Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
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
Show More
Bobs Worth out a few days before a race, Simonsig too, and now Grandouet.
Sometimes they dont flush out of the system on time innit 
They destroyed Ho Jo. Old Nick must have the right tie.
have you got the one about Hendo laying all his horses at the 2011 Festival, TT?
Penalty from the BHA? What penalty......
Penalty from the BHA? What penalty......
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.....
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."
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."
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
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
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.....
Maybe the name on the yard's licence is not the trainer, TT.....
its a bit long of a read for this time of night turnip turns.. will read it tomorrow , when the mind is fresher ....
i know workrider and appreciate that,but things need airing rather than brushed away,something to my mind is clearly amiss and needs addressing .
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....
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..........
i hope you're right , it would be a shame to let this die ...i hope they get their comeuppance ....
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.
Didnt the Racing Post investigate this and push for answers 
Im obviously outta my mind
Im obviously outta my mind
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 ?
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.
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.
has he ever been asked about trabolgans running at haydock ?
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.
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.
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
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
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.....
I'm fine thanks jimnast - will come and see you at Newmarket in a couple of months for a catch up.
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.
thats great chris i am at the craven for pleasure,then working at the guineas.
i spoke to a guy at cheltenhams april meeting 2 years ago , he seemed to know the trainer well , he was in his 70s , the things he told me would make your hair curl , in my case that's a no no........in fact his hatred of him was unreal , so i took what he had to say with a pinch of salt...but after those revelations it got me thinking....
....in fact his hatred of him was unreal , so i took what he had to say with a pinch of salt...but after those revelations it got me thinking....
Disciplinary Panel Enquiries
RESULT OF AN ENQUIRY HEARD BY THE DISCIPLINARY PANEL ON WEDNESDAY 25TH NOVEMBER 2009
In absence:
LARKHAM (USA) / Ralph Beckett
The Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) on 25 November 2009 held an enquiry into the analysis of the urine ordered to be taken from LARKHAM (USA), trained by Ralph Beckett, by the Stewards at Newbury after the gelding had finished first in the Mirage Signs Handicap Stakes on 15 August 2009.
The urine of the horse was found to contain ranitidine, which is a prohibited substance. After considering the evidence, including statements from Beckett and his Veterinary Surgeon, the Panel was satisfied that the source of the substance was an administration of 45 ml of Ulcer Guard (20 ml in the morning and 25ml in the evening) which was mistakenly given, in the usual Head Lad’s absence, to LARKHAM (USA) on 10 August 2009.
The Panel accepted an admission from Beckett that he was in breach of Rule 53 of the Rules of Racing. It imposed a fine of £4000, and in addition, under Rule 180(ii), disqualified LARKHAM (USA) from the race, placing GENEVA GEYSER (GER) first, WOODLARK ISLAND (IRE) second, MYKINGDOMFORAHORSE third and NATURAL FLAIR (USA) fourth.
The Panel imposed a fine in excess of the entry point (£1000) and in excess of the recommended range (£750-£2500) because the view was taken that Beckett bore real personal responsibility for the mix-up which led to the administration of the Ulcer Guard just 5 days before the race at Newbury, when Beckett and his usual Head Lad thought the minimum recommended withdrawal period was 8 days. Beckett should have monitored treatments more closely at a time when he had a temporary replacement as Head Lad while his full time employee was away on holiday. Quite apart from the mix up which led to administration of the Ulcer Guard 5 rather than 8 days before the race, Beckett had extra reason to exercise proper care and not to act on the basis that an 8 day withdrawal period was adequate for a number of reasons. Firstly, all trainers were sent an email on 15 June 2009, from the Director of Equine Science and Welfare, warning them about the detection period for anti-ulcer medication, highlighting that there was limited information available about the excretion time for ranitidine given to horses, and that there were indications that it could be as long as 18 days in urine. In July he was telephoned by the BHA’s Veterinary Advisor (Medication) warning him that he was personally at risk over his administration of ranitidine because screening tests on the urine sample of another of his horses had indicated the possibility of its presence. Finally, a warning was published in the National Trainers Federation July newsletter and a notice containing the same information as the Director of Equine Science & Welfare’s June email was published in the Racing Calendar of 30 July.
Although the Panel eventually imposed a financial penalty only, both Beckett and all other trainers should be aware that more serious penalties may be imposed in similar cases in the future.The Panel also informed Beckett that the horses in his care will be the subject of examination and the taking of samples for analysis provided for in Rule (A)49 within the next twelve months.
30th November 2009
Notes for Editors:
The Panel was: Tim Charlton (Chair), Mrs S Arkwright and Nicky Vigors
http://www.britishhorseracing.com/resources/about/whatwedo/disciplinary/disciplinaryDetail.asp?item=091043
http://www.britishhorseracing.com/resources/about/whatwedo/disciplinary/disciplinaryDetail.asp?item=091184
The above links related to the above case, now read below, note both horses won under the influence of rantadine.
.................................................................................................................
Disciplinary Panel Enquiries
SILVER OCEAN (USA) - RALPH BECKETT
WOLVERHAMPTON FOURTH OCTOBER (AW) (TWILIGHT) MEETING 2010
The Try **** For An Exchange Maiden Stakes
The Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) on 7 April 2011 held an enquiry into the analysis of the urine ordered to be taken from SILVER OCEAN (USA) trained by R M Beckett, by the Stewards at Wolverhampton after the gelding had finished first in the Try **** For An Exchange Maiden Stakes on 22 October 2010.
The urine of the horse was found to contain ranitidine, which is a prohibited substance. The trainer exercised his right to have the ‘B’ sample analysed, which confirmed the original finding. After considering the evidence, including statements from Beckett and his Veterinary Surgeon, the Panel was satisfied that the source of the substance was a 9-day, twice-daily course of Ulcer Guard given to SILVER OCEAN (USA) between 4 October 2010 and 12 October 2010.
The Panel accepted an admission from Beckett that he was in breach of Rule (C)53 of the Rules of Racing. It also noted that Beckett had had a positive finding for ranitidine with LARKHAM (USA) from a race at Newbury on 15 August 2009 and that the investigation and resultant enquiry had highlighted the dangers of using Ulcer Guard and the ability of the laboratory to find ranitidine in urine up to 18 days after administration. In respect of SILVER OCEAN (USA), Beckett admitted continuing to use Ulcer Guard not on veterinary advice but because “we still had it in stock”. Although aware through notices published by both the BHA and the NTF that ranitidine can be detected for as long as 18 days Beckett chose to apply only a 10-day withdrawal period.
The Panel imposed a fine of £2,500 upon Beckett and ordered him to pay £500 towards the cost of the analysis of the ‘B’ sample because it was satisfied that the source of the ranitidine should have been immediately obvious to him. Under Rule (A)74 the Panel disqualified SILVER OCEAN (USA) from the race, placing KHALEEJI first, SPIN CAST second, ROYAL TALISMAN third and BLOWING BUBBLES (USA) fourth.
The Panel also informed Beckett that all the horses in his care will be the subject of examination and the taking of samples for analysis provided for in Rule (A)49 within the next 12 months.
Charles Warde-Aldam
Diana Powles
Hopper Cavendish
07 April 2011
..............................................................................................................
Once bitten twice shy?, not in this case it seems, a trainer gets caught a second time and yet the penalty imposed was less than the original penalty for the Larkham case (reduced on appeal), surely the panel are not that naive to think that the use of rantadine by Beckett (of noble birth) was not deliberate.
RESULT OF AN ENQUIRY HEARD BY THE DISCIPLINARY PANEL ON WEDNESDAY 25TH NOVEMBER 2009
In absence:
LARKHAM (USA) / Ralph Beckett
The Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) on 25 November 2009 held an enquiry into the analysis of the urine ordered to be taken from LARKHAM (USA), trained by Ralph Beckett, by the Stewards at Newbury after the gelding had finished first in the Mirage Signs Handicap Stakes on 15 August 2009.
The urine of the horse was found to contain ranitidine, which is a prohibited substance. After considering the evidence, including statements from Beckett and his Veterinary Surgeon, the Panel was satisfied that the source of the substance was an administration of 45 ml of Ulcer Guard (20 ml in the morning and 25ml in the evening) which was mistakenly given, in the usual Head Lad’s absence, to LARKHAM (USA) on 10 August 2009.
The Panel accepted an admission from Beckett that he was in breach of Rule 53 of the Rules of Racing. It imposed a fine of £4000, and in addition, under Rule 180(ii), disqualified LARKHAM (USA) from the race, placing GENEVA GEYSER (GER) first, WOODLARK ISLAND (IRE) second, MYKINGDOMFORAHORSE third and NATURAL FLAIR (USA) fourth.
The Panel imposed a fine in excess of the entry point (£1000) and in excess of the recommended range (£750-£2500) because the view was taken that Beckett bore real personal responsibility for the mix-up which led to the administration of the Ulcer Guard just 5 days before the race at Newbury, when Beckett and his usual Head Lad thought the minimum recommended withdrawal period was 8 days. Beckett should have monitored treatments more closely at a time when he had a temporary replacement as Head Lad while his full time employee was away on holiday. Quite apart from the mix up which led to administration of the Ulcer Guard 5 rather than 8 days before the race, Beckett had extra reason to exercise proper care and not to act on the basis that an 8 day withdrawal period was adequate for a number of reasons. Firstly, all trainers were sent an email on 15 June 2009, from the Director of Equine Science and Welfare, warning them about the detection period for anti-ulcer medication, highlighting that there was limited information available about the excretion time for ranitidine given to horses, and that there were indications that it could be as long as 18 days in urine. In July he was telephoned by the BHA’s Veterinary Advisor (Medication) warning him that he was personally at risk over his administration of ranitidine because screening tests on the urine sample of another of his horses had indicated the possibility of its presence. Finally, a warning was published in the National Trainers Federation July newsletter and a notice containing the same information as the Director of Equine Science & Welfare’s June email was published in the Racing Calendar of 30 July.
Although the Panel eventually imposed a financial penalty only, both Beckett and all other trainers should be aware that more serious penalties may be imposed in similar cases in the future.The Panel also informed Beckett that the horses in his care will be the subject of examination and the taking of samples for analysis provided for in Rule (A)49 within the next twelve months.
30th November 2009
Notes for Editors:
The Panel was: Tim Charlton (Chair), Mrs S Arkwright and Nicky Vigors
http://www.britishhorseracing.com/resources/about/whatwedo/disciplinary/disciplinaryDetail.asp?item=091043
http://www.britishhorseracing.com/resources/about/whatwedo/disciplinary/disciplinaryDetail.asp?item=091184
The above links related to the above case, now read below, note both horses won under the influence of rantadine.
.................................................................................................................
Disciplinary Panel Enquiries
SILVER OCEAN (USA) - RALPH BECKETT
WOLVERHAMPTON FOURTH OCTOBER (AW) (TWILIGHT) MEETING 2010
The Try **** For An Exchange Maiden Stakes
The Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) on 7 April 2011 held an enquiry into the analysis of the urine ordered to be taken from SILVER OCEAN (USA) trained by R M Beckett, by the Stewards at Wolverhampton after the gelding had finished first in the Try **** For An Exchange Maiden Stakes on 22 October 2010.
The urine of the horse was found to contain ranitidine, which is a prohibited substance. The trainer exercised his right to have the ‘B’ sample analysed, which confirmed the original finding. After considering the evidence, including statements from Beckett and his Veterinary Surgeon, the Panel was satisfied that the source of the substance was a 9-day, twice-daily course of Ulcer Guard given to SILVER OCEAN (USA) between 4 October 2010 and 12 October 2010.
The Panel accepted an admission from Beckett that he was in breach of Rule (C)53 of the Rules of Racing. It also noted that Beckett had had a positive finding for ranitidine with LARKHAM (USA) from a race at Newbury on 15 August 2009 and that the investigation and resultant enquiry had highlighted the dangers of using Ulcer Guard and the ability of the laboratory to find ranitidine in urine up to 18 days after administration. In respect of SILVER OCEAN (USA), Beckett admitted continuing to use Ulcer Guard not on veterinary advice but because “we still had it in stock”. Although aware through notices published by both the BHA and the NTF that ranitidine can be detected for as long as 18 days Beckett chose to apply only a 10-day withdrawal period.
The Panel imposed a fine of £2,500 upon Beckett and ordered him to pay £500 towards the cost of the analysis of the ‘B’ sample because it was satisfied that the source of the ranitidine should have been immediately obvious to him. Under Rule (A)74 the Panel disqualified SILVER OCEAN (USA) from the race, placing KHALEEJI first, SPIN CAST second, ROYAL TALISMAN third and BLOWING BUBBLES (USA) fourth.
The Panel also informed Beckett that all the horses in his care will be the subject of examination and the taking of samples for analysis provided for in Rule (A)49 within the next 12 months.
Charles Warde-Aldam
Diana Powles
Hopper Cavendish
07 April 2011
..............................................................................................................
Once bitten twice shy?, not in this case it seems, a trainer gets caught a second time and yet the penalty imposed was less than the original penalty for the Larkham case (reduced on appeal), surely the panel are not that naive to think that the use of rantadine by Beckett (of noble birth) was not deliberate.
"Although the Panel eventually imposed a financial penalty only, both Beckett and all other trainers should be aware that more serious penalties may be imposed in similar cases in the future."
More serious penalties my ass!!.
More serious penalties my ass!!.
The Binocular Champions Hurdle win is one of the most unusual things to understand.
Declared out of the race by Henderson, but he refused to scratch it when asked by the BHB.
Horse sent to JP's vet in Ireland to be treated as the stable under a cloud with the positive test. Back in the race. Bolts up.
Declared out of the race by Henderson, but he refused to scratch it when asked by the BHB.
Horse sent to JP's vet in Ireland to be treated as the stable under a cloud with the positive test. Back in the race. Bolts up.
Thanks all for the replies
i must make things clear,i'am not the author of the letter,but have been in contact with him,like i said the letter has been sent and is awaiting a reply,will post if i hear anything.
i must make things clear,i'am not the author of the letter,but have been in contact with him,like i said the letter has been sent and is awaiting a reply,will post if i hear anything.
Very interesting thread and I applaude you for bringing it up again. THe Racing public need to be kept aware of what really goes on.
On another note, what is your opinion of Graham Bradley taking the Trainers modules with a view to taking out a trainers licence? Should this be allowed?
On another note, what is your opinion of Graham Bradley taking the Trainers modules with a view to taking out a trainers licence? Should this be allowed?
Lairy Mary, tbh the idea of Bradley becoming a trainer is laughable at best,but sums up British Racing imo.
workrider 15 Feb 13 11:26
i spoke to a guy at cheltenhams april meeting 2 years ago , he seemed to know the trainer well , he was in his 70s , the things he told me would make your hair curl , in my case that's a no no........in fact his hatred of him was unreal , so i took what he had to say with a pinch of salt...but after those revelations it got me thinking....
I dare say there are a few people who could say things about him,but we have to be careful and not get the thread deleted
i spoke to a guy at cheltenhams april meeting 2 years ago , he seemed to know the trainer well , he was in his 70s , the things he told me would make your hair curl , in my case that's a no no........in fact his hatred of him was unreal , so i took what he had to say with a pinch of salt...but after those revelations it got me thinking....
I dare say there are a few people who could say things about him,but we have to be careful and not get the thread deleted
fascinating reading, just out of interest TT, will you be backing any of hendo's in 3 weeks
well,have been a big fan of Bobs Worth for a couple of yrs now,so.........
How can Bradley pass the "fit and proper person" test?
mrcombustible
billy smart is running the show at the moment,they might not have been everybodys cup of tea but things seemed better when the jockey club ruled.
billy smart is running the show at the moment,they might not have been everybodys cup of tea but things seemed better when the jockey club ruled.
http://dgkelly84.wordpress.com/2012/12/18/day-335-at-the-bha-house/
racing is class ridden fromm head to toe,jockeys are yes men who know their place,never question anyting,do as you're told,call me sit at all times...what a bunch of serfs
Hard to know whether Henderson's apparent clumsiness is down to believing himself untouchable or whether he's an idiot making mistake after mistake or whether he's having his pants pulled down by his staff and doesn't really have a clue what goes on in his yard. Doping is usually a bit more sophisticated than this
Shouldn't "and the carpet sweeper" have been added to the thread title
Spot on Pandora. And what you say applies not just to racing.
By the way,have you noticed how winning jockeys still touch their forlocks as they come into the winners enclosure?
The trainers and owners should be the ones acknowledging the jockey,not the other way round.
By the way,have you noticed how winning jockeys still touch their forlocks as they come into the winners enclosure?
The trainers and owners should be the ones acknowledging the jockey,not the other way round.
"We thought long and hard about running Grandouet in the Kingwell last weekend, and I know Corky [Browne, head lad] was keen for him to go there, but in the end we decided against it on the testing ground.
Amazing. Henderson told the trainer of the yard where to get off.
Amazing. Henderson told the trainer of the yard where to get off.
No one GT just think all this needs looking into,there was a time when this forum would be getting it's teeth stuck into this,but there appears to be a lot of apathy around now
just think all this needs looking into,there was a time when this forum would be getting it's teeth stuck into this,but there appears to be a lot of apathy around now
glad to see you are keeping this to the fore t.t.....
yes , staying in coventry , some will say i should have been sent to coventry years ago...
Dan Kelly @muffinmannhc
No response as yet: Open letter to BHA Director of Integrity, Legal and Risk http://wp.me/p1BOBt-1S Have asked for an interview, either way.
No response as yet: Open letter to BHA Director of Integrity, Legal and Risk http://wp.me/p1BOBt-1S Have asked for an interview, either way.
I think it is terrible that people continue to pick on a repeat offender,and bring in to dispute his good name and training pratices. He will be champion trainer this year and have the last laugh!
Deltâ 20 Feb 13 07:52
why doesnt muffin man post himself iyo?
Delta,all this was off twitter ,basically it got retweeted to me and after reading it thought it deserved a thread,was only after i found out that muffin man used to be on here,so to answer you question,no idea tbh
why doesnt muffin man post himself iyo?
Delta,all this was off twitter ,basically it got retweeted to me and after reading it thought it deserved a thread,was only after i found out that muffin man used to be on here,so to answer you question,no idea tbh
Chemical Nicky, the Queen's trainer.
You could not make it up.
You could not make it up.
BHA must knock on Moonlit door over possible abuse of medication rules
BHA should take note of a blogger's fresh questioning over wider implications of a 2009 case involving Nicky Henderson
Share 0
inShare
0
Email
Greg Wood
The Guardian, Sunday 24 February 2013 19.01 GMT
Jump to comments (0)
Nicky Henderson at his Seven Barrows yard in Berkshire as the trainer prepared for next month's Cheltenham Festival. Photograph: Hugh Routledge/Rex Features
The Guardian's sport section led with a five-page report on the battle against doping the Saturday before last, and the considerable threat that drugs pose to the credibility and integrity of major sporting events, in Britain and elsewhere. Racing, which has many more spectators in the UK each year than any sport bar football, fell below the radar, which may well have left the regulators at the British Horseracing Authority feeling quite pleased with themselves.
Three days later, a link appeared in my Twitter timeline which was a useful reminder that racing has little cause to be complacent. It pointed towards an internet post by a punter and blogger called Daniel Kelly which detailed the BHA's significant – and ongoing – failure to investigate the extent of the possible abuse of raceday medication rules by some members of Lambourn's training community in the wake of the Moonlit Path affair.
The BHA's view appears to be that the Moonlit Path case is ancient history. Nicky Henderson, the mare's trainer, was banned from entering horses in races for three months in the summer of 2009. James Main, the vet who injected her with the banned substance tranexamic acid (TA) a few hours before she was due to race at Huntingdon in February 2009, while listing the procedure in his records as a "pre-race check", was struck off for 10 months by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons in February 2011. Main was readmitted to the RCVS register in February 2012.
Yet what is still hanging, even now, is the implication in the findings of the RCVS's hearing into the case that, prior to Moonlit Path's positive test, the administration of TA to horses on the day of a race had become almost a matter of routine, not just in Henderson's yard, but in stables all over Lambourn employing Main as their vet.
The College's disciplinary committee made its view very plain: "The committee has considered … the use of the term "pre-race check" on Moonlit Path's clinical records [and] … 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 RCVS hearing took place about 18 months after the BHA's hearing into the Henderson case, at which Main refused to attend to give evidence. Henderson, however, did testify at the RCVS hearing, where he told the panel that "plenty of trainers" were using the same banned substance at the time. He believed this because of "the number of trainers who came up to me after the case and said, 'I'm not using it any more'".
There is a strong suggestion here that the injection of horses with a drug on the day of a race had become a common practice in a number of stables in the Lambourn area. Henderson, in effect, took one for the team.
The BHA, as a responsible sporting regulator, might have been expected to investigate that suggestion fully, to establish just how many yards were flouting the most unambiguous rule in the anti-doping canon, that horses cannot be given anything bar "normal food and water" on racedays. It could defrost and retest some of those samples from the period which have been retained for future analysis, for instance, or offer Main another chance to give the BHA a full account of when, where and how frequently he performed his "pre-race checks".
Instead, the authority has seemed content to let it lie. Main, meanwhile, whose excellence as a vet, particularly where horses are concerned, has never been in dispute, has returned to practise, including a long-standing role as the raceday vet at Newbury.
If Adam Brickell, the BHA's new head of integrity, risk and legal following Paul Scotney's departure in November, wishes to get in touch with Main, at least it will not be too difficult to find him.
*If you want to link to Daniel Kelly's blog, it is at http://dgkelly84.wordpress.com/
BHA should take note of a blogger's fresh questioning over wider implications of a 2009 case involving Nicky Henderson
Share 0
inShare
0
Greg Wood
The Guardian, Sunday 24 February 2013 19.01 GMT
Jump to comments (0)
Nicky Henderson at his Seven Barrows yard in Berkshire as the trainer prepared for next month's Cheltenham Festival. Photograph: Hugh Routledge/Rex Features
The Guardian's sport section led with a five-page report on the battle against doping the Saturday before last, and the considerable threat that drugs pose to the credibility and integrity of major sporting events, in Britain and elsewhere. Racing, which has many more spectators in the UK each year than any sport bar football, fell below the radar, which may well have left the regulators at the British Horseracing Authority feeling quite pleased with themselves.
Three days later, a link appeared in my Twitter timeline which was a useful reminder that racing has little cause to be complacent. It pointed towards an internet post by a punter and blogger called Daniel Kelly which detailed the BHA's significant – and ongoing – failure to investigate the extent of the possible abuse of raceday medication rules by some members of Lambourn's training community in the wake of the Moonlit Path affair.
The BHA's view appears to be that the Moonlit Path case is ancient history. Nicky Henderson, the mare's trainer, was banned from entering horses in races for three months in the summer of 2009. James Main, the vet who injected her with the banned substance tranexamic acid (TA) a few hours before she was due to race at Huntingdon in February 2009, while listing the procedure in his records as a "pre-race check", was struck off for 10 months by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons in February 2011. Main was readmitted to the RCVS register in February 2012.
Yet what is still hanging, even now, is the implication in the findings of the RCVS's hearing into the case that, prior to Moonlit Path's positive test, the administration of TA to horses on the day of a race had become almost a matter of routine, not just in Henderson's yard, but in stables all over Lambourn employing Main as their vet.
The College's disciplinary committee made its view very plain: "The committee has considered … the use of the term "pre-race check" on Moonlit Path's clinical records [and] … 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 RCVS hearing took place about 18 months after the BHA's hearing into the Henderson case, at which Main refused to attend to give evidence. Henderson, however, did testify at the RCVS hearing, where he told the panel that "plenty of trainers" were using the same banned substance at the time. He believed this because of "the number of trainers who came up to me after the case and said, 'I'm not using it any more'".
There is a strong suggestion here that the injection of horses with a drug on the day of a race had become a common practice in a number of stables in the Lambourn area. Henderson, in effect, took one for the team.
The BHA, as a responsible sporting regulator, might have been expected to investigate that suggestion fully, to establish just how many yards were flouting the most unambiguous rule in the anti-doping canon, that horses cannot be given anything bar "normal food and water" on racedays. It could defrost and retest some of those samples from the period which have been retained for future analysis, for instance, or offer Main another chance to give the BHA a full account of when, where and how frequently he performed his "pre-race checks".
Instead, the authority has seemed content to let it lie. Main, meanwhile, whose excellence as a vet, particularly where horses are concerned, has never been in dispute, has returned to practise, including a long-standing role as the raceday vet at Newbury.
If Adam Brickell, the BHA's new head of integrity, risk and legal following Paul Scotney's departure in November, wishes to get in touch with Main, at least it will not be too difficult to find him.
*If you want to link to Daniel Kelly's blog, it is at http://dgkelly84.wordpress.com/
Its hard to believe that Newbury , One of the best tracks in the u.k....has as its vet one who apparently didn't KNOW it was ILLEGAL to INJECT a horse the day BEFORE a race...I wonder what else doesn't he know.....Could you have confidence in somebody like this if you were an owner and your horse was injured at the track.....
g2d things are gathering pace now,hopefully some serious questions will get asked.
things are gathering pace now,hopefully some serious questions will get asked.
Top fred mucker. I'll bang it up if yer not about.
Saturday Henderson trained a winner for BHA head (well wife) Paul Roy.
Just shows what a disgusting bunch of scum run UK racing.
How can someone inhtat postion do this?
If he was any sort of man he would resign by 9am this morning.
Just shows what a disgusting bunch of scum run UK racing.
How can someone inhtat postion do this?
If he was any sort of man he would resign by 9am this morning.
Great thread..a microcosm of how things are run in Britain.
Eont , They run racing and can do what they like it seems....
Dan Kelly @muffinmannhc
Good to see @Greg_Wood_ pick up the baton: http://bit.ly/13IhaBl Hope he gets further than I did; No comment & No interview.
Good to see @Greg_Wood_ pick up the baton: http://bit.ly/13IhaBl Hope he gets further than I did; No comment & No interview.
Great stuff from DK - sadly it takes a blogger and Tweeter to do the job of the BHA's integrity department.
Sickening stuff from NJH's yard and while we're at it how exactly was Tom Symonds (someone who'd just been heavily implicated in a very serious doping enquiry that led to his boss servign a ban) judged to be a fit and proper person to train?
Also surely we should now look at year on year renewal of licenses for trainers and jockeys rather than the current system?
Sickening stuff from NJH's yard and while we're at it how exactly was Tom Symonds (someone who'd just been heavily implicated in a very serious doping enquiry that led to his boss servign a ban) judged to be a fit and proper person to train?
Also surely we should now look at year on year renewal of licenses for trainers and jockeys rather than the current system?
One of the interesting unanswered questions from the Moonlit Path case is how the authorities came to choose the horse to be sampled. Almost all tests are done on winners or beaten favourites, but MP was a 33/1 shot making her racecourse debut and finishing midfield. The BHA have always claimed it was a random sampling, but their website mentions that samples may be taken based on information received.
I've also wondered about the granting of a licence to Symonds, but who was in a better position to tell the BHA what was going on - because whatever the BHA say, I find it very hard to believe they weren't tipped off by somebody.
I've also wondered about the granting of a licence to Symonds, but who was in a better position to tell the BHA what was going on - because whatever the BHA say, I find it very hard to believe they weren't tipped off by somebody.
Name names Anorak?
Not heard from you for ages on here......never mind......NAME YOUR SUSPECTS?
Your sure to come out in the wash anyway.
Not heard from you for ages on here......never mind......NAME YOUR SUSPECTS?
Your sure to come out in the wash anyway.
Btw Anorak............chosen because of previous accusations.hth
Expand please on your assumptions?
Expand please on your assumptions?
some outstanding stuff on here and very good piece by Greg Wood.
If you had a horse on juice on steroids or had a milkshake would Newbury be the safest track to run it?,if the racecourse vet refuses to talk to the B.H. A.you must have a good chance of avoiding detection.
There are 14 other courses that would be pretty safe as well...
So, if we take what has been said so far as regards the Al Zarooni situation to be the truth, then we can conclude that;
- Godolphin employ veterinary staff who are prepared to inject horses with substances without knowing what they contain
- It then must follow that either;
a) these veterinary staff are providing inaccurate and untruthful medical records for these horses, or
b) if they have been recording accurate medical records, no-one involved at Godolphin has noticed the problem with these records
The two questions that immediately spring to mind are;
1) What are the next steps that BHA are going to take to investigate this extremely serious matter?
2) Why is the first of those steps not carrying out a thorough investigation at Godolphin Stables, given their common ownership, to ensure that this has not been happening there too?
- Godolphin employ veterinary staff who are prepared to inject horses with substances without knowing what they contain
- It then must follow that either;
a) these veterinary staff are providing inaccurate and untruthful medical records for these horses, or
b) if they have been recording accurate medical records, no-one involved at Godolphin has noticed the problem with these records
The two questions that immediately spring to mind are;
1) What are the next steps that BHA are going to take to investigate this extremely serious matter?
2) Why is the first of those steps not carrying out a thorough investigation at Godolphin Stables, given their common ownership, to ensure that this has not been happening there too?
BHA in discussions with the vet practice re the widespread use of "Sungate". Didn't do this with James Main & Nicky Henderson.
Makes you wonder wtf has been going on in the BHA !
Makes you wonder wtf has been going on in the BHA !
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539