Forum Replies Created
- Posts
I’m not trying to fuel any prejudicial and out of date view.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’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 seriously hope we don’t lose any and am with Drone on Bangor.
Nothing better than sitting on that "hill" on a fine day with the sun on your face.
A most ridiculous day’s racing.
As for no flat meetings tomorrow I almost breathed a sigh of relief having waded through 12 handicaps of Class 3 or better this morning and into the afternoon.
What on earth is all that about?
It’s what going to take racing into the main stream and attract the yoof.
Anyway could be worse, could be "I Feel Good" which I am subjected to occasionally if my football team choose to score a goal.
Can understand the point being made re the Maiden races although it seems to me there is an obvious answer here from the examples given.
Simply back the outsider of the two.
P. Nicholls: 3-2-2
D. Pipe: 2-0-1
A. King: 1-1-1
W. Mullins: 3-2-1
N. Henderson: 2-1-2
P. Hobbs: 1-1-1Total entry = 27
The internet is a wonderful place.
It allows us to air thoughts publicly that we would otherwise consider and keep to ourself or debate in a private circle.
Newbury’s competence has been questioned and individuals have had their characters/motivations etc. questioned without any of us being in possession of the facts as known at the time decisions were taken.
This was a unique set of circumstances and I would defy anyone to be 100% assured that they would have made in the heat of the moment what in hindsight appear to be the correct calls in all cases.
The main question has to be what changed between deciding to run the first race and then calling racing off.
Paul Struthers has now said there were no incidents of burning etc so why did they decide to race the first and cancel afterwards???
That’s the main thing we need answering and we need explanations.
That is what the investigation should look to establish alongside the cause of the fatalities.
It was an unprecedented situation that I doubt any racecourse executive is actually prepared for.
My own view is that due to the nature of the event racing should have been suspended. This was not a single horse incident, four had been affected by something unknown.
However, I recognise that is easy to say from a distance with no pressure.
Let’s not pre-empt the investigation’s findings or take a jaundiced view to the nature the investigation may take.
At the moment SEB (independent) are looking at the parade ring, Liverpool University at Leahurst (independent) undertaking autopsies and and the lead rein is being forensically examined (presumably independent). Granted this is cause but it demonstrates a credible start to the investigations.
First off, what a distressing experience for those directly involved at the course be they connections or spectators.
Clearly racing should not have gone ahead after the incident and that it did was a mistake. This was not a case of one horse collapsing. Four horses had experienced similar trauma which had led to two fatalities.
However, today provided an unprecedented set of circumstances and I will await the outcome of the investigation before making any judgements.
We have already had the burnt mouth’s that weren’t and the singed lead rein that wasn’t. That shows just how speculation can muddy waters.
Premiership Racing and Championship Racing, dear oh dear if we actually get to that type of labelling – which I’m sure RfC would love.
If football is an example then the lower tiers will bounce along on the bones of their a**e being offered occasional crumbs.
But hell, the top level raises all the income so why shouldn’t it keep it rather than act in a responsible way for the good of the sport overall.
League One club supporter
Meet the new ML
Same as the old ML…Come on, the experts are on the hosts left now and not to the right.
Can anyone explain why it’s taken so long to get to this point.
It’s nearly a year since Striking Article died and the steroid offences are even older.
