Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Glen
Please do not think the jockey is always the rascal.
I am now absolutely convinced the main problem lies with the trainer. They are in charge, they are the boss, they instruct.
We have seen the leniency given when a trainer instructs a vet, the same leniency applies when giving instructions to jockeys.
Unfortunately, some jockeys, fed up with their masters, decide to take matters of fixing races into their own hands. They decide that financial rewards are greater elsewhere.
Very foolish. That is not how the racing industry works.Chiswickian
One minute you are saying
Anyone who doesn’t think someone of long standing good repute is entitled to be treated differently does not accept or understand the concept of goodwill. Nicky Henderson didn’t just stroll into the title of "well connected" ….. he earned it over many years.
then you suggest
In an ideal world all licensed racehorse vets would need to account for every single drop of medication they administer. We’re a long, long way off that.
Who do you think is in charge? Who employs and pays the vet? Who dictates what goes on within the racing yard? Unless I’m mistaken, it is the trainer, not the vet.
YesIn an ideal world all licensed racehorse vets would need to account for every single drop of medication they administer.
but if the trainer says no to proper medication records, and can find another vet to comply, what then?
The RVCS have stopped the vet from working. I think it’s a pity they did not deal with the trainer in a similar manner, regardless of his longstanding good repute. Anyway, who says that is a FACT. Maybe it is just a perception.The Jockey Club, the previous regulator, was a protective body who employed PR people to do just that, protect the racing industry from unsavoury publicity.
I had some very interesting conversations with one such gentleman long after the JC’s demise and he was not complimentary about them at all. Unfortunately he did what he was paid to do.
The BHA also seems a somewhat protective organisation. AP’s example shows the disparity of punishment between those who are well connected within racing, and those who are not.
What the BHA does not seem to realise, or chooses to ignore, is that we can now directly source factual information and make comparisons and draw our own conclusions. No longer can all matters be hidden or relevant facts excluded. This protection serves only to allow problems to continue, as it has done over many decades.
The RCVS seems to operate under a different objective, hence the removal of a vet’s licence.Pinza
With regard to trainers you believe
The deterrent effect will be large enough to give any other likely users of this illegal strategy pause for thought.
I think the opposite might happen. Look at the sycophantic response from members of the racing industry and a large section of the media.
Most of the blame has been shifted from trainer to others; the owner continues to have horses with him; the publicity has been mostly positive and supportive, his career is flourishing.
Rather than a "deterent effect", other trainers might believe they will get similar treatment and punishment, and if in doubt, use this fine example to ensure they do.
It is the vetinary surgeons who might "pause for thought". They should now refuse to obey instructions, given by a trainer, that do not comply with BHA rules.
Unfortunately, it would require them all to do so, not just a few.It surely does not matter who said what.
Silvoir’s selected quote from the RCVS report is:The Committee found Mr Main evasive and unclear on issues central to the case. It has regrettably concluded his evidence lacked candour and that on some 8 aspects of the case his evidence was untrue.
There are plenty more quotes that could be selected, concerning both vet and trainer, but the fact is a vet adminstered a drug against a simple BHA rule (only food and water on raceday) under instruction of a trainer.
Both are guilty and the trainer is equally responsible, if not more so, than the vet whom he employed.
Why then did the trainer receive a short ban during summer months, when the vet has been struck off?
Why is the BHA’s punishment towards the trainer more lenient than the RCVS’s towards the vet. Whose rule was it that was broken?
With regard to drug testing it can only be as good as the number of horses tested, and the company testing. They need to invest constantly to keep up with the various ways used to mask the drugs administered. Is it now the LGC that tests for the horse racing industry and are they accredited?
With regard to training of staff (would be trainers, jockeys, and stable staff) why is this not done in-house? They could be employed by the racing industry instead of the trainer, spend 3-6 months at different yards who would be invoiced for their services, and report back to the training school after each period at the different yards. The present situation, where trainers employ trainees after just a short introduction at the training school, perpetuates and therefore continues any bad practises that may occur in their yard.Thanks AP.
If this is the complete picture (and there are no hidden clauses), the trainer has overall authority, including welfare issues, and need not listen to the vet’s advice if given. The vet cannot intervene with decisions made by the trainer unless there are exceptional circumstances. The vet could refuse the trainer’s instructions but what would be the consequences for his Practise?
How then can it be considered that the vet put Mr H’s career in jeopardy. Did the trainer not do this all by himself?
Following on, why does Mr H now seem to be whitewashed by some parts of the media, whilst the vet is considered the major villain?
If I was the owner I would not be inclined to want my horses trained by a trainer who decides to race one with a chronic bleeding problem, then considers the need for a drug on the morning of the race when this is against the simple rule of ‘only food and water’.
The vet could have saved Mr H, and himself, by refusing to obey instructions but would the trainer then have been able to get another vet to comply?Reading that Mr Main put Mr Henderson’s career in jeopardy I checked the RCVS’s website on ‘maintaining practise standards’.
18.Case records should include details of examination, treatment administered, medication prescribed and/or supplied, radiographs, the results of any diagnostic or laboratory tests and advice given to the client. It is prudent to include notes of telephone conversations, fee estimates or quotations, consents given or withheld and contact details.
The word should is used, rather than must.
22. If the client’s consent is in any way limited or qualified or specifically withheld, veterinary surgeons must accept that their own preference for a certain course of action cannot override the client’s specific wishes other than on exceptional welfare grounds.
This would seem to indicate that a client’s wishes cannot be overridden unless there are exceptional circumstances.
So, what would have happened if Mr Main had refused to medicate and the horse suffered?
Could he have prevented the horse from racing that day?
Is there such a thing as a ‘warning notice’ that he could have issued stating why he did not medicate and why he thought the horse should not be racing?
And I know I have asked before, but who has the ultimate authority over this horse?Thanks AP
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons have a website where they list disciplinary results. It will be interesting to read the one on Mr Main when published.
Skimming through previous hearings I noticed a vet was suspended for failing to make animal welfare hisprimary
concern.
I suppose it could be argued Mr Main did make animal welfare his primary concern. After all, he did not enter the horse for the race, everyone knew she was a chronic bleeder, everyone should have known the BHA rule, and he was doing the best he could to protect her.apracing
It’s now quite clear why Henderson’s QC was so anxious not to have the vet Main, or the trainer’s assistant Symonds, give evidence at the original enquiry
Not to me. Could you explain? Would it compromise the forum if you did?
Also, Main’s evidence that Moonlit Path had a ‘chronic history of bleeding’ is also fairly remarkable, since the mare had never been involved in a race in her life. If she was bleeding after being galloped at home, what on earth was she doing on a racecourse?
One reason I guess (for the above question) might possibly be for breeding or selling purposes but according to Mr Henderson, if he’s been quoted correctly, it was to give her a nice time. As you seem to suggest, I also don’t think an unraced 6yr old, with a chronic history of bleeding, should be at a racecourse.
I have read that the BHA rule states
nothing but normal feed and water
should be given to a horse on the day of the race.
How much more simple can this rule be?
The vet was requested to administer the drug on the day of the race. By whom? Who is in charge of the horses? The vet, the trainer, the owner, or others?Mr Henderson says he was unaware the drug was banned.
He says he thought other trainers had been using it judging from comments made to him afterwards.
He says someone in the yard knew because the injection was not listed in the yard’s record.
He says this might have been Tom Simmonds, his assistant trainer.
He then says he didn’t think that "we" had administered anything terribly illegal, the horse was not doped, she was given a drug for her own benefit, he was not aware it was detectable, and he wanted her to have a nice time.
I’m confused.Just goes to show how difficult, and probably very unfair, handicapping horses accurately (particularly middle or lower ability) is. For me there are far to many variables.
First, you have to assume the horse is racing to ability.
Then: is the horse fit and well; does it run better for one jockey to another; is the riding jockey competent; is the race run to suit; are track, ground conditions, and distance ideal;……..?
Regarding your example, insomniac, I would prefer to judge A 30 lengths superior to C on the day. It could be argued that C’s stamina, sprinting ability, and finishing time, could make it 20 lengths, but surely this would be unfair to A. He did not have to sprint and had stopped racing by the time C finished. What is to say, given another furlong he would still have been 30 lengths in front or even extended his lead. Or not!insomniac
Not knowing much about betting is there a way of backing the distance between A & C when A finishes the race, rather than when C does?
Nor, Horses are regularly claimed by trainers to order. Nothing untoward about the claiming of the beast imo.
Totally agree Smithy.
But what I don’t get is these horses sometimes transfer into new ownerships and this does not appear to need absolute proof.
Trainers could therefore say anyone owns them, when in some cases this may not be true.What I don’t understand is the ownership muddle.
The horse was claimed from Alan Bailey by Jeff Pearce.
Why was he then allowed to register this horse as belonging to someone else? Surely there is/should be watertight verification of ownership, not just an invoice but proof of a financial transaction. I realise there are ways round this too, but it would prove that the intention to deceive was there if the horse did not really belong to the registered person.Trying to be fair to the stewards, we don’t know whether they were asked by the BHA to keep quiet.
Obviously it takes time to gather the evidence, so by alerting the connections of Sabre Light through the stewards could enable them to cover their tracks.http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/ … s/?ref=rss
Wondered about the title. Born in Crook.
