Colin Phillips
At the Start
Five year ban.
Gut reaction is that that is a bit harsh.
Gut reaction is that that is a bit harsh.
Gerard Butler
- Thread starter Colin Phillips
- Start date
edgt
Senior Jockey
It seems to be given he put his hands up without delay.
I don't think so - he has admitted he did not administer Sungate but a preparation ten times stronger intended for humans and covered it up .
full statement here
http://www.britishhorseracing.press...-and-reasons-regarding-Gerard-Butler-452.aspx
not read all this but from the bits i'm hearing....lifetime ban would have been more suitable. utterly disgraceful behaviour.
Bar the Bull
At the Start
They seem to have done a thorough job in this instance. For once, well done BHA.
No he didn't hold his hands up straight away. What made his case far worse was the underhand way he went and bought a product intended for human use only & in which the concentration of steroid was 10 times greater than in Sungate, and administered it by injection himself -- without telling anybody or entering it in the medication book.
This was finally dragged out of him under cross-examination whereupon he changed his plea. A five-year ban seems about right, if anything it might be a shade lenient.
This was finally dragged out of him under cross-examination whereupon he changed his plea. A five-year ban seems about right, if anything it might be a shade lenient.
jinnyj
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2004
- Messages
- 4,570
The fact is that as a non-veterinarian, he injected a substance into a joint. That in itself is illegal. It is not just a BHA offence, it is a criminal offence.
This is a quote from the Telegraph some months ago:
"It emerged on Tuesday that Gerard Butler, the Newmarket trainer who is also embroiled in a steroid investigation, could face criminal charges for a possible contravention of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966. On Monday, Butler admitted in a newspaper interview bypassing vets and administering the banned substance Sungate, a joint remedy, which contains the steroid Stanozolol, to his horses.
With certain exceptions for farmers, under the Veterinary Surgeons Act it an offence for anyone other than a vet to give animals an 'intra-articular’ injection. Injecting into joints is a skilled job requiring great accuracy. Even the most experienced vets do not always get it right and should infection be introduced to the joint it is often curtains for a horse’s racing career.
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons confirmed this type of injection was not a “minor medical procedure” and it was therefore against the law for a 'lay person’ to carry it out."
And if you read the last 2 paragraphs the RP has just posted:
http://www.racingpost.com/news/live.sd?event_id=1117774&category=0
Just about sums it up.
This is a quote from the Telegraph some months ago:
"It emerged on Tuesday that Gerard Butler, the Newmarket trainer who is also embroiled in a steroid investigation, could face criminal charges for a possible contravention of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966. On Monday, Butler admitted in a newspaper interview bypassing vets and administering the banned substance Sungate, a joint remedy, which contains the steroid Stanozolol, to his horses.
With certain exceptions for farmers, under the Veterinary Surgeons Act it an offence for anyone other than a vet to give animals an 'intra-articular’ injection. Injecting into joints is a skilled job requiring great accuracy. Even the most experienced vets do not always get it right and should infection be introduced to the joint it is often curtains for a horse’s racing career.
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons confirmed this type of injection was not a “minor medical procedure” and it was therefore against the law for a 'lay person’ to carry it out."
And if you read the last 2 paragraphs the RP has just posted:
http://www.racingpost.com/news/live.sd?event_id=1117774&category=0
Just about sums it up.
Last edited:
EC1
On a break
totally agree
this country has a far too lax attitude towards animal abuse in general
the man should never be let near horses again imo...but give it a couple of years ...and if he was a right laugh ..bit of a lad...there will be calls for him to be allowed back in some quarters
simmo
Senior Jockey
I like some of his films. A five year ban seems excessive - is that down to the apparent metrosexuality of his suits when he appeared at Wimbledon with his "friend" Bradley?
Colin Phillips
At the Start
My gut reaction appears to have been a bit off.
Should have read the whole thing.
Should have read the whole thing.
EC1
On a break
edgt
Senior Jockey
Like Colin I too did not know the full details.
Apologies to anyone whom i upset.
Injecting intra -articularly is not something I would attempt even with qualification to do so!
Mind you it never ceases to amaze me what horse folk get up to to "reduce veterinary costs ".
I know of one guy who killed most his horses by giving an ivermectin worm dose by intra-venous injection, Russian Roulette by another name.
Since the beginning of time people have tried to make horses perform better and were not too concerned about the welfare of the animals in question.
Apologies to anyone whom i upset.
Injecting intra -articularly is not something I would attempt even with qualification to do so!
Mind you it never ceases to amaze me what horse folk get up to to "reduce veterinary costs ".
I know of one guy who killed most his horses by giving an ivermectin worm dose by intra-venous injection, Russian Roulette by another name.
Since the beginning of time people have tried to make horses perform better and were not too concerned about the welfare of the animals in question.
It's the random injecting into joints that I find so abhorrent. Given its a procedure that I don't like anyway, were any of the horses owners informed of this?
The sooner trainers realise that they can't just randomly dose horses with any old crap in any old way that can damage the horse the better.
5 years seems lenient to me.
Nx
The sooner trainers realise that they can't just randomly dose horses with any old crap in any old way that can damage the horse the better.
5 years seems lenient to me.
Nx
On The Bridle
At the Start
I always liked him and Eddie Ahern as a combination. I would never have thought either would have gone to the bad in such a way so quickly...fair play to the BHA. He will never train racehorses again professionally.
granger
Senior Jockey
5 years rather lenient
An informative article by Greg Wood in today's Guardian:
The extent of the drugs case involving trainer Gerard Butler has shocked the racing industry.
The final chapter in the 10-month Sungate story was expected to be about an illegal drug, a vet who should have known better, one trainer – Gerard Butler – who pushed it too far and nine more trainers, eight of whom melted back into the Newmarket establishment with their anonymity and reputations intact.
It turned out to be the start of another, much darker story, in the time it took to read through the 4,000-word findings of the BHA's disciplinary panel and discover just how low Butler was prepared to sink.
We knew in February, by the trainer's own admission, that his horses had received Sungate, which contains the banned anabolic steroid stanozolol, on the advice of his vet. We knew too that Butler had, he said, bought and injected Sungate into several horses himself. This was not only reckless, due to the risk of infection or injury, but also an apparently criminal act, yet even this, it turns out, was scarcely the half of it.
Because he did not inject Sungate, which is, for all that it is the scantest mitigation, a drug licensed for use in horses. Instead, an internet search led Butler to a site aimed at human bodybuilders promising "easy payment" and "discreet packaging", and to a drug called Rexogin, which the site boasts is "one of the favourite steroids in general" and cites Ben Johnson as something akin to a five-star review. Rexogin is not licensed for use on horses, and it is 10 times more concentrated than Sungate.
Butler believed he would be able to perform an intra-articular injection because he had been "present at hundreds of such injections", in the words of the panel, but soon discovered that it was not as easy as it looked. "He accepted that he was not used to dealing with the glass vials of drugs," the panel continues, "and found them difficult to open and broke some vials and spilt Rexogin from others that he used."
Even in Newmarket, where the occasional triumphs and countless disappointments of a life around racehorses tend to leave people unshockable, there will be astonishment that any trainer could display such reckless disregard for horse welfare. If anything, a five-year ban seems on the low side, though it is difficult to imagine that Butler will ever get a licence to train once it expires or, for that matter, find an owner willing to send him a horse.
But nor will it go unnoticed in Newmarket that the news of Butler's shameful behaviour has allowed the 10-month Sungate affair to slip into history with scarcely a ripple.
Many questions remain unanswered. Clive Brittain has admitted to being one of the nine trainers apart from Butler whose horses received Sungate, but who were the other eight? Among those who live and work in Newmarket, the names are common knowledge, so why are Britain's racegoers and punters still in the dark? Is there widespread use of banned drugs in British racing? If so, has the British Horseracing Authority missed a chance to do something about it?
Since Sungate contains an anabolic steroid, it should never have been allowed on to licensed premises in the first place. It also beggars belief that a vet from Rossdales, the biggest equine practice in Europe and operating in the headquarters of Flat racing, could not have known this. It takes five years of intensive study to qualify as a vet and, without doubt, one of the first lessons is: always read the label.
Trainers are strictly liable for everything in their horses' systems, so they should always read the label too. The nine trainers other than Butler whose horses received Sungate were, at best, naive and careless to accept their vet's prescription without asking what was in it.
And it is also possible, of course, that one or more of them knew what was in Sungate, or knew that it got results and thought it best not to ask too many questions.
Even the best-case scenario is not much of an advertisement for anyone looking to invest in the sport, either as an owner or punter. Yet all nine trainers escaped charges, and with the exception of Brittain, maintained their anonymity. Why?
The answer is that they slipped through a loophole in the rules, one which has recently been closed. Previously, it was necessary for a horse to return a positive dope test in order for charges to be laid under the anti-doping rules, and while there is no doubt whatsoever that horses at all nine yards – 43 in all – received Sungate, the evidence is in their veterinary records alone. Without a positive test, it is useless.
Nor was it felt that they could be charged under the broader, "disrepute" rules, since a vet had prescribed Sungate and there was no hard evidence to suggest that the trainers were aware of its active ingredient. The vet concerned cannot be relied upon – or even expected – to help, either, since vets are subject to regulation by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and not the BHA.
The fact that vets and trainers have different regulators offers a clear possibility that a culture of self-serving secrecy could emerge between the two: if you don't squeal to my lot, I won't squeal to yours.
The RCVS said on Wednesday that it is "aware of the result and findings of the British Horseracing Authority's disciplinary panel hearing regarding Gerard Butler, adding that the College will liaise with the BHA and will look into whether there is an issue of serious professional misconduct relating to a veterinary surgeon in this case."
Butler, though, will be the only trainer punished at the end of the Sungate affair, and even his ruinous penalty owes far more to his reckless disregard for horse welfare than his clear breach of the doping rules. In racing, at least, everyone else walks away.
The key questions
1 What is Sungate? Sungate is a drug licensed for use in treating joint problems in horses, but banned from racing yards because it contains stanozolol, an anabolic steroid, in 5mg/ml concentration.
2 What is Rexogin? Rexogin also contains stanozolol, but in 50mg/ml concentration. It is not licensed for use on horses, but available for purchase online..
3 Where do you get the steroids from? A simple internet search returns dozens of results for sites offering Rexogin for sale to body-builders, at about £55 for 10 1ml vials. Sungate is manufactured in Italy.
4 Are they prohibited? Anabolic steroids are Class C drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act. It is an offence to supply these, but legal to possess anabolic steroids for personal use. It is also illegal to buy steroids online to be imported into the UK. Sungate is licensed for equine use in Italy. Its use in the UK is legal, but only if imported under the Special Import Certificate scheme run by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate.
5 Have the rules changed? The BHA has closed a loophole which meant trainers could not be charged with using Sungate without a positive test. The use of any anabolic steroid on a horse in training is, and will continue to be, banned.
The extent of the drugs case involving trainer Gerard Butler has shocked the racing industry.
The final chapter in the 10-month Sungate story was expected to be about an illegal drug, a vet who should have known better, one trainer – Gerard Butler – who pushed it too far and nine more trainers, eight of whom melted back into the Newmarket establishment with their anonymity and reputations intact.
It turned out to be the start of another, much darker story, in the time it took to read through the 4,000-word findings of the BHA's disciplinary panel and discover just how low Butler was prepared to sink.
We knew in February, by the trainer's own admission, that his horses had received Sungate, which contains the banned anabolic steroid stanozolol, on the advice of his vet. We knew too that Butler had, he said, bought and injected Sungate into several horses himself. This was not only reckless, due to the risk of infection or injury, but also an apparently criminal act, yet even this, it turns out, was scarcely the half of it.
Because he did not inject Sungate, which is, for all that it is the scantest mitigation, a drug licensed for use in horses. Instead, an internet search led Butler to a site aimed at human bodybuilders promising "easy payment" and "discreet packaging", and to a drug called Rexogin, which the site boasts is "one of the favourite steroids in general" and cites Ben Johnson as something akin to a five-star review. Rexogin is not licensed for use on horses, and it is 10 times more concentrated than Sungate.
Butler believed he would be able to perform an intra-articular injection because he had been "present at hundreds of such injections", in the words of the panel, but soon discovered that it was not as easy as it looked. "He accepted that he was not used to dealing with the glass vials of drugs," the panel continues, "and found them difficult to open and broke some vials and spilt Rexogin from others that he used."
Even in Newmarket, where the occasional triumphs and countless disappointments of a life around racehorses tend to leave people unshockable, there will be astonishment that any trainer could display such reckless disregard for horse welfare. If anything, a five-year ban seems on the low side, though it is difficult to imagine that Butler will ever get a licence to train once it expires or, for that matter, find an owner willing to send him a horse.
But nor will it go unnoticed in Newmarket that the news of Butler's shameful behaviour has allowed the 10-month Sungate affair to slip into history with scarcely a ripple.
Many questions remain unanswered. Clive Brittain has admitted to being one of the nine trainers apart from Butler whose horses received Sungate, but who were the other eight? Among those who live and work in Newmarket, the names are common knowledge, so why are Britain's racegoers and punters still in the dark? Is there widespread use of banned drugs in British racing? If so, has the British Horseracing Authority missed a chance to do something about it?
Since Sungate contains an anabolic steroid, it should never have been allowed on to licensed premises in the first place. It also beggars belief that a vet from Rossdales, the biggest equine practice in Europe and operating in the headquarters of Flat racing, could not have known this. It takes five years of intensive study to qualify as a vet and, without doubt, one of the first lessons is: always read the label.
Trainers are strictly liable for everything in their horses' systems, so they should always read the label too. The nine trainers other than Butler whose horses received Sungate were, at best, naive and careless to accept their vet's prescription without asking what was in it.
And it is also possible, of course, that one or more of them knew what was in Sungate, or knew that it got results and thought it best not to ask too many questions.
Even the best-case scenario is not much of an advertisement for anyone looking to invest in the sport, either as an owner or punter. Yet all nine trainers escaped charges, and with the exception of Brittain, maintained their anonymity. Why?
The answer is that they slipped through a loophole in the rules, one which has recently been closed. Previously, it was necessary for a horse to return a positive dope test in order for charges to be laid under the anti-doping rules, and while there is no doubt whatsoever that horses at all nine yards – 43 in all – received Sungate, the evidence is in their veterinary records alone. Without a positive test, it is useless.
Nor was it felt that they could be charged under the broader, "disrepute" rules, since a vet had prescribed Sungate and there was no hard evidence to suggest that the trainers were aware of its active ingredient. The vet concerned cannot be relied upon – or even expected – to help, either, since vets are subject to regulation by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and not the BHA.
The fact that vets and trainers have different regulators offers a clear possibility that a culture of self-serving secrecy could emerge between the two: if you don't squeal to my lot, I won't squeal to yours.
The RCVS said on Wednesday that it is "aware of the result and findings of the British Horseracing Authority's disciplinary panel hearing regarding Gerard Butler, adding that the College will liaise with the BHA and will look into whether there is an issue of serious professional misconduct relating to a veterinary surgeon in this case."
Butler, though, will be the only trainer punished at the end of the Sungate affair, and even his ruinous penalty owes far more to his reckless disregard for horse welfare than his clear breach of the doping rules. In racing, at least, everyone else walks away.
The key questions
1 What is Sungate? Sungate is a drug licensed for use in treating joint problems in horses, but banned from racing yards because it contains stanozolol, an anabolic steroid, in 5mg/ml concentration.
2 What is Rexogin? Rexogin also contains stanozolol, but in 50mg/ml concentration. It is not licensed for use on horses, but available for purchase online..
3 Where do you get the steroids from? A simple internet search returns dozens of results for sites offering Rexogin for sale to body-builders, at about £55 for 10 1ml vials. Sungate is manufactured in Italy.
4 Are they prohibited? Anabolic steroids are Class C drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act. It is an offence to supply these, but legal to possess anabolic steroids for personal use. It is also illegal to buy steroids online to be imported into the UK. Sungate is licensed for equine use in Italy. Its use in the UK is legal, but only if imported under the Special Import Certificate scheme run by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate.
5 Have the rules changed? The BHA has closed a loophole which meant trainers could not be charged with using Sungate without a positive test. The use of any anabolic steroid on a horse in training is, and will continue to be, banned.
Bar the Bull
At the Start
Greg Wood is a credit to journalism.
Miesque
At the Start
Just one point - of the nine other trainers who used Sungate they use three separate veterinary surgeons from Rossdales. It was a practice wide issue not a rogue vet who hadn't read the ingredients.
Last edited:
Diamond Geezer
Gone But Not Forgotten
- Joined
- May 2, 2003
- Messages
- 13,884
Butler has appealed, and a hearing will have to take place.
tiggers1972
Senior Jockey
Yes he could and should get longer