Do you think this is harsh?!

jinnyj

jinnyj

Senior Jockey
Joined
Jan 8, 2004
Messages
4,569
From the Racing Post website:

BHA bans trainer Crow for seven years

TRAINER Andrew Crow has been banned for seven years and fined £5,000 by the BHA after being found guilty of not vaccinating horses for equine influenza.Crow, who trains in Jedburgh, was also found in breach of the Rules of Racing relating to the forging of vaccination entries.

The vaccination breach, Rules 35 (ii) of the Rules of Racing, related to Cherish Witches, Beau Saddler, Pistolet Time, Lily Tara, Crystal Witch, Saddler's Way, Bold Navigator, Parisian Knight, Orpen Bid, The Cannoness, Arch, Auberge, Salmatian Knight, Manhattan Boy and The Dunion.

I have to say I was really suprised he gets such a long ban although I do appreciate he did it with alot of horses so it may be a totting up ban so to speak. While I understand the need to vaccinate against equine flu, I wonder whether horses really need annual jabs (the same with dogs for various diseases) as I learnt the other day that in the US, dogs are blood tested annually to see if they have sufficient anti-bodies to cope with what they are being vaccinated against.
 
Don't think it's that harsh to be fair - we've seen in recent years what has happened in Australia afte ran outbreak fo EI, think at least one of those horses (Manhattan Boy) is now racing in Ireland so it has potential to cause problems not just for UK runners abroad but also the various sales agencies we have at Tatts, DBS, Ascot etc. and international buyers.
 
It's certainly a big punishment, but IS is right that equine influenza could have a terrible impact on racing if it took hold. What would you think was an appropriate penalty?
 
He didn't just not vaccinate, though, did he? He seems to have forged the certification to say that he did. First, he shows no regard for potentially spreading a serious virus to all or any other horses with which his might compete - it can be spread just as easily by the stable staff mucking out the horsebox as the nags actually snottering on another one. Second, he must've realised he was breaking the rules by trying to cover his tracks. If my yard was wiped out for half a season, or a couple of mine died down to his actions, I'd rather see him banned for 77 years. He risked the livelihoods of all the trainers who entered horses up wherever his raced. It's not big, and it's not clever.
 
It's an interesting one and I sort of see your point, Kirsty. The annual vaccination system is, however, one of those income generating exercises that vets have (understandably) made their own. It's perfectly possible to blood test horses after they have had their initial three course of injections to determine their titre levels for various markers. Those with low levels would them be vaccinated as appropriate and those with adequate levels need not be done again - quite a saving over their lifetime. However, just as with the trainer in question, I suppose the blood test results would get forged, so you'd be back to square one. As I was told, you don't need to blood test annually once the animal reaches adulthood, as titre levels then remain the same but that was some time ago now and research may now show otherwise.

The current vaccine only covers certain strains - there are plenty more out there it doesn't have any effect over, as we found out when BARRANTES picked up a different strain when she was in Ireland this spring, which nearly killed her and went like wildfire through the barreners barn...
 
I don't have any sympathy for Mr Crow but would argue that his ban seems harsh when compared to that received by, say, Karl Burke for, in my opinion, more serious offences.

From a trainer's point of view, what is the benefit of not vaccinating a horse against flu? Surely it's in his interests? Was Mr Crow just trying to save a few quid or does the vaccine have some negative side effect(s) and/or risk attached he was trying to avoid?
 
Walsy, unfortunately no vaccine is 100% effective - the average effectiveness of any, I was told some time ago by a vet, is around the 60% mark. With my luck, it'd be the vulnerable 40% that got clobbered! Most vaccines are enough to ward off attacks by whatever they're protecting against, but any animal not fully fit - for example, one recovering from illness/infection/injury, or one vulnerable to infection after foaling - would be at a higher risk of contracting an illness, as their system is already compromised.

Songs: what a titre levels, please? I've 'eard o' them they Zummerzet Levels, but nart them titres...
 
hmmmm. 15 horses, so presumably 15 incidences (at least) of him forging the passports (as well as potentially risking a lot of other peoples animals - though i dont believe for one minute they worried about that side of things when they were working out the penalty...)

all for the sake of a £30,once a year (that he passes on to the owners - or you'd have to wonder has he also charged them as if the horses have been vaccinated??!!)jab that wont do any harm and means they stay on the right side of the rules?? (and lets face it, the rules are the rules - this one is a really basic one for any trainer !!!)

As for the age old (every species!!) argument of if vaccines are needed, Im not sure what is happening about testing - I think the AHT do it,just ive never seen us send anything off for it!!! ,though Im sure I can find out easy enough. I guess it will just come down to just how much more expensive to do than just a top up of vaccine is, presumably IF it came in as an option, the JC/FEI rules would want the horses tested annually/bi-annually, which would make the costing quite prohibitive (or at best,just completely uneconomic!!)

and up to a point its irrelivent - while they are in training,or competing at all,they have to be kept up to date, so its just back to the "broke the rules,take the punishment" argument that seems to be around rather a lot at the moment....!!!

so in all - i guess no, i dont think the punishment was too harsh at all with how the rules are at the moment.
 
Last edited:
Kri - found this on a science website - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TBK-40KR3RS-5&_user=10&_coverDate=07%2F20%2F2000&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1417506311&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=db7a47609cc61014d75a3a50f3a3028a

Abstract

Young Thoroughbred racehorses (222 yearlings entering training and 246 2-year-old horses already in training) from eight flat-training yards in Newmarket, UK were used to monitor serological responses to vaccination with an inactivated influenza virus vaccine. Blood samples taken prior to and after vaccination were tested by single radial haemolysis (SRH) to determine antibody titres (expressed as area of haemolysis in mm2). Prior to vaccination, yearlings had mean antibody titres (64±4 mm2) that were approximately half of those of 2-year-olds (115±3 mm2) and 89% of yearlings and 73% of 2-year-olds had SRH titres <140 mm2. Extrapolation from experimental and field studies suggests that these levels would not protect against homologous influenza virus infection. Both age-groups showed anamnestic responses to vaccination resulting in similar peak mean titres (
223c.gif
160±2 mm2) with 67% of yearlings and 73% of 2-year-olds achieving levels ≥140 mm2. A second dose of vaccine administered a month after the first in yearlings did not increase the mean titre but 75% of horses had levels of antibody ≥140 mm2. The vaccination history in the official passport of yearlings showed that 23% had no record of previous vaccination and were probably fully susceptible to infection. For yearlings entering training, the important predictors from multiple-regression analyses of SRH titres prior to vaccination were “Time since last vaccination,” “Total number of previous vaccines” and “Age at first vaccination.” In 2-year-olds and following two doses of vaccine in yearlings, there was no significant relationship between these factors and SRH titre.
Click to expand...

and this on the animal health trust site,though it doesnt mention antibody testing....

The Equine Virology Unit offers a comprehensive testing service including the serological diagnosis of all important equine viral infections encountered in the UK. We are an OIE International Reference Laboratory for Equine Influenza and Equine Herpesvirus.
diagvir1.gif
We offer serological tests for antibodies to equine influenza, equine adenovirus and equine rhinovirus types 1 & 2, which all cause respiratory infections of the horse, equine herpesvirus types 1&4, which can cause respiratory and neurological diseases as well as abortion and neonatal foal death, and equine arteritis virus, which is an important causative agent of abortion.
We can also make a diagnosis using a range of specific virus isolation and detection methods.
Serological diagnosis of viral infection relies on detecting virus specific antibodies present in equine serum samples. In most cases, submission of paired serum samples is recommended. An acute serum sample, taken during
diagvir2.jpg
the early stages of disease, is tested in parallel with a convalescent serum sample taken 10 to 14 days later. A rise in the amount of specific antibody detected in the convalescent sample relative to the acute sample may be suggestive of infection, in the absence of recent vaccination. Advice on interpretation of results is available from the epidemiology/virology unit through Customer Services
Although serological diagnosis is a very useful tool the results can be difficult to interpret especially if the animal has been vaccinated against the disease in question. Also the results can be somewhat retrospective. To address this we now offer a number of rapid methods to detect virus directly from clinical samples. We have used molecular biological techniques to develop polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests to detect the nucleic acids of target viruses in clinical samples. The PCR test works by amplifying very small amounts of virus specific nucleic acid that may be present in a sample and then detecting this specific nucleic acid. The test is both highly sensitive and specific and is diagnostic of recent infection by the target virus. We are routinely using PCR based tests to detect equine herpesvirus types 1&4 nucleic acid in tissue samples from cases of abortion or neonatal foal death and from cases of fatal neurological disease. We also use a PCR test to detect equine arteritis virus specific nucleic acids in the semen of stallions, a result that would indicate that the horse is a current equine arteritis virus shedder.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Did he actually not vaccinate or did he forge the signatures on the passports of his vet because he had the vaccines and administered them himself?

The latter happens time out of mind and I know a fair number of folk who do it - or used to, anyway!
 
There are still a fair few trainers out there with vets with "Bendy pens" and some who still don't vaccinate at all yet get the passports signed off. There are also those at the other end of the spectrum who when any virus appears re-vaccinate just at the wrong time so their horses go down with a humdinger and wipes their entire season out. (One trainer has even been known to hang strings of onions outside the horses stable and employ voodoo methods to ward off evil spirits - I am NOT kidding!)
 
Songsheet said:
Did he actually not vaccinate or did he forge the signatures on the passports of his vet because he had the vaccines and administered them himself?

The latter happens time out of mind and I know a fair number of folk who do it - or used to, anyway!
Click to expand...
He didn't vaccinate and then forged the passport entries.
 
Excellent stuff, Troodles - thanks. Interesting to see there's also a second vaccination for yearlings a month after their first and that nearly a quarter had not been jabbed at all.
 
The norm for setting up the course of flu vaccinations is two a month or so apart (21 - 92 days is the actual time) with a 3rd one 150 - 215 days after that, then they go yearly.

Rules state that after the initial course, they have to be repeated no more than 365 days apart, or they have to start again. Vets that get caught backdating get struck off, and even if its only one day out, the passport isnt valid.

The annoying thing with that is that the horse doesnt stop being covered at midnight on the final day - its just the rules.

Grrrrrr rules !!! ;)
 
Last edited:
rorydelargy said:
He didn't vaccinate and then forged the passport entries.
Click to expand...


And presumably charged the owners for non existent expenses? Which is the least of the wrong doings, but I don't think this is harsh. A shame others who have not at horses' welfare as their foremost concern have not had such punishment.
 
If we're talking about this being a welfare issue, then a 7 year ban doesn't really cut it, does it ? It really should be lifetime ban.

I don't know the guy at all and have no idea of why he did this or whether, as G-G points out above, he was also charging clients for non-existent vaccinations as well, which would indicate that he was basically bent.

If he did do this because he simply doesn't believe in the annual booster regime, then the correct course of action would have been to lobby for a change in the rules according to any vet research supporting his case.
 
Back
Top