to transfer some horses in his care to other trainers for a short period. They then returned.
You write

"The imputation of your "allowed" is that the BHA somehow turned a blind eye to some breach of the rules. That is nonsense, and your protestations of innocence don’t excuse the slur, on the BHA or indeed the luckless witch himself".

I assumed, when the BHA gave Mr H such a short ban, they would know what his options were with the horses in his care. This is not turning a blind eye.
With regard to your

"the luckless witch himself"

comment, are you referring to Mr H ? Not quite the words I would have used.

[Nor1]

Reet Hard,
You miss the point big time. The reason it is a few years ago is a) never again had a runner in such a lowly rated flat race and b) being older and wiser I now know (in conjunction with trainers) which jocks not to put on an odds on favourite.

Having said that, it is my experience and understanding that the number of flat jocks that will take money to throw a race (or communicate info for profit that a horse is not going to win on that day) is a small minority of those riding and because of the HRA actions that number is smaller than it was a few years ago. But there are some still riding and it would be better for horseracing if they were not – assumimg a due and proper investigation and hearing. Get rid of the jocks that are prepared to do these things and the criminals who would have bribed them are out of business.

richard

Whether you choose to believe or not, I know, but have no admissable evidence, of young jockeys corrupted by trainers. Whether the owners were complicit I do not know.

[Nor1]

Pinza

I can explain my totally innocent wording: "He’s banned for 3 summer months and allowed to race his horses under another trainer’s name." Whether you wish to believe is another matter.

apracing

and

360 degrees

highlighted three horses.
I’ll abbreviate: MM; PdB; Car. They were all trained by Mr Henderson, and apart from Car, they began their careers with him. MM ran for Mr Sherwood twice; PdB once for same trainer; Car once for B Hills. All shortly returned back to Mr Henderson.
Are you saying they were trained by these trainers? I thought of it as merely an holiday, assuming they did indeed reside in different quarters. I regarded them as Mr H’s horses, raced for a short period under the name of other trainers, no change ownership, and then returned. I have no problem with that, because the owners obviously wanted to run their horses and could not under Mr H, as he was banned for 3 months.
Regarding your statement

"I do not know why you bothered to include the phrase in your witch-hunter’s indictment at all"

I take great umbrage.

Witch-hunt

is a phrase you are very keen on. I suggest you stop and read very carefully what others have written before using it. No way was I suggesting any backhanders etc. I felt, and still do, that Mr H’s punishment was extremely lenient. That is all.

[Nor1]

The " prevented the link from working (I think). Hope it does now.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree … orseracing

[Nor1]

"When our state-owned bookie is sold, the race to the bottom will begin", writes Neil Clark.
"http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/24/tote-sell-off-horseracing

[Nor1]

Hey Nor1, you forgot the one about the antepost favorite for the 2010 Champion Hurdle.

He told everyone the horse wasn’t running, everyone except Weatherbys…

I chuckled on your reply. Brilliantly put!

Pinza

wrote

Or is there some sort of suspicion that Henderson was receiving back-handers from Sherwood or Barry Hills for pretending to train these horses? Is there any proof of this? If so, I suggest Nor1 or anyone else in possession of evidence should contact the BHA. It’s time to "put up…", rather than making sly insinuations.

Didn’t chuckle at

Pinza’s

remarks at all. Where on earth do I slyly insinuate anything? I had no suspicions whatsoever! In fact, I’d never even thought about the possibilities of backhanders!! But now you have mentioned it ……….

[Nor1]

Nothing surprises me about Mr Henderson.
He instructs the medication of a six year old horse, with chronic bleeding problems, on its debut raceday, in direct contravention of a rule that states only food and water. He’s banned for 3 summer months and allowed to race his horses under another trainer’s name.
The vet who medicated under his instruction loses his licence.
He muddled two horses and their passports. http://www.britishhorseracing.com/insid … linary.asp (type in Henderson)
He omitted to notify one of his horses (Zarinski) had been gelded.
As already mentioned, he laid all his horses for the Cheltenham festival.
I’ve come to the conclusion that Mr Henderson is an ‘untouchable’

[Nor1]

Yes,

Gingertipster

, evidence is vital.
That is why jockeys should, if they want to protect themselves, collect the evidence if instructed by the trainer.
Not sure what would be admissable but I would have thought asking the BHA might be a first step, without naming names at that stage.

[Author]

Posts