Forum Replies Created
- Posts
It might still end up as fewer fixtures dependent on Levy Board decision on fixture criteria and the available funding.
I had no comment to make on the delay between charge and hearing because no findings had been reached and the ‘accused’ is entitled to at least get to ‘court’ and present a defence. In this case that defence has been presented and a decision reached on guilt/innocence.
The delay between the findings and the announcement (and imposition of the ‘sentence’) is what I believe is the crux of this matter.
So we should put in place an interim suspension even though, if there is a penalty, the penalty might not be suspension?
There must be a tariff of penalties – how long can it take to choose from that?
There is a recommended range but the range is very wide indeed and, if there is a penalty, you are potentially dealing with people’s (and not just the trainer’s) livelihoods.
3. If you’ve read any of the Panel’s previous reasons in other hearings you wil know they are almost thesis-like – 5,000 to 10,000 words – which is why it might take 7/8 days to write down, especially when the Panel aren’t employees and hold down other jobs.
I’ve read none, nor would I be so inclined if they run to as much as 10,000 words – how can such length be justified outside of a hugely complicated trial involving something like fraud in the city?
From what you say, the panel must also do their own donkey work in actually compiling their findings – this can only add to the Colonel Blimp image of racing administration. Is there no stenographer/secretary/pro writer employed to assist in compiling the findings?
Well if you’re not going to read them wouldn’t that undermine any comment you make on any disciplinary the findings of penalty? I find that stance incredibly surprising.
Such length is justified because, as I said, you’re potentially dealing with people’s livelihoods and they are entitled to know why a decision has been reached, particularly in light of any appeal or legal challenge. Moreover, it is far more transparent for the public and press to be able to read these and then pass judgement on the decision and sanction (and of course on the individual themselves).
Of course the Panel compile their findings, in the same way that a judge or magistrates write their own judgements.
We don’t have a stenographer, but have the hearings recorded and then transcribed.
So we’re open, transparent, publish detailed reasons (first sport to do so I think), open some enquiries up and use technology rather than a stenographer. If all that adds to a Colonel Blimp image, ‘tally ho’ I say.
Isn’t it the other way round? If the findings run at between 5,000 and 10,000 words, why would an editor/journo plough through them?
Because they’re professional, interested and want to report an accurate story and welcome such detailed reasons as long as they come in a timely manner and not at 5pm, as has unfortunately happened in the past (and for which you and anyone else would be entirely right to criticise us for and for which I would make little, if any, defence).
It also helps that there are invariably numerous sections of the reasons that are newsworthy.
You mention in your other response I referred to a ‘disaster for racing’ – I did not. I believe I said it would reflect badly and I stand by that.
That was me being lazy and paraphrasing, apologies. As I’ve said previously, you might be right but I think any such criticism – by you or anyone else – would be churlish and that the decision would be easily defendable.
Anyone found guilty of mistreating horses should, at the very least, have his or her licence suspended pending sentence/appeal – the benefit of the doubt should go to the animal, not the accused…I suspect that in cases of animal cruelty the Law does indeed place the rights of the animal above the abuser.My point was not about the dead horse, it was about animals still in the care of anyone found guilty of animal cruelty.
That assumes guilt of ‘cruelty’. We don’t know that.
I’m not getting ‘exercised’ about it from a personal viewpoint. My frustrations arise from an issue which I believe will reflect badly on racing, offer ammunition to anti-racing campaigners and, annoyingly, a matter that could easily be dealt with given some foresight, a little planning and an appropriate set of priorities.
As I’ve said before, the simple act of the operation being performed will provide ammo to anti-racing campaigners, not a 7/8 day delay. That concern/ammo will opnly be successfully addressed through an appropriate sanction if he’s found in breach. There is no lack of foresight, planning nor is it a matter of the wrong set of priorities. The priorities are entirely in the correct order – innocent until proven guilty, fair hearing and then a decision that will be widely published that will include full and detailed reasons for that decision.
Paul, appreciate you coming here and explaining but I’m going to say I’m pretty appalled. Everyone I know with a real interest in racing has been waiting for the outcome of this for months. Several are already pretty irked its taken so long to even get to a hearing. I despair if the racing press were disinterested but maybe that’s good for Racing for Change as their target audience appears to be the clueless drinker.
If Johnson knows I see no reason why everyone else can’t know now. People are not always sentenced immediately at trial but you know what the verdict is. It makes no difference to Johnson appealing or not if the outcome is made public.
He’s admitted the neurectomy, whatever the excuses. Surely the only debate is "how long". The delay is just creating a ferment of speculation and it’s also giving the impression that it’s going to be brushed under the carpet and it’ll be nothing more than a fine.
1. Totally understand the frustrations regarding the delay from charge to hearing, it frustrates us. I tried to address this in the Post this week in relation to the jockeys who were charged:
It has always been the Authority’s position to issue charges and subsequently name those individuals involved. We announce the names of those charged because we are committed to being open and transparent – this approach is echoed by other sports and the legal system. When we issue charges we do so in a factual manner and ensure that licensed individuals are aware that we are doing so, providing in advance copies of the releases where practicable.
“The circumstances surrounding these latest charges highlight why we adopt this position. When the rumours about the possibility of impending charges began circulating around 15 different names were being mentioned within press circles. This uncertainty and suspicion was casting a cloud over the whole weighing room, and at least one legal professional told us that the uncertainty was damaging to other jockeys in the weighing room and was causing high levels of stress.
“If we refused to name any individual charged until nearer the time of the hearing a cloud of suspicion would hang over every jockey, and the gossip and press interest would never wane and this could only negatively impact public confidence in racing.
“Five months is an unusually long wait between charges being issued and a hearing being convened. Ideally we would like to deal with these matters sooner but on a number of occasions in the past we have received requests for a minimum period of three months for case preparation. We would usually agree to these requests as being fair and reasonable in complex cases such as this.
“In anticipation of such requests, and given the potential involvement of numerous legal teams, we set aside two weeks from the 20 October for the hearing to ensure we would not have to move away from this date. This gives ample time for those charged to prepare their defence and allows for any pre-hearing issues to be dealt with by the Disciplinary Panel in advance of the hearing if necessary.
“It has not been the practice of the Authority or its predecessor to impose immediate suspensions pending the hearing of our own disciplinary charges.”2. I didn’t say the racing press or any other press were disinterested – quite the opposite. All I said was that none of them raised Joe’s very specific point about the 7/8 day wait for a result being a disaster for racing.
3. On the basis we’ve said full reasons will be published by next Weds, we will proactively release the result and it will be widely distributed by us (and widely covered by the press), anyone who thinks it’s going to be brushed under the carpet isn’t really thinking.
4. I’ve answered why I firmly believe that it’s far better that a result and penalty is accompanied with detailed reasons in my reply to Joe.
5. If he’s in breach and if people feel the Penalty is inadequate that will be a problem for us to deal with even though the Panel acts independent of BHA.
6. Even if the Panel (note, in light of point 5 above, the Panel, not me or BHA) had released the result, there would still be – if he’s in breach – ‘fervent speculation’ about the Penalty. And he’d still have his licence pending any penalty (which additionally deals with one of Joe’s points).
I reckon that’s probably all I can reasonably say on thus until we know the full result.
Paul, thanks for responding in such detail. I assumed there was no precedent for the delay because your response to my question about it on twitter did not, for some reason, reach my Tweetdeck timeline (I found it by going back through all your tweets)- so I owe you an apology there.
I’m surprised that not a single journalist shared my concern that (again we are moving into a hypothetical situation here but pending an announcement, there is no other light in which it can be debated) a licensed trainer who might face a ban for effectively abusing animals in his care, is allowed to retain charge of those animals a minute longer than is necessary.
That neither you nor any of the journalists you spoke to – assuming there were a few – consider that this will reflect badly on racing is astounding, in my view.
Returning to the delay itself, is it not the case that for the panel to make the ‘accused’ aware of their findings, they must have gone through the evidence in detail and taken all aspects into account?
Had they not done so, there would be no findings. If this is the way it works, why then does it take up to 10 days to write down what they must already know?
Joe
1. They didn’t, but that’s not to say they won’t in future. My point is the entire delay (from charge to possible sentence, assuming there is one) would be the issue, not just a couple of days at the end. Complaining about 7/8 days would be utterly churlish in my opinion
2. They would have gone through all the evidence but were still hearing some of it on Tuesday. As I’ve said elsewhere, whilst whether or not he is in breach is known by the parties, what neither party is aware of is any penalty if there is to be a penalty.
3. If you’ve read any of the Panel’s previous reasons in other hearings you wil know they are almost thesis-like – 5,000 to 10,000 words – which is why it might take 7/8 days to write down, especially when the Panel aren’t employees and hold down other jobs.
4. Had they given and authorised the publication of a few small paras on breach and penalty I can say with certainty the reasons, when the came, would gain virtually zero coverage. That is not good to or for racing.Who actually pays all these legal costs??? must be costing a fortune.. The BHA?? Or if Johnson loses he has to cough up??
Both sides pay their own legal fees. The Rules allow for the application of costs following a Disciplinary Panel hearing but I don’t think we’ve ever applied for costs at that stage just because we were successful, except in positive samples where the trainer has requested a B sample and costs are awarded in relation to the costs incurred from a B sample. If someone charged won they would be entitled to apply for costs but it’s up the Panel – not us – as to whether to award them.
Costs have certainly be awarded following Appeal board hearings, where the Appeal is unsuccessful and the Board have concluded that the appeal was without merit.
If you win at the BHA you do not get your costs but in reality you do not get many winners at a tribunal where the prosecution pay the panel
In the last two years there have been 57 appeals against the decision of the Stewards heard by the Disciplinary Panel and 24 of those have been successful, a success rate of 42%.
With regards to Disciplinary Panel hearings that aren’t appeals, we only charge where we believe there is a strong likelihood of the Panel finding a breach. If we were charging people willy-nilly and lots of people were found not in breach I think many people would question – rightly – our processes.
If proccedings went further than the BHA ,in other words into a proper court where the Judge is not paid by the BHA like the Dean McKeown case then normal cost rules would apply, I think McKeown had to pay 85% of the BHA costs
The implication that, because Panel members get paid a relatively token sum and expenses for attending (a sum that would pale into comparison against a QCs / Barrister’s daily rate) implies they’re not independent or biased is daft, especially set against an example where the appellant to court lost, hence the awarding of costs against McKeown.
The Rule on when suspensions come into effect is here: http://rules.britishhorseracing.com/Orders-and-rules&staticID=126251&depth=3 and below (my underlining):
PART 7 – APPEALS – (A)76 to (A)86
________________________________________
85. Implementing decisions subject to right of appeal
85.1 Subject to Paragraphs 85.2 to 85.5,a decision by the Authority against which there is a right of appeal to an Appeal Board shall not be carried into effect until the time for bringing an appeal has expired without an appeal being brought.
85.2 If an appeal is brought, the Authority’s decision shall not be carried into effect until the day after the date on which the appeal
85.2.1 is finally disposed of by an Appeal Board,
85.2.2 is abandoned, or
85.2.3 fails by reason of non-prosecution.
85.3 A refusal by the Authority of any application made to it (such as for the grant or renewal of a licence or permit) shall take effect immediately.
85.4 A decision under Part 6 to suspend a horse from running in future races shall take effect immediately whether or not the Rider, Trainer or other Person has, or exercises, a right of appeal to an Appeal Board.
85.5 A decision to
85.5.1 withdraw or suspend a licence or permit for a period of 3 months or more, or
85.5.2 declare a Person to be a Disqualified Person,
shall take effect on the day after the announcement of the decision unless the Authority or an Appeal Board directs otherwise.
85.6 Any direction under Paragraph 85.5 may be given subject to such restrictions or conditions as the Authority or the Appeal Board considers appropriate.
I initially thought it was 48 hours, not 24, for serious offences, although an individual can make an application for a stay of penalty.If Johnson’s been banned on welfare grounds, the delay in formally announcing that will reflect badly on racing.
There is a big difference between
will
and
might
, and, whilst you might be correct, personally I don’t think it will. From all the journalists that I spoke to about this yesterday (and not just racing journos), not one mentioned this as an issue and all understood the desire to announce the decision with complete and full reasons.
There seems to be no precedent here – HJ will have up to 15 days to decide on whether to appeal rather than the normal 7. During this time horses will remain in his care when – he might (innocent until proved guilty, I know) have been told yesterday he’s no longer a fit and proper person to be caring for horses.
Well on the basis that no decision or penalty was announced yesterday he would therefore not have been informed he’s no longer a fit and proper person to be caring for horses.
I also don’t see any massive difference between having 7 days to consider an appeal and 15, when the time to consider an appeal doesn’t begin until after full reasons have been received. There have been numerous examples/precedents where the decision has been announced but the reasons not received for 7 to 14 days. And, from experience, someone can’t even begin to consider whether to appeal or on what grounds until they have the reasons, so I don’t see what relevance that has.
Welfare is already under intense scrutiny by those opposed to racing – if HJ has been banned, this delay will only provide ammunition for Animal Aid and their ilk.
I don’t believe this delay will make a jot of difference. Whether the delay betwen charge and hearing does is perhaps different, though Animal Aid don’t have a track record of being particularly reasonable in anything they have to say about racing. And if he’s found in breach of the neurectomy charge the fact of that alone is damaging enough, but we can hardly be blamed for that (unless you want to suggest we should have swept it under the carpet). If he is found in breach, and if the penalty is perceived (or is) too lenient, again it’s an entirely different matter.
The announcement will be made once we have received the Panel’s decision and reasons.
Also the reason the hearing was adjourned was because of "unforeseen issues arising in respect of a witness before proceedings began"(unspecified) which led to the hearing going on for longer than had been anticipated. So we do not know whether the Howard Johnson team has engaged in filibustering or not.
Barristers for professional tribunals such as this tend to diary just the day appointed (it’s not an open-ended engagement, in the way a long court case can be) and so the Johnson team most likely do have genuine "other engagements" until August or September.
Frustrating, yes – but that’s the reality.
Just to clarify, the "unforeseen issues" were not to do with any ‘gamesmanship’ on behalf of Howard Johnson’s legal team – it was simply an issue that had to be dealt with by the Panel and delayed the start.
The issue with dates, as you recognise, is arranging the diaries of legal teams – in this case there are five diaries that we need to get space in, and with three members of the legal profession involved, that’s not easy.
It’s frustrating, but it’s a fact of life.
Paul , thanks for the reply
It was a shambles though , and in fairness it was not a great day for your good self …still I have made loads of mistakes , so you should be able to as well
From an outsiders point of view it looked bad
cheers
Ricky
Aye, though as we said at the time on the basis of the information we were originally given there was every reason to expect the substance to clear. I did hold my hands up at the time and had a surprising number of people saying I was wrong to do so, though I still believe I was right when I said if we got it wrong then it was my fault. I’m still not convinced we got it wrong bearing in mind the information we had – imagine us announcing it and then the horse had cleared? Internesting, as comparison, when Takeover Target tested positive in HK they didn’t announce it until they were certain the horse had to be withdrawn.
In Hong Kong trainers (and I presume owners) can request to look at the photo close-up in person. I don’t know if they have this option in the UK?
Yes they do, and in this case connections took up that option on the night, the day after and again this week, and are not appealing the decision.
That’s the one Martin:
HFL Sport Science has reported that the analysis of the urine taken from HEATHER ROYAL, trained by Nicky Henderson, after finishing unplaced in the EBF/DBS Mare’s Standard Open National Hunt Flat Race at Huntingdon on 10th February 2011, has revealed the presence of Dexamethasone, a prohibited substance within the meaning of Rule C (53) of the Rules of Racing. This finding has been confirmed by Laboratoire des Courses Hippiques (LCH France), who performed the counter analysis.
The Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority will hold an Inquiry to consider whether:
1) Nicky Henderson acted in breach of Rule (C)53 of the Rules of Racing in respect of the finding of Dexamethasone in the urine sample taken from Heather Royal;
2) to take action in respect of the possible disqualification of the mare under Rule (A)74.2 Ground 3;
3) Nicky Henderson acted in a breach of Rule C(13) of the Rules of Racing in respect of his failure to keep complete medication records.
Silvoir , any more news on the Binocular affair , it seems to have gone a bit quiet on that front, or is it all forgotten now
what a disgrace
Ricky
Ricky (and Pomp, from another thread rather than duplicate)
The hearing into the Heather Royal positive sample will take place on Thursday 28 July. Binocular, as you will recall, was an elective test and therefore the positive sample itself is not offence. I can’t comment further at this stage.
Paul
did anyone else hear the swedish stewards reopened the enquiry and decided to give ahern another 14 days, which will rule him out of goodwood?
That is correct. His original 7 days ran from 19 to 25 June. They reopened the hearing and suspended him for an additional 14 days, running from 20 July to 2 August inc.
I find that print wholly unsatisfactory.
How do they do it at 9.20 at Wolverhampton in the middle of January?
‘Slipper of the BHA’ (Judith) can come on here all he likes in his ‘spin doctor’ role but why can’t we as the OP asks not see what was available to the Judge?
Pomp – I’ll happily try and arrange for you to come up to the judges box with me at a meeting and show you.
PM me some dates and I’ll see what I can sort.
Paul/Slipper/Judith
We had a number of complaints over the weekend about this incident, and I spoke to Ed Gretton (Chester’s Clerk of the Course) on Saturday AM and also to our Principal Judge. Here is his explanation of events:
The problem with the photo last night, in the 9.20pm race at Chester, was that they raced virtually in the dark and although the light of the TV images are enhanced, sadly this is not the same for photo-finish. Because we are taking 1000 frames per second to capture the result the cameras need good light in which to work, and as the light deteriorates so does the sharpness and quality of the image, that we have to work with.
As the principals crossed the line, The Judge called a photo-finish and went up to the photo-finish room to be able to view the images directly on the actual laptops that are connected to the cameras, rather than just directing the Photo-finish Operator to pass the feed down to the Judges box. The Judge took the time to view the images on both cameras, doing all that could be done to try and enhance the image to be able to determine the result. This obviously all takes time and all the time The Judge is working under pressure, to determine the result.
Our instructions are to declare a result where there is the evidence to the Judge, to be able to prove the case. This is exactly what the Judge has done on the night, and I can confirm having worked at the meeting today and reviewed the race, that I concur with the result given. However the evidence would not have shown anything conclusive to Racing UK viewers or by putting a huge image up on big screens on the course. As Principal Judge I have today produced prints that have both satisfied the wife of the Trainer of the second placed horse and the Clerk of the Course at Chester, however they need to be explained by the Judge, who has the experience of how to read these images, taking into account the angles of heads, the wearing of nosebands and other identifying features on the horses in question.
The Result was declared absolutely correctly but under very difficult circumstances. Having watched a replay of the race on TV it was very much on the nod as the horses crossed the line with the eye being drawn to the second placed horse, Shernando, as it was the faster finisher and was in front after the line, but the TV pictures are taken from an angle before the line. The Public must remember that the only cameras that are actually on the finishing line are the Photo-finish cameras and on the evidence of these the Judge was able to declare a result.
We now have the photofinish image on JPEG format. I can understand that it would not have been especially helpful on the evening but it would be a pretty stubborn person who, on the basis of the comments above and the image, still thought the wrong result was called. If anyone wants a copy of the image please do email us on info@britishhorseracing.com
Paul
Bit surprising that such an important source of income to Racing was sold to Betfred on such vagaries as "bursting with ideas", "really excites us", "too early to give an exact answer", "throw some ideas around".
Not one, simple, concrete answer to any Tote question asked here, and a plug for top fixed odds into the bargain.
Thanks for taking the time. Racing is in good hands.
The key for me, speaking from a strictly personal perspective, was this:
RedRum77
Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:43 pm
by RedRum77 on Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:43 pmSince your taking over the tote. If I bet with the tote in future, will some of the levy be put back into racing to help
it?All Betfred shops contribute to the levy and this will continue. We want racing to thrive in this country. Racing is the core product in the Betfred shops and this will always remain the case
Hmm. Any guarantees of payment beyond year one?
Whatever happened about the Roy sharegate scandal? Silvoir assured us he would get back to us on it. I must have missed that!
Not strictly true amigo. I said "If BHA have anything to say I will post it on here."
Silvoir – the RP is suggesting that Phil Smith will have the final say as to what gets in and what doesn’t. They are implying that it will be up to him to decide what gets ranked ahead of what.
Now I appreciate that he does this already in his capacity as official handicapper but can you clarify the situation here please.
That’s purely in relation to the inital handicapping of the race. Once the handicap marks have been allotted, elimination is as per the extract from the Racing Calendar that I reproduced above.
