There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
14 Feb 13
21:01
Joined:
Date Joined:
10 Jun 07
Open letter to BHA Director of Integrity, Legal and Risk
Dear Mr Adam Brickell,
I have a few questions with regards to the findings published on 22nd February 2011, Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons v James Main and its impact on the Disciplinary Hearing heard in June 2009:
1) During the hearing the Panel raised the possibility of adjourning the enquiry to see if Mr Main might respond to invitations to attend from the BHA or even from the Panel direct.
Why would the BHA look to suppress such evidence?
2) Until his resignation following the incident, Mr James Main was the veterinary adviser to the National Trainers Federation (“NTF”) which represents trainers’ interests. As the NTF’s representative he was a member of the British Horseracing Authority’s (“BHA”) Veterinary Committee. He also sat on the BHA’s Counter-Analysis Advisory Committee.
Mr Main therefore knew Instruction C9 regarding the prohibition on any substance other than normal feed and water being given to a horse on the day of a race was introduced in 2003. Obviously it would have been embarrassing for the BHA that a member of the above committees was in front of a disciplinary panel showing his understanding that tranexamic acid was undetectable on testing following a race and that the procedure was widely used by other veterinary surgeons and trainers on race day. Is this why Mr James Main was not called to give evidence?
3) Professor Morris believed that the laboratory used by the BHA had been able to identify tranexamic acid as part of its testing process for a number of years prior to 2009. However, the only other occasion the BHA had been notified of a positive result showing the presence of tranexamic acid in a sample had been in March 2009.
Again would the evidence of James Main and Tom Symonds have highlighted the inefficiencies of BHA’s Doping Control?
4) Professor Morris said in his written statement that he believed that testing for tranexamic acid had been in place for some time. He also said that he was aware of only one other instance of a horse testing positive in March 2009, which was shortly after Moonlit Path’s positive test.
Obviously the tests upto to February 2009 were either too infrequent, or not upto standard. Was there any noticeable change in testing procedures between 2003 and February 2009?
5) While it is evident from the BHA’s Guidelines that the sensitivity of the tests is in a process of continual development, the Committee is unable to speculate as to why tranexamic acid had not tested positive on horses to which Mr Main had administered it on previous occasions. However, it is satisfied that Mr Main believed at the time he administered the injection that Moonlit Path would not test positive for tranexamic acid.
Ouch – That has got to hurt?
A member of the BHA Counter-Analysis Advisory Committee working on the understanding the horse would not test positive.
6) The BHA Guidance states “Not all prohibited substances are detectable in racing laboratories but they are still prohibited. Where such substances are of concern to racing authorities they will encourage their racing laboratories to develop new methods to detect them. Do not forget that some samples that have been declared negative are frozen and will be reanalysed if/when new methods are developed”
Has the BHA carried out tests on samples between the period of 2003 and February 2009 to see if they tested positive for tranexamic acid?
7) The Committee has considered very carefully the explanation put forward by Mr Main for the use of the term “pre-race check” on Moonlit Path’s clinical records, and indeed, on the invoice. It has concluded that the use of the term was, in effect, a protocol developed over several years between the practice and Mr Henderson to conceal the administration of tranexamic acid by injection to a horse on a race day. The Committee is satisfied that Mr Main used the term in the practice clinical record and on the invoice, to conceal that an injection of tranexamic acid had been administered to a horse on a race day. It is sure that the underlying purpose shared by both Mr Main and Mr Henderson was to conceal a breach of Instruction C9 when the BHA inspected the yard’s records. Both Mr Symonds and Mr Pauling showed obvious discomfiture during their evidence when admitting that they knew that no substance should be given to a horse on a race day other than normal food and water and that was why injections of tranexamic acid were not entered into the yard’s own medication record.
How many medical records, at Nicky Henderson’s or other trainers whose vets were O’Gorman Slater Main & Partners, were reviewed following the publication of these findings?
8) The Committee carefully observed Mr Main when he was asked questions about the use of the term “pre-race check” and observed his obvious unease. Any disagreement Mr Main may have had with the BHA’s rules of racing did not justify him perpetuating a practice that he knew was designed to conceal from the BHA that tranexamic acid had been administered to a horse on a race day.
Ouch – That has got to hurt?
9) In the witness statement which he provided to the BHA on 3rd June 2009 he said at paragraph 16: “At the time I injected Moonlit Path I was aware that there had been a relatively recent change to the rules of racing in that it had become prohibited to administer any substance on the day of racing. I presumed Mr Henderson was also aware of the rule. I did not ask when she was to run.” Putting to one side that the change in the rule occurred in 2003, the Committee concluded that at the time he prepared his witness statement he was avoiding any admission that he knew Moonlit Path was to race on the same day as he administered the injection when he said “I did not ask when she was to run.”
Can you please advise the time frame Mr James Main was on the BHA’s Counter-Analysis Advisory Committee. Can you please also advise the process re the rule change in 2003 and what committees were involved.
10) The Committee also concluded that it is inconceivable that an experienced equine veterinary surgeon in Mr Main’s position as the NTF veterinary representative on the BHA Veterinary Committee and a member of the Counter Analysis Committee would not have known of the existence of Instruction C9, or indeed, the other rules of racing referred to in this case. The content of the foreword written by Mr Main on Detection Times Information in the NTF Medication Record is indicative of his state of knowledge when he said “There is an increasing amount of information being published regarding detection times for residues following administration of different medications, this is useful information and the work of the BHA in this area should be applauded. However, trainers should be aware of variations due to individual horse absorption and metabolism differences in drug preparations and routes of administration … Trainers should consult their veterinary surgeon regarding acceptable withdrawal times for a particular medication.”
Guess he’s stopped applauding.
Kind regards
Daniel Kelly
Dear Mr Adam Brickell,
I have a few questions with regards to the findings published on 22nd February 2011, Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons v James Main and its impact on the Disciplinary Hearing heard in June 2009:
1) During the hearing the Panel raised the possibility of adjourning the enquiry to see if Mr Main might respond to invitations to attend from the BHA or even from the Panel direct.
Why would the BHA look to suppress such evidence?
2) Until his resignation following the incident, Mr James Main was the veterinary adviser to the National Trainers Federation (“NTF”) which represents trainers’ interests. As the NTF’s representative he was a member of the British Horseracing Authority’s (“BHA”) Veterinary Committee. He also sat on the BHA’s Counter-Analysis Advisory Committee.
Mr Main therefore knew Instruction C9 regarding the prohibition on any substance other than normal feed and water being given to a horse on the day of a race was introduced in 2003. Obviously it would have been embarrassing for the BHA that a member of the above committees was in front of a disciplinary panel showing his understanding that tranexamic acid was undetectable on testing following a race and that the procedure was widely used by other veterinary surgeons and trainers on race day. Is this why Mr James Main was not called to give evidence?
3) Professor Morris believed that the laboratory used by the BHA had been able to identify tranexamic acid as part of its testing process for a number of years prior to 2009. However, the only other occasion the BHA had been notified of a positive result showing the presence of tranexamic acid in a sample had been in March 2009.
Again would the evidence of James Main and Tom Symonds have highlighted the inefficiencies of BHA’s Doping Control?
4) Professor Morris said in his written statement that he believed that testing for tranexamic acid had been in place for some time. He also said that he was aware of only one other instance of a horse testing positive in March 2009, which was shortly after Moonlit Path’s positive test.
Obviously the tests upto to February 2009 were either too infrequent, or not upto standard. Was there any noticeable change in testing procedures between 2003 and February 2009?
5) While it is evident from the BHA’s Guidelines that the sensitivity of the tests is in a process of continual development, the Committee is unable to speculate as to why tranexamic acid had not tested positive on horses to which Mr Main had administered it on previous occasions. However, it is satisfied that Mr Main believed at the time he administered the injection that Moonlit Path would not test positive for tranexamic acid.
Ouch – That has got to hurt?
A member of the BHA Counter-Analysis Advisory Committee working on the understanding the horse would not test positive.
6) The BHA Guidance states “Not all prohibited substances are detectable in racing laboratories but they are still prohibited. Where such substances are of concern to racing authorities they will encourage their racing laboratories to develop new methods to detect them. Do not forget that some samples that have been declared negative are frozen and will be reanalysed if/when new methods are developed”
Has the BHA carried out tests on samples between the period of 2003 and February 2009 to see if they tested positive for tranexamic acid?
7) The Committee has considered very carefully the explanation put forward by Mr Main for the use of the term “pre-race check” on Moonlit Path’s clinical records, and indeed, on the invoice. It has concluded that the use of the term was, in effect, a protocol developed over several years between the practice and Mr Henderson to conceal the administration of tranexamic acid by injection to a horse on a race day. The Committee is satisfied that Mr Main used the term in the practice clinical record and on the invoice, to conceal that an injection of tranexamic acid had been administered to a horse on a race day. It is sure that the underlying purpose shared by both Mr Main and Mr Henderson was to conceal a breach of Instruction C9 when the BHA inspected the yard’s records. Both Mr Symonds and Mr Pauling showed obvious discomfiture during their evidence when admitting that they knew that no substance should be given to a horse on a race day other than normal food and water and that was why injections of tranexamic acid were not entered into the yard’s own medication record.
How many medical records, at Nicky Henderson’s or other trainers whose vets were O’Gorman Slater Main & Partners, were reviewed following the publication of these findings?
8) The Committee carefully observed Mr Main when he was asked questions about the use of the term “pre-race check” and observed his obvious unease. Any disagreement Mr Main may have had with the BHA’s rules of racing did not justify him perpetuating a practice that he knew was designed to conceal from the BHA that tranexamic acid had been administered to a horse on a race day.
Ouch – That has got to hurt?
9) In the witness statement which he provided to the BHA on 3rd June 2009 he said at paragraph 16: “At the time I injected Moonlit Path I was aware that there had been a relatively recent change to the rules of racing in that it had become prohibited to administer any substance on the day of racing. I presumed Mr Henderson was also aware of the rule. I did not ask when she was to run.” Putting to one side that the change in the rule occurred in 2003, the Committee concluded that at the time he prepared his witness statement he was avoiding any admission that he knew Moonlit Path was to race on the same day as he administered the injection when he said “I did not ask when she was to run.”
Can you please advise the time frame Mr James Main was on the BHA’s Counter-Analysis Advisory Committee. Can you please also advise the process re the rule change in 2003 and what committees were involved.
10) The Committee also concluded that it is inconceivable that an experienced equine veterinary surgeon in Mr Main’s position as the NTF veterinary representative on the BHA Veterinary Committee and a member of the Counter Analysis Committee would not have known of the existence of Instruction C9, or indeed, the other rules of racing referred to in this case. The content of the foreword written by Mr Main on Detection Times Information in the NTF Medication Record is indicative of his state of knowledge when he said “There is an increasing amount of information being published regarding detection times for residues following administration of different medications, this is useful information and the work of the BHA in this area should be applauded. However, trainers should be aware of variations due to individual horse absorption and metabolism differences in drug preparations and routes of administration … Trainers should consult their veterinary surgeon regarding acceptable withdrawal times for a particular medication.”
Guess he’s stopped applauding.
Kind regards
Daniel Kelly
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 109
|
By:
28 July 2011
Nicky Henderson fined over Heather Royal failed test Henderson is one of jump racing's most successful trainers Trainer Nicky Henderson has been fined £3,500 and his runner Heather Royal disqualified after the horse tested positive for a banned substance. A urine sample revealed the presence of dexamethasone after the horse finished sixth at Huntingdon on 10 February. This subsequently led to Binocular's withdrawal from his defence of the Champion Hurdle at Cheltenham. Binocular had been receiving treatment for a rash with the same drug and was likely to also test positive. A British Horseracing Authority disciplinary panel accepted an admission from Henderson that he was in breach of the rule over positive drug tests and imposed upon him a fine of £2,000. He was also ordered to pay £500 towards the cost of the analysis of the 'B' sample. Henderson also admitted he was in breach of the rule regarding keeping complete medication records and fined him a further £1,000. Both fines reflected it was Henderson's second offence within the previous two years. Henderson won the Cheltenham Gold Cup for the first time with Long Run in March. In 2009, he was fined a record £40,000 and banned from racing horses for three months. He was found to have breached the rules after Moonlit Path, which he trains for the Queen, failed a drugs test. Henderson insisted he had not sought to boost performance. |
|
By:
Henderson told the hearing that at the time of the Huntingdon race he was unaware that tranexamic acid, which can aid the recovery of horses who have suffered from bleeding in the lungs, was a banned substance. Asked by Kieran Coonan QC, representing Main, whether he knew of other trainers using the same substance, Henderson said: "I do now." He added: "I didn't before that, but I do now because of the amount of trainers who came up to me after the case and said 'I'm not using it any more'." Coonan continued: "The inference being?" Henderson replied: "That there were plenty of trainers who were using it."
Henderson also told the hearing that while he was unaware that it was against the Rules of Racing to give a horse anything but normal feed and water on the day of a race, "someone was aware of the fact that it shouldn't have been done on the day" because the injection was not listed in the yard's records. He suggested that this might have been Tom Symonds, his assistant trainer, who did not give evidence to the BHA hearing into the case, but is expected to appear before the RCVS panel later this week. Henderson said in evidence yesterday that he first realised that TA was a banned substance when he received a letter from the BHA informing him of the positive test. "I was very surprised," he said. "I didn't think we had administered anything terribly illegal and the horse [which finished sixth] had not exactly won the race. I was a bit disappointed with the whole scenario. I couldn't believe it was going to lead to what it has led to. The horse hadn't won, so it couldn't be disqualified." |
|
By:
Clinical Record Entry – “Pre Race Check”
“Check” – Dictionary – Examine (something) in order to determine its accuracy, quality, or condition, or to detect the presence of something. “Pre-race check” – Nicky Henderson, Tom Symonds, Ben Pauling and James Main – a protocol developed over several years between the practice and Mr Henderson to conceal the administration of tranexamic acid by injection to a horse on a race day. So for any of you who have not been following my tweets in recent days; In June 2009 headline in Telegraph was as follows: Nicky Henderson has been fined a record £40,000 and banned from making entries for three months after being found guilty of administering an anti-bleeding drug to the Queen’s horse Moonlit Path at Huntingdon in February. BHA’s Full Decisions and Reasons can be found here; http://www.britishhorseracing.com...isciplinaryDetail.asp?item=089819 but initially I want to focus on one section in particular: Evidence at this Enquiry 12. The main factual evidence came just from Henderson. He had given notice that he intended to call Mr Main, and he also produced a statement signed on 3 June 2009 from him. This statement was also sent direct by Mr Main to the BHA on 3 June, under cover of a letter in which he expressed disagreement with the note compiled by the BHA investigators of his interview on 9 April. (Mr Main had refused to allow this to be recorded at the time). But on 18 June 2009, the BHA was informed by Henderson’s representatives that Mr Main would not be called to give evidence, because he was refusing to come. 13. As will be apparent from the analysis of this case below, it is obvious that Mr Main had some important, perhaps vital evidence to give. The Panel therefore raised with the parties the possibility of adjourning the enquiry to see if Mr Main might respond to invitations to attend from the BHA or even from the Panel direct. Mr Norris QC for Henderson forcefully opposed this course, and Mr McPherson QC for the BHA doubted whether Mr Main might respond to their invitation, because of the earlier dispute with him about the accuracy of the 9 April interview note. 14. The Panel saw an additional possible benefit from an adjournment. This would have allowed evidence to be taken from Tom Symonds, who was also, in the Panel’s view, someone with an important story to tell. But Mr Norris QC’s reaction to that was again to resist any adjournment, because he did not propose to call any evidence from Symonds. The Panel’s eventual decision was not to adjourn, because it was uncertain whether Mr Main would agree to give evidence, even with the “encouragement” he might be given by drawing his attention to Rule 6 of the Rules of Racing. It remained the Panel’s view that Mr Main and Mr Symonds had potentially crucial evidence to give. So what was this evidence? Well we had to wait for the findings of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeon to be published on the 22nd February 2011, http://www.rcvs.org.uk/document-library/main-feb-2011-findings. Here are the best bits: 12) Henderson said in evidence that he “did not think that we had administered anything terribly illegal and the horse had not exactly won the race”. 21) Main said that it was widely used by other veterinary surgeons and trainers on race days to treat horses with a history of EIPH. 24) The Committee was unimpressed by Mr Henderson’s evidence and were surprised by his apparent lack of knowledge of the rules of racing. It considered that Mr Symonds and Mr Pauling did their best to assist the Committee in difficult circumstances. 25) Committee accepts Mr Main’s oral evidence that he, and other veterinary surgeons at the practice, had administered tranexamic acid to horses on race days at Mr Henderson’s yard over a significant period of time without positive testing. 25) While it is evident from the BHA’s Guidelines that the sensitivity of the tests is in a process of continual development, the Committee is unable to speculate as to why tranexamic acid had not tested positive on horses to which Mr Main had administered it on previous occasions. 32) Committee has concluded that the use of the term was, in effect, a protocol developed over several years between the practice and Mr Henderson to conceal the administration of tranexamic acid by injection to a horse on a race day. 32) It is sure that the underlying purpose shared by both Mr Main and Mr Henderson was to conceal a breach of Instruction C9 when the BHA inspected the yard’s records. Both Mr Symonds and Mr Pauling showed obvious discomfiture during their evidence when admitting that they knew that no substance should be given to a horse on a race day other than normal food and water and that was why injections of tranexamic acid were not entered into the yard’s own medication record. So what happened next? Well Tom Symonds left and started training himself – Be interested to hear the motives behind that move. and…er…well that’s it. So with the findings highlighting a protocol to conceal the administration of banned substances by calling the procedure a “pre race check”, Did the BHA review the clinical records of all Mr Henderson’s horses? Did the BHA review their penalty following the evidence of Mr Main, Mr Symonds and Mr Pauling? A reminder of what was said by BHA QC at the Disciplinary Hearing; Mr McPherson QC for the BHA doubted whether Mr Main might respond to their invitation, because of the earlier dispute with him about the accuracy of the 9 April interview note. Has Mr Main been approached by the BHA with regards to his statement of the protocol being used by other trainers on race day? There are many more questions that need answering after you have read both documents. Be interested to know what questions you would like to ask the BHA or Mr Henderson. Please use the comments section below. |
|
By:
Why sport's fans should be worried by the Nicky Henderson case
If such a senior and respected trainer thinks he can play fast and loose with doping rules, do others share the same cosy assumption? 0 Posted by Greg Wood Tuesday 7 July 2009 00.05 BST The Guardian Nicky Henderson was banned for using a substance that would improve his runners' recovery times in the event of them suffering internal bleeding. Photograph: David Davies/PA Archive/PA Photos Just five weeks ago, only one trainer had ever been banned for a serious breach of Rule 200, the most important of the sport's anti-doping regulations. Now, we have had two in the space of a month. Is this a coincidence? Or a sign that British racing has a growing doping problem? The first point to make about the cases of Matt Gingell, who got a two-year suspension for "milkshaking", and Nicky Henderson, who was banned from making entries for three months and fined £40,000, is that the substances involved, and the intentions of the men using them, were very different. Gingell administered bicarbonate to his horses in a systematic and deliberate attempt to improve their performance. Henderson gave tranexamic acid (TA) to some of his runners in an attempt to improve their recovery time if they suffered internal bleeding due to the stresses of racing. On this basis, it might seem Gingell's case raises the greater concerns. He knowingly attempted to pervert the sport using a technique – or rather, a variation of it – that, in America in particular, has been a pernicious source of corruption in recent years. Yet even so, there are several aspects of the Henderson case that, in a wider context, are much more disturbing. One interesting point about Gingell's attempt to cheat the system, which was rather overlooked at the time, is that it didn't work. In each of the seasons prior to his ban, Gingell's strike-rate was miserable, and as time went on, it was, if anything, getting worse. In the latest jumps season, he had two winners from 117 runners, while he saddled just two Flat winners from 238 runners over the last nine years. These are hardly the sort of mind-boggling stats that were fairly commonplace in America until recently, where some trainers' strike-rates started to reach 25% or more, thanks to their ability to claim apparently ordinary horses and turn them into winning machines. A fair part of this sudden success, it is generally assumed, was the result of handlers using the classic "milkshake", a solution of bicarbonate pumped into a horse's stomach via a tube in its nose, shortly before a race. Since this is never going to be a realistic option in Britain, where horses are trained away from the track, Gingell seems to have used a brand of Milkshake Lite, getting bicarb into his horses either via feed or injections. But while this raised their blood CO² levels beyond the legal threshold, it did not turn the horses into world-beaters, any more than a daily dose of the stuff would have turned Gingell into Aidan O'Brien. What this case shows as much as anything is that there are very good, practical reasons why milkshaking can work in America but is most unlikely to succeed in Britain. Henderson's case, on the other hand, raises far more questions than it answers. In particular, if one of Lambourn's most senior and respected trainers thought that he can give his horses a banned substance on racedays and get away with it, did the rest of them share this cosy assumption too? One way to find out would be to ask James Main, Henderson's vet, who used to record his visits to Seven Barrows to inject horses with TA as a "pre-race check". Alas, Main refused to attend the hearing and, until he co-operates fully with the authorities, there will remain unanswered questions arising from this case. Main is one of the busiest vets in Lambourn, but the BHA appear satisfied that Henderson was the only client on his list whose horses were getting rather more than a raceday once-over. Maddeningly, racing's ruling body will not even examine the medical records of Main's other trainers. So, while the relative bans for Gingell and Henderson may have been justified due to the degree of malicious intent involved, the long-term implications are another matter. As a racing fan and punter, I will not lose much sleep over a small-time trainer caught using a crude and ultimately futile technique to improve his horses. But the discovery that a man of Henderson's stature thinks he can play fast and loose with the doping rules – and was assisted in doing so by his vet – is truly disturbing. |
|
By:
Joined: 09 Nov 2011
Posts: 64889 http://webcache.googleusercontent...3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk 33)The Committee has reluctantly concluded that in concealing from the BHA that tranex-amic acid had been administered by injection to Moonlit Path on 19th February 2009,Mr Main was acting dishonestly. It does not believe that what Mr Coonan on behalf of Mr Main described as being a gesture to the trainer could be construed in any other way. It accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor that the test to be applied in cases of dishonesty was that to be found in R v Ghosh [1982] 75 Cr App R 154 which was set out in the directions given to the Committee before it began its deliberations. That test was agreed as being appropriate by Leading Counsel in this case. The Committee has concluded that by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people what Mr Main did was dishonest. It went on to consider whether Mr Main himself must have re-alised that what he was doing was by those standards dishonest. It is satisfied that Mr Main himself knew that he was acting dishonestly. The Committee carefully observed Mr Main when he was asked questions about the use of the term “pre-race check” and observed his obvious unease. Any disagreement Mr Main may have had with the BHA’s rules of racing did not justify him perpetuating a practice that he knew was designed to conceal from the BHA that tranexamic acid had been administered to a horse on a race day |
|
By:
Binocular drugs test blow puts focus back on Nicky Henderson
Champion Hurdle favourite's withdrawal is second major veterinary controversy for high-profile trainer Greg Wood The Guardian, Sunday 13 March 2011 19.48 GMT The trainer Nicky Henderson became the focus of attention after the Champion Hurdle favourite Binocular was withdrawn from the race. Photograph: Steve Parsons/PA Nicky Henderson said he was "obviously shattered" by the news today that Binocular, the favourite and defending champion, must miss Tuesday's Champion Hurdle because a steroid being used to treat an allergic reaction will not clear the horse's system in time. JP McManus, Binocular's owner and National Hunt racing's greatest supporter, has also had his prime chance of success at this year's Festival snatched away, while a significant number of punters – for whom Henderson expressed his sympathy – are losers before the Festival has even started. For a trainer who has won more than £1m in prize money already this season, Henderson has suffered some significant setbacks over the last couple of years. In 2009 he was banned from making entries for three months over a failed drugs test returned by Moonlit Path, a horse owned by the Queen, and the case returned to the headlines only last month when James Main, the vet who had injected the mare with a banned substance a few hours before a race, was struck off by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. Now another veterinary disaster has struck Henderson. The problem with Binocular, meanwhile, seems to have come to light only because a stablemate returned a positive post-race "A" test for the same substance early last week. The steroid had been administered 18 days prior to the race in question and the recommended withdrawal time is eight days. Until the "B" test has confirmed the finding, the horse's name will not be revealed but two definite post-race drug-test failures and a third avertedonly by Henderson's own request to the British Horseracing Authority for an "elective" test can only prompt speculation about the point at which a series of unfortunate coincidences turns into a pattern. The only consolation for Henderson is that, while it is a huge professional setback and deeply embarrassing, both he and the sport as a whole have been spared the greater potential calamity of a positive test on the winner of a championship event at Cheltenham. There is also the distinct possibility that four good days for his yard at Cheltenham will mean that Binocular's non-appearance will seem a distant memory by Friday evening. Henderson has a realistic chance to win his first Gold Cup with Long Run, he is still the favourite or joint-favourite with Paul Nicholls with most bookmakers to be the Festival's top trainer, and he even retains an each-way chance in the Champion thanks to Oscar Whisky. Because the problem was caught in time there will also be no disciplinary implications for the trainer, while JP McManus, a far more important owner than the Queen in terms of the yard's strength, is also a famously phlegmatic individual who has been, in Henderson's words, "incredibly understanding". Eleven different horses from the Henderson yard have carried McManus's colours this season, including Aigle D'Or, ante-post favourite for the Festival Plate on Thursday. Punters, though, have a right to ask why both Henderson and the British Horseracing Authority – which knew on Thursday that the elective test had been positive – kept the whole business to themselves until Sunday morning. Henderson's column in the Racing Post on Saturday made no mention of Binocular's initial allergic reaction, never mind that his run in the Champion was in jeopardy as a result. On Saturday evening, only hours before the final declarations for the race were due, he was notably positive about Binocular's chance at Sandown. The BHA decided that because most bookmakers were offering a non-runner, no bet concession, the news did not need to be made public. Paul Struthers, the BHA's head of communications, conceded this may have been a mistake. "There is no real body that represents punters, so there was no way to consult one," Struthers said. "On Friday the situation was still very confusing, so we were not able to put a great deal out and we wanted to do the [final] tests. Maybe it was wrong but from the punters' point of view, most were betting with the protection of non-runner no-bet. Obviously that doesn't apply to exchange betting but there just didn't seem to be a huge amount of activity on the exchanges." In the run-up to the Festival, though, all information has a value. When there is a doubt about the ante-post favourite for a championship race, keeping it quiet should not be an option. and on and on it goes and nobody is asking some serious questions  |
|
By:
Big fish bend rules.
|
|
By:
apple cart and all that.
|
|
By:
What annoys me is the fact that these issues appeared to have been swept under the carpet by the media and the powers that be,once can be called a mistake,two three and four and alarm bells start to ring.,
Too much stuff has gone on and most of it appears to be medical with our Nicky , but the old schoolboy network has protected its own,any smaller trainer would've been banned from training for a far longer period and not the convenient few months during the summer. |
|
By:
Bobs Worth out a few days before a race, Simonsig too, and now Grandouet.
 |
|
By:
Sometimes they dont flush out of the system on time innit
 |
|
By:
yup
|
|
By:
They destroyed Ho Jo. Old Nick must have the right tie.
|
|
By:
it's the right breeding old boy
|
|
By:
have you got the one about Hendo laying all his horses at the 2011 Festival, TT?
Penalty from the BHA? What penalty...... |
|
By:
a very disturbing thread , one that asks the right questions , but will we receive the right answers.....methinks not....my god some of that stuff is like what you'd read in a d francis novel .....scary.....
|
|
By:
Not yet pedro
 but there's the case when the stable lad won a cool million with an acca,how did he know all the intended targets before christmas,when the trainer wasn't sure !David Williams of Ladbrokes estimated that at that time Sprinter Sacre would have been around 7-1, Simonsig 20-1, Bobs Worth 6-1, Finian's Rainbow 12-1 and Riverside Theatre 16-1 for accumulated odds of 259,895‑1. An especially clever feature of the bet is that it anticipated Simonsig would run in the Neptune Novice Hurdle, as he eventually did, at a time when most people expected him to take part in a different race at the Festival. Contacted as he was leaving the racecourse, Henderson said: "It's absolutely wonderful. He's the nicest, kindest, gentlest man and he rides Finian's Rainbow every day. He's got more confidence in me than I have and he obviously took a rather strong view, before Christmas, I gather." |
|
By:
Workrider,that's exactly the point,questions need to be asked and if people read the open letter and the ROYAL COLLEGE OF VETERINARY SURGEONS V JAMES MAIN FINDINGS they will see why.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9PYmkgU1eL4J:www.rcvs.org.uk/document-library/main-feb-2011-findings/+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk |
|
By:
how did he know all the intended targets before christmas,when the trainer wasn't sure !
Maybe the name on the yard's licence is not the trainer, TT..... |
|
By:
I hear ya pedro.
|
|
By:
its a bit long of a read for this time of night turnip turns.. will read it tomorrow , when the mind is fresher ....
|
|
By:
i know workrider and appreciate that,but things need airing rather than brushed away,something to my mind is clearly amiss and needs addressing .
|
|
By:
i fully agree turnip turns...although it would be hard for them to turn on one of their own ...but just you wait till one of those little lads get found out ...then you'll see the whip been cracked....
|
|
By:
Oh yeah,its always the small guy who gets it for sure,my understanding is that letters have been sent and are awaiting replies,we'll see..........
|
|
By:
i hope you're right , it would be a shame to let this die ...i hope they get their comeuppance ....
|
|
By:
We live in hope workrider,its been awhile since the offence happened ,but there are many issues that need looking at that weren't at the time,hence the thread,people forget and memories need to be refreshed.
|
|
By:
Didnt the Racing Post investigate this and push for answers
 Im obviously outta my mind |
|
By:
you is hello
 |
|
By:
Nothing to add to this excellent thread....just want to get it to the top of the list so that more people actually read it....by the way who is chemical nick's current assistant trainer ?
|
|
By:
I ploughed through the report of the disciplinary hearing and the final conclusion states:
The Committee has reluctantly concluded that Mr Main knew that Mr Henderson would be in breach of the BHA’s rules of racing when he injected Moonlit Path with tranex- amic acid on 19th February 2009 on a race day and when he dishonestly concealed in his practice clinical record that he had done so. Reluctantly? The Royal College of Vets should be ashamed of themselves. |
|
By:
has he ever been asked about trabolgans running at haydock ?
|
|
By:
remind me jimnast.....?
|
|
By:
workrider
11/10 out to 7/4 in a 4 horse race ran poor,won sun alliance chase next time out,around the time when there was a suspicious race at market rasen with one of his. |
|
By:
Remember it well Jimnast.....
|
|
By:
They could also ask him for his comments on this race while they're at it........
http://www.racingpost.com/horses/result_home.sd?race_id=344933&r_date=2004-02-18&popup=yes#results_top_tabs=re_&results_bottom_tabs=ANALYSIS |
|
By:
hello chris are you ok ?
|
|
By:
i'd forgotten about that jimnast , strange alright , chris b..i remember THAT RIDE shocking ..... the old school tie , certainly worth the price....you know old boy.....
|
|
By:
I'm fine thanks jimnast - will come and see you at Newmarket in a couple of months for a catch up.
|
|
By:
workrider - there was a thread on here a few months ago which confirmed a lot of rumours about certain races such as the Tollbrae one.
|