Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Finally gets under way.
Why on earth would another trainer want to "get at" Morrisons 60 ish rated maiden hcapper. SOunds a bit like tea fron china "far fetched"
The long-awaited Hughie Morrison anabolic steroid inquiry got under way on Tuesday with a dramatic claim that another trainer threatened to “get at” the filly at the centre of the case.
The hearing at BHA headquarters in London concerns a positive test for nandrolone taken from the Morrison-trained Our Little Sister after she had finished last in a two-mile handicap at Wolverhampton on January 14.
The names of the other trainer and her partner were put forward by Morrison’s barrister as “people who might be of interest” to the inquiry.
Why on earth would another trainer want to "get at" Morrisons 60 ish rated maiden hcapper. SOunds a bit like tea fron china "far fetched"
The long-awaited Hughie Morrison anabolic steroid inquiry got under way on Tuesday with a dramatic claim that another trainer threatened to “get at” the filly at the centre of the case.
The hearing at BHA headquarters in London concerns a positive test for nandrolone taken from the Morrison-trained Our Little Sister after she had finished last in a two-mile handicap at Wolverhampton on January 14.
The names of the other trainer and her partner were put forward by Morrison’s barrister as “people who might be of interest” to the inquiry.
Show More
Yes plus 3 others and his expert witness was dismissed.
I cannot believe the kitchen sink has not been blamed or the horses alleged fling with a certain Premiership Football manager was not mentioned.
I cannot believe the kitchen sink has not been blamed or the horses alleged fling with a certain Premiership Football manager was not mentioned.
don't believe him but also don't believe it was a "random" test
I hear a rival female Trainer was mentioned....Any Ideas?
Be interesting to find out!
I note no female trainers had a runner in said race
I note no female trainers had a runner in said race
4 Female Trainers had runners at the meeting.
2 Northern - 1 Midlands - 1 Southern.
However, McPherson did not suggest that either the trainer or her partner "pressed the plunger", or indeed instructed anybody else to do so, and the BHA dismissed their relevance to the case, having conducted interviews.
2 Northern - 1 Midlands - 1 Southern.
However, McPherson did not suggest that either the trainer or her partner "pressed the plunger", or indeed instructed anybody else to do so, and the BHA dismissed their relevance to the case, having conducted interviews.
The horse and/or the race it was running in, is an irrelevance. If someone has doped the horse, it was to ' get Morrison '
going to the trouble of accessing steroids and then injecting them into a horse that was only tested by pure fluke. Ummm ok facts
No matter what has happened here Morrison is not a trainer I would trust
After reading various press reports that obviously do not show the full facts, this case feels a bit like a case in Australia where the drug was given to the wrong horse.
It is fair to say certain procedures at racecourses need review and improvements (assuming the racecourse follows them). Though in life in general procedures can usually be improved upon.
It is fair to say certain procedures at racecourses need review and improvements (assuming the racecourse follows them). Though in life in general procedures can usually be improved upon.
cant be bothered looking back at the fixture did g kellaway have a runner ?
Pretty low to bring other trainers into it actually. They must be livid with him as the name will leak out. And other trainers' names will be thrown into the mix to tainting them as well. Good ol Hughie.
TheFear 21 Dec 17 10:58
Why is that sparrow?
I find that his horses cannot be relied upon to run to form and therefore never back them. Do you trust him thefear?
Why is that sparrow?
I find that his horses cannot be relied upon to run to form and therefore never back them. Do you trust him thefear?
From what have been reported the "verdict" would have to be guilty, I believe, because nothing factual has come to light to suggest otherwise. But the penalty could vary from lenient to a short ban or suspension from racing given good past history and character / standing in the racing community.
I do not think he did what he had been accused of, though.
I do not think he did what he had been accused of, though.
i didn't have a big opinion on him before this case sparrow
TheFear 21 Dec 17 10:24
going to the trouble of accessing steroids and then injecting them into a horse that was only tested by pure fluke. Ummm ok facts
So what's your theory - and the rational behind it ?
going to the trouble of accessing steroids and then injecting them into a horse that was only tested by pure fluke. Ummm ok facts
So what's your theory - and the rational behind it ?
Hard to figure out what he needs most a theatrical agent or a ghost writer
This case is certainly a very odd scenario.
Both sides - the BHA and Morrison - have offered something of 'Alice in Wonderland' 'evidence'.
Morrison's claim that, "another trainer threatened to 'get at' his filly." - leaves the open question ... WHY?
TheBHA Enquiry has, "dismissed the relevance to the case, having conducted interviews."
On the other hand - the BHA maintain that the test on Morrison's filly was entirely, "RANDOM," - with the BHA Stipendiary Steward on duty having logged the test as such.
There is at least ONE RANDOM Test at every meeting.
64 horses were Declared for the meeting - 5 became non-runners.
Backer or Layer - at 58/1 - that the Morrison filly would RANDOMLY be tested?
20 days after the race - a BHA Inspection/Testing team turned up, unannounced, at DAWN at Morrison's stables - when Morrison would probably still be UNAWARE of the outcome of the random test on his filly at Wolverhampton.
75 horses were tested at his stables - and all were clear, including the filly Our Little Sister.
Only 5 horses in Morrison's yard are rated lower than (the currently 48-rated) Our Little Sister - who is hardly bred to be a broodmare, even if she were to win a race - so it is difficult to see what nefarious motivation there could be for trying to win this £2,587 race.
It is truly fascinating ... from BOTH sides of the fence.
Both sides - the BHA and Morrison - have offered something of 'Alice in Wonderland' 'evidence'.
Morrison's claim that, "another trainer threatened to 'get at' his filly." - leaves the open question ... WHY?
TheBHA Enquiry has, "dismissed the relevance to the case, having conducted interviews."
On the other hand - the BHA maintain that the test on Morrison's filly was entirely, "RANDOM," - with the BHA Stipendiary Steward on duty having logged the test as such.
There is at least ONE RANDOM Test at every meeting.
64 horses were Declared for the meeting - 5 became non-runners.
Backer or Layer - at 58/1 - that the Morrison filly would RANDOMLY be tested?
20 days after the race - a BHA Inspection/Testing team turned up, unannounced, at DAWN at Morrison's stables - when Morrison would probably still be UNAWARE of the outcome of the random test on his filly at Wolverhampton.
75 horses were tested at his stables - and all were clear, including the filly Our Little Sister.
Only 5 horses in Morrison's yard are rated lower than (the currently 48-rated) Our Little Sister - who is hardly bred to be a broodmare, even if she were to win a race - so it is difficult to see what nefarious motivation there could be for trying to win this £2,587 race.
It is truly fascinating ... from BOTH sides of the fence.
Morrison fined £1,000 and escapes ban after conclusion of anabolic steroid case
By Tom Kerr
12:08PM, DEC 22 2017
Hughie Morrison has avoided a ban following the conclusion of the Our Little Sister doping case, with the disciplinary panel imposing a £1,000 fine after determining the trainer was not involved in administering an anabolic steroid to the filly.
This story is being updated and more news will follow shortly.
By Tom Kerr
12:08PM, DEC 22 2017
Hughie Morrison has avoided a ban following the conclusion of the Our Little Sister doping case, with the disciplinary panel imposing a £1,000 fine after determining the trainer was not involved in administering an anabolic steroid to the filly.
This story is being updated and more news will follow shortly.
If they can establish that the drug was administered on the day then the whole case is laughable nevermind the outcome given the reality of anabolic hormone peds and how they are used for sports performance
i.e if I took a shed load of steroids now my 100m times wouldn't improve at all by 2pm no training/rest/recovery/time etc to improve performance someone was probably out to get him
denzil , just out of interest , how fast due you usually run 100m without steroids 
silver spoon trainer, friends with royalty, he will get off scot free
Presumably the "other" trainer has been accused of some considerable wrongdoing; can they litigate against Morrison as i don't see any evidence to substantiate his allegation
So other trainers can now use the defence "i didn't do it someone was out to get me"
of course mick. the trainers got what they wanted aided by the useless press
what does a "familiar" trainer have to do to get banned?
must be more than one set of rules available to be used by the BHA depending on the "name" involved when foul play involved
must be more than one set of rules available to be used by the BHA depending on the "name" involved when foul play involved
seems to me if its a low grade horse and you havnt got much to win you can use drugs without a care in the world,the only way to go is to treat him as though it was the derby fav and if he thinks theres skulduggery at play pass it on to the police
The main thing to do is keep good records of the genuine medications you use. The BHA seem to love this! Hahahaha
The latest in a long line of ludicrous decisions by the Judicial Panel.
They've concluded that it was done by some other person, whom they don't know, for a reason, which they also don't know. There doesn't seem to be shred of evidence provided to support that conclusion. I'd say it's laughable, but it isn't; it's a farce.
Regardless of the outcome relating to the original offence, some of the behaviour by Morrison, and those acting on his behalf, during the investigation is outrageous, and makes a complete mockery of the derisory 'punishment' he's been given.
They've concluded that it was done by some other person, whom they don't know, for a reason, which they also don't know. There doesn't seem to be shred of evidence provided to support that conclusion. I'd say it's laughable, but it isn't; it's a farce.
Regardless of the outcome relating to the original offence, some of the behaviour by Morrison, and those acting on his behalf, during the investigation is outrageous, and makes a complete mockery of the derisory 'punishment' he's been given.
he's posh though and he went to the right school and has good family connections
wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if they got samples mixed up and had chased the wrong trainer, don't really have a great deal of faith in the bha and the running of the sport
I wonder if he will apologize to the other trainer
Another BHA farce , so all any trainer has to do from now on is stay in the yard and plead ignorance and aliens did it.
there's a first bit of press release up re the bha and it's stance, the panel bit is to follow
if it was a bha clanger, sickner for Morrison ,who must have had this cocked up get out of jail free card story ,locked in the safe for years and has ended up using it on the lowest rated horse in the yard, 
Extremely lenient, £1000 fine? Outrageously lenient.
Yep 'carrot', for defamation of character. X'mas could come early for Ms Pickard.
Yep 'carrot', for defamation of character. X'mas could come early for Ms Pickard.
In fairness to the BHA, I don't think there's too much they've done wrong here - they presented a good case, the overwhelming majority of which appears to have been accepted by the Judicial Panel. It's their inexplicable decision that is the issue.
The actions of Morrison's private investigator (directly appointed by Morrison, outside of his legal team) are what should be looked into now. The exchange between the investigator and Imogen Pickard, requesting that she amend her statements to the BHA in exchange for £10,000, might be considered by some to be very suspicious...
The actions of Morrison's private investigator (directly appointed by Morrison, outside of his legal team) are what should be looked into now. The exchange between the investigator and Imogen Pickard, requesting that she amend her statements to the BHA in exchange for £10,000, might be considered by some to be very suspicious...
Trainer Hughie Morrison has been handed the minimum fine of £1,000 and ruled not to blame by an independent disciplinary panel of the British Horseracing Authority after one of his horses failed a drugs test at the start of the year.
Morrison attended a two-day hearing at BHA headquarters in London earlier this week, with Our Little Sister having tested positive for the banned substance nandrolone following a race at Wolverhampton on January 14.
East Ilsley-based Morrison, 57, vehemently denied any wrongdoing and offered a £10,000 cash reward for anyone that could help prove his innocence after the charges were first announced in May.
On the disciplinary panel verdict, Morrison told Press Association Sport: "I can't really comment as I don't want to say the wrong thing and there will be a statement.
"However, we're obviously over the moon. There's no ban, we've been completely exonerated so the hell of the last 11 months can be forgotten.
"All my staff are having a celebration now and it's very emotional."
Our Little Sister returned a positive test after she finished last of eight runners in an extended two-mile handicap, in which she was sent off at odds of 12/1.
She raced once more, when down the field at Southwell 12 days later, and has since been retired. That was her third run that month, having finished fourth there on January 2.
"Mr Morrison was not involved"
The disciplinary panel said in its reasoning: "In the light of the finding that Mr Morrison was not involved in the administration, would it be right to disqualify him? The guide does indeed give that recommendation, and the panel can see why a trainer might suffer that sanction simply because the use of 'prohibited at all times' drugs like steroids occurs on his watch as the responsible person.
"There might be cases where a panel is left in real doubt as to whether the trainer was involved in this. Then, it might be said, a discretion to impose a penalty of disqualification is justified unless the trainer positively satisfies the panel that he was not involved. But that is not this case. The panel decided that Mr Morrison was not involved.
"There is no suggestion that his security precautions and practices were so lax that he bears responsibility in that sense. On the contrary, the evidence showed his security practices were adequate and found to be adequate from time to time by BHA stable inspections."
It went on: "The entry point in such cases is £1,000. The panel did indeed consider whether in the light of its findings it should impose just a nominal penalty on Mr Morrison of, say, £1.
"But it felt that at the end of the day it was right to impose the entry level penalty referred to of £1,000.
"Though this may be an area ripe for reconsideration, the panel can see that there is a reason to impose fines of that substance, even in cases where trainers may demonstrate a lack of fault. Such fines can act as a practical encouragement to try to explain exactly how positive samples have been produced."
"Racing is based on fair play"
The independent disciplinary panel concluded that the nandrolone was administered intentionally "by person or persons unknown, for unknown reasons".
The panel also suggested that Our Little Sister may have been given the banned substance "to target Mr Morrison, but even that remains speculative".
Jamie Stier, chief regulatory officer for the BHA, said: "Racing is based on fair play and respect for the rules. That's how we earn the trust and confidence of the participants and all those who watch or bet on our sport, without whom there would be no racing industry.
"British racing has a zero tolerance policy towards the use of anabolic steroids, which are proven to help performance in sport. We must have a level playing field with integrity. We must protect the welfare of our animals.
"The rules are clear that it is the trainer's responsibility to prevent horses taking part in our sport with prohibited substances in their system. It is important, therefore, that the trainer in this case has accepted he was in breach of the rules of racing, and that the disciplinary panel has confirmed that, as the responsible person, Mr Morrison is in breach of the rules.
"As was set out in our opening submissions, the BHA had no positive case to put to any individual witness because the BHA could not say who administered the anabolic steroid to the horse. However, it was the BHA's case that Mr Morrison's assertion that this was a malicious act by someone completely outside of his control is unlikely. It was not the BHA's case that the administration of the substance 'must have been done by Mr Morrison or somebody at his direction'.
"We respect the panel's decision, the rules of racing have been upheld and the matter of penalty is a matter wholly for the disciplinary panel to determine."
He added: "The panel also confirmed that the BHA 'properly ran the case'. They found that it was not the duty of the BHA to protect Mr Morrison, that the attacks on the adequacy and good faith of the BHA's investigation 'wholly failed' and, with one exception, criticism of the BHA's conduct was misplaced.
"The one exception related to the fact that a hair sample was not taken. We would like to take the opportunity to explain more fully why this was the case. The BHA has always said that we would not use hair sampling as primary evidence until such point as there is international agreement and also full accreditation.
"Until that happens, hair samples are not accepted as regulatory samples, which limits our ability to use them in disciplinary cases. Therefore, it would not have been appropriate for the BHA to rely on hair sampling as part of its evidence in this case. Had we done so, it would have been open to challenge.
"We now await the panel's full written reasons before we can comment further on this matter."
Morrison attended a two-day hearing at BHA headquarters in London earlier this week, with Our Little Sister having tested positive for the banned substance nandrolone following a race at Wolverhampton on January 14.
East Ilsley-based Morrison, 57, vehemently denied any wrongdoing and offered a £10,000 cash reward for anyone that could help prove his innocence after the charges were first announced in May.
On the disciplinary panel verdict, Morrison told Press Association Sport: "I can't really comment as I don't want to say the wrong thing and there will be a statement.
"However, we're obviously over the moon. There's no ban, we've been completely exonerated so the hell of the last 11 months can be forgotten.
"All my staff are having a celebration now and it's very emotional."
Our Little Sister returned a positive test after she finished last of eight runners in an extended two-mile handicap, in which she was sent off at odds of 12/1.
She raced once more, when down the field at Southwell 12 days later, and has since been retired. That was her third run that month, having finished fourth there on January 2.
"Mr Morrison was not involved"
The disciplinary panel said in its reasoning: "In the light of the finding that Mr Morrison was not involved in the administration, would it be right to disqualify him? The guide does indeed give that recommendation, and the panel can see why a trainer might suffer that sanction simply because the use of 'prohibited at all times' drugs like steroids occurs on his watch as the responsible person.
"There might be cases where a panel is left in real doubt as to whether the trainer was involved in this. Then, it might be said, a discretion to impose a penalty of disqualification is justified unless the trainer positively satisfies the panel that he was not involved. But that is not this case. The panel decided that Mr Morrison was not involved.
"There is no suggestion that his security precautions and practices were so lax that he bears responsibility in that sense. On the contrary, the evidence showed his security practices were adequate and found to be adequate from time to time by BHA stable inspections."
It went on: "The entry point in such cases is £1,000. The panel did indeed consider whether in the light of its findings it should impose just a nominal penalty on Mr Morrison of, say, £1.
"But it felt that at the end of the day it was right to impose the entry level penalty referred to of £1,000.
"Though this may be an area ripe for reconsideration, the panel can see that there is a reason to impose fines of that substance, even in cases where trainers may demonstrate a lack of fault. Such fines can act as a practical encouragement to try to explain exactly how positive samples have been produced."
"Racing is based on fair play"
The independent disciplinary panel concluded that the nandrolone was administered intentionally "by person or persons unknown, for unknown reasons".
The panel also suggested that Our Little Sister may have been given the banned substance "to target Mr Morrison, but even that remains speculative".
Jamie Stier, chief regulatory officer for the BHA, said: "Racing is based on fair play and respect for the rules. That's how we earn the trust and confidence of the participants and all those who watch or bet on our sport, without whom there would be no racing industry.
"British racing has a zero tolerance policy towards the use of anabolic steroids, which are proven to help performance in sport. We must have a level playing field with integrity. We must protect the welfare of our animals.
"The rules are clear that it is the trainer's responsibility to prevent horses taking part in our sport with prohibited substances in their system. It is important, therefore, that the trainer in this case has accepted he was in breach of the rules of racing, and that the disciplinary panel has confirmed that, as the responsible person, Mr Morrison is in breach of the rules.
"As was set out in our opening submissions, the BHA had no positive case to put to any individual witness because the BHA could not say who administered the anabolic steroid to the horse. However, it was the BHA's case that Mr Morrison's assertion that this was a malicious act by someone completely outside of his control is unlikely. It was not the BHA's case that the administration of the substance 'must have been done by Mr Morrison or somebody at his direction'.
"We respect the panel's decision, the rules of racing have been upheld and the matter of penalty is a matter wholly for the disciplinary panel to determine."
He added: "The panel also confirmed that the BHA 'properly ran the case'. They found that it was not the duty of the BHA to protect Mr Morrison, that the attacks on the adequacy and good faith of the BHA's investigation 'wholly failed' and, with one exception, criticism of the BHA's conduct was misplaced.
"The one exception related to the fact that a hair sample was not taken. We would like to take the opportunity to explain more fully why this was the case. The BHA has always said that we would not use hair sampling as primary evidence until such point as there is international agreement and also full accreditation.
"Until that happens, hair samples are not accepted as regulatory samples, which limits our ability to use them in disciplinary cases. Therefore, it would not have been appropriate for the BHA to rely on hair sampling as part of its evidence in this case. Had we done so, it would have been open to challenge.
"We now await the panel's full written reasons before we can comment further on this matter."
Racing is based on fair play"
The independent disciplinary panel concluded that the nandrolone was administered intentionally "by person or persons unknown, for unknown reasons".
The panel also suggested that Our Little Sister may have been given the banned substance "to target Mr Morrison, but even that remains speculative".
You couldn't make this up in a west end farce
The independent disciplinary panel concluded that the nandrolone was administered intentionally "by person or persons unknown, for unknown reasons".
The panel also suggested that Our Little Sister may have been given the banned substance "to target Mr Morrison, but even that remains speculative".
You couldn't make this up in a west end farce
I think this decision is on the same level as that of Barry Geraghty on Noble Emperor in Ireland. I'm gobsmacked about its leniency, to say the least.
Jamie Stier, chief regulatory officer for the BHA, said: "Racing is based on fair play and respect for the rules. That's how we earn the trust and confidence of the participants and all those who watch or bet on our sport
Did he manage to keep a straight face when he said that? Clueless Buffoons, the lot of them at the BHA.
Did he manage to keep a straight face when he said that? Clueless Buffoons, the lot of them at the BHA.
he also used the term zero policy on steroids.... ummm not sure this backs that up
John Berry said on ATR, the other week, that the 'Zero Tolerance' rules currently mean that the Trainer is presumed Guilty - and has to prove his innocence ... which is entirely the opposite of natural justice - whereby an individual is Innocent until PROVEN guilty.
He felt that if Morrison were to be banned, then there would be a legal challenge to the BHA Rules, which could then end up being re-written.
Will be interesting to see if John Berry blogs about the outcome.
He felt that if Morrison were to be banned, then there would be a legal challenge to the BHA Rules, which could then end up being re-written.
Will be interesting to see if John Berry blogs about the outcome.
exactly what happens with athletes then... surely
How much does Hughie Morrison charge his owners per day? And he can't afford adequate security measures? Cmon man,,,
How much does Hughie Morrison charge his owners per day? And he can't afford adequate security measures? Cmon man,,,
magic daps your post 15.03 is spot on the bhb look silly
Caste system? That is a bit strong; this is Britain, not some countries in South Asia!
zipper Joined: 06 Jul 02
Replies: 25209 22 Dec 17 17:19
magic daps your post 15.03 is spot on the bhb look silly
not as silly as someone who cant even copy a time correctly
Replies: 25209 22 Dec 17 17:19
magic daps your post 15.03 is spot on the bhb look silly
not as silly as someone who cant even copy a time correctly
thefear - "And he can't afford adequate security measures?"
The panel found "There is no suggestion that his security precautions and practices were so lax that he bears responsibility in that sense. On the contrary, the evidence showed his security practices were adequate and found to be adequate from time to time by BHA stable inspections."
Hth.
The panel found "There is no suggestion that his security precautions and practices were so lax that he bears responsibility in that sense. On the contrary, the evidence showed his security practices were adequate and found to be adequate from time to time by BHA stable inspections."
Hth.
Sorry if I didn't express myself properly but I don't have an opinion on his security measures as I know nothing about them. What I meant was IF his security measures are good and racecourse security is good then the finger points more towards him than ever.
TheFear - The point is that the view of Morrison (obviously!), AND the BHA, AND the Panel is that he was NOT the adminstrator of said drug, nor was he responsible for its administration. He is of course accountable.
You say...."IF his security measures are good and racecourse security is good then the finger points more towards him than ever". That is your view!. My view would be that that scenario makes any attempt by him to do what you think he did, in these particular circumstances, beyond ridiculous.
You say...."IF his security measures are good and racecourse security is good then the finger points more towards him than ever". That is your view!. My view would be that that scenario makes any attempt by him to do what you think he did, in these particular circumstances, beyond ridiculous.
"The rules are clear that it is the trainer’s responsibility to prevent horses taking part in our sport with prohibited substances in their system"
Clear? Do said rules apply uniformly to ALL trainers? Why is there a "sliding scale" of guilt and what are the guidelines to determine the degree of guilt?
Clear? Do said rules apply uniformly to ALL trainers? Why is there a "sliding scale" of guilt and what are the guidelines to determine the degree of guilt?
I'm curious as to the evidence that led the panel to the conclusion that Morrison was not involved in the administration of the substance.
Did they simply base their decision on his good reputation? Or is there something they are not revealing?
They may well have set a precedent here. Since in most cases it would be impossible to prove one way or another who did the deed, how can
they enforce the 'absolute responsibility' rule? If that rule is overturned then no trainer could be held responsible without proof of
guilt. Maybe that's the way it should be. Maybe there's a better solution: Test all placed runners. Any failing would be disqualified
and banned for at least 12 months.
Did they simply base their decision on his good reputation? Or is there something they are not revealing?
They may well have set a precedent here. Since in most cases it would be impossible to prove one way or another who did the deed, how can
they enforce the 'absolute responsibility' rule? If that rule is overturned then no trainer could be held responsible without proof of
guilt. Maybe that's the way it should be. Maybe there's a better solution: Test all placed runners. Any failing would be disqualified
and banned for at least 12 months.
tough on her being brought into this farce for what seems no good reason
Hopefully Pickard will sue Morrison for defamation of character
His £1000 fine might then be an insignificant amount in comparable terms to a settlement
BHA are a laughing stock because their rules and penalties are flawed beyond belief
His £1000 fine might then be an insignificant amount in comparable terms to a settlement
BHA are a laughing stock because their rules and penalties are flawed beyond belief
wealthy racing people are never guilty of doping it's always a misunderstanding or someone else's fault
why are they all pissing themselves over this BHA - jockey club etc - nothing much here since Al Z & goldphyn - so I thinking only happens twice in a decade
at least 8 fav's were ridden to lose today - no mention of this
at least 8 fav's were ridden to lose today - no mention of this
TheFear: IF his security measures are good and racecourse security is good then the finger points more towards him than ever.
Exactly!
If Morrison's security is good enough to prevent anyone else from doping his horses, then who else but Morrison could have been responsible for doping this one?
But if Morrison didn't dope the horse, then someone else did, so logically his security measures must be inadequate, and he needs to be punished for those inadequacies.
The only explanation that's illogical is the one the BHA has swallowed: that Morrison's security measures are so feeble that an unknown person managed to dope his horse, while at the same time the BHA inspectors found his security to be adequate.
Exactly!
If Morrison's security is good enough to prevent anyone else from doping his horses, then who else but Morrison could have been responsible for doping this one?
But if Morrison didn't dope the horse, then someone else did, so logically his security measures must be inadequate, and he needs to be punished for those inadequacies.
The only explanation that's illogical is the one the BHA has swallowed: that Morrison's security measures are so feeble that an unknown person managed to dope his horse, while at the same time the BHA inspectors found his security to be adequate.
unless the doping was done at the racecourse
i think they refer to it being given in the next, so presumably the puncture wound still there or some raised area,
this absolute responsibility is a daft rule imo
i think they refer to it being given in the next, so presumably the puncture wound still there or some raised area,
this absolute responsibility is a daft rule imo
Does anyone have any idea how many people are on the
payroll at the BHA and the GC.Do any of them actually earn a wage?
payroll at the BHA and the GC.Do any of them actually earn a wage?
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539