Howard Johnson

If he were banned I'd be very interested indeed to see what Mr Wylie did with all his nags.
 
Very interesting to see what BHA do here. He must have known the practice was banned -any vet worth his salt would have informed him in any case. Mr Wiley by extension must also have been aware. How would it have been noted on his vets bill??
 
Crikey; I remember now how surprised everyone was to see the horse running that day, because it appeared to have broken down quite badly in it's previous race. Mr Johnson is like a magnet to contoversy and trouble of all kinds is he not?
 
Haven't got my rule book to hand but I'd say he's in a serious amount of trouble. It is a banned practice (and rightly so) - they should give him a proper punishment IMO - none of this 3 month ban because of who he is.
 
Graham Wylie's IT company TSG, have just posted another financial loss.
That's £ 30,000,000.00 of losses to March 2010.
Currently, Graham is pumping £ 4,500,000.00 of cash for shares,per year, into this loss machine. :eek:
 
I agree with OTB - surely he has a 'racing' vet who'd know which treatments were allowable for horses in work, and which weren't?
 
Tht sounds horrible for the horse and if he is found guilty they need to throw the book at him, just like they did with Henderson :rolleyes:
 
I am one who wanted Henderson to get a much tougher sentence, but this is much more serious. If true, he should not be allowed to train horses anymore - no other punishment fits the alleged crime.
 
davidjohnson said:
Wasn't Striking Article badly lame after his previous run at Wetherby after winning a handicap off 130? He then turns up 4 months later in a claiming chase with a price tag which gives him upwards of 20 lbs in hand, yet he still goes off odds against prior to breaking down with fatal consequences. Such a sequence of events, whilst I'd stop a long way short of suggesting what happened could be predicted, it hardly comes as a shock.

RIP Striking Article. You deserved better.
Click to expand...

This was taken from the Departures 2010 thread I posted at the time. I thought there was something fishy at the time. Don't wish to pre-empt a BHA enquiry but if he's found guilty I hope he's banned for a very long time.
 
Howard Johnson has been blacklisted by insurance agencies in the past I'm told. This might give an indication as to why.
 
10 Jan 2011 12:25
TRAINER CHARGED WITH RUNNING A HORSE SUBJECTED TO A PROHIBITED PROCEDURE AND WITH STEROID OFFENCES




Howard Johnson charged with running Striking Article following a neurectomy, a prohibited procedure under the Rules of Racing
Trainer also charged with administering anabolic steroids to three horses in his care

Licensed Trainer Howard Johnson has been charged with offences under the Rules of Racing having admitted to running a horse that had undergone a neurectomy whilst under his care. The neurectomy came to light following a post-mortem, after the horse had been injured in a race and subsequently euthanized.

In addition, and as part of an entirely separate investigation, Howard Johnson has also been charged with breaches of the Rules of Racing in relation to the administration of laurabolin, an anabolic steroid containing nandrolone, to three other horses under his care. Anabolic steroids are a prohibited substance and their use is banned outright under the Rules of Racing.

The Disciplinary Panel will consider whether or not Howard Johnson is in breach of:

Rule 188 of the Rules of Racing (2007) and two of Rule (C)37 of the Rules of Racing by declaring STRIKING ARTICLE (IRE) to run in eight races between 11 October 2008 and 7 February 2010 when, by virtue of the fact that STRIKING ARTICLE (IRE) had undergone a palmar neurectomy to his left fore limb on 8 April 2008, STRIKING ARTICLE (IRE) was not qualified to start for such races under the Orders and Rules of Racing 2007.
Rule 51(i) of the Rules of Racing 2007 (and subsequent to 7 September 2009, in breach of Rule (C)22 of the Rules of Racing 2009) by failing to conduct his business of training racehorses with reasonable care and skill by virtue of the fact that:
a) STRIKING ARTICLE (IRE) had undergone a palmar neurectomy to his left fore on 8 April 2008;
b) STRIKING ARTICLE (IRE) was thus prohibited under the Rules of Racing 2007 and Rules of Racing 2009
from being declared to run in races;
c) Howard Johnson was wholly unaware of the relevant Rule and thus declared STRIKING ARTICLE (IRE) to run
on 8 occasions after the horse had undergone a neurectomy on 8 April 2008.

Rule 239 of the Rules of Racing 2007 (and subsequent to the 7 September 2009, in breach of Rule (C)50 and/or (C)55 of the Rules of Racing 2009) by causing or allowing to be administered laurabolin, a Prohibited Substance, to WHISKY MAGIC (FR) on 16 July 2008, MINTAKA PASS (IRE) on 29 April 2009 and MONTOYA’S SON (IRE) on 30 October 2009.
Rule 220(iii) (or A(30) subsequent to 7 September 2009) in that, by causing or allowing laurobolin to be administered to WHISKY MAGIC (FR), MINTIKA PASS (IRE), and MONTOYA’S SON (IRE), he acted in a manner that was prejudicial to the integrity, proper conduct and/or good reputation of horseracing in Great Britain.
A Disciplinary Panel hearing has been provisionally scheduled for 10 February 2011.
 
Penalty Guidelines


Rule (C)22 - Trainer in breach of Rule regarding horse(s) in his charge:
a) Below acceptable standard
Entry:£2,000
Range:£1,000 - £3,000

b) Neglect over a period of time/very poor husbandry
Entry: Withdraw licence 9 months
Range:6 months - 1 year

c) Wilful cruelty
Entry: Disqualify 6 years
Range:5 - 10 years

Rule (C)55 – Positive sample following Testing in Training
Entry: £2000 or withdraw/disqualify 3 months
Range: £1000 to £10,000 or withdraw/disqualify 1 month to 3 years


Rule (A)30 – Prejudicial to the integrity, proper conduct or good reputation of horseracing
Entry: £2000 or withdraw/disqualify 3 months
Range: £1000 to £10,000 or withdraw/disqualify 1 month to 3 years

There is no published Guideline Penalty for a breach of Rule (C)37 nor Rule (C)50.
 
I think it's in an old Statue book, rory:

"... hence to be drawn on a hurdle to the place of execution, where he shall be hanged by the neck until unconscious, thence his body to be quartered... "

I think they'll be using the hurdle from the back straight at Newcastle.
 
I suspect he'll only be found guilty of "Below acceptable standards" on (c)22. I can't see them getting him on Willful cruelty, and one incident can't qualify for "over a period of time"

Hopefully they can compensate for not getting him on this rule breach by accumulating maximums on others.
 
Rule (A)30 – Prejudicial to the integrity, proper conduct or good reputation of horseracing
Entry: £2000 or withdraw/disqualify 3 months
Range: £1000 to "cut his goolies off" *


* copyright, Not The Nine O'Clock News
 
Melendez said:
I suspect he'll only be found guilty of "Below acceptable standards" on (c)22. I can't see them getting him on Willful cruelty, and one incident can't qualify for "over a period of time"

Hopefully they can compensate for not getting him on this rule breach by accumulating maximums on others.
Click to expand...

It's surely, surely, surely wilful cruelty. The others tend to cover carelessness or inaction over a period of time. What he did was no accident and brings racing into disrepute. The fact the horse had already broken down and did so again makes this one of the worst cases we've seen. Makes Mick Quinn look a saint.

I'll make it clear - there must be a chance that the purpose of this was specifically to allow the horse sustain a fatal injury on the racecourse, rather than to increase its chances of winning.
 
Surely this should also be a criminal case? I would expect him if found guilty to serve a sentence of some sort.
 
It's surely, surely, surely wilful cruelty. The others tend to cover carelessness or inaction over a period of time. What he did was no accident and brings racing into disrepute. The fact the horse had already broken down and did so again makes this one of the worst cases we've seen. Makes Mick Quinn look a saint.
Click to expand...

I agree it is. I will be amazed if that is the finding of the disciplinary panel. If they did and it was challenged in court (as it would be) the panel would have to prove Howard Johnson thought the horse was at an unacceptable risk of injuring himself when running, which would require telepathic insight.
 
Did like the typical Daily Mail bit though, Howard Johnson could face a 'sensational' ban. Err no, just a ban, let me decide if it's sensational thanks.
 
Rory, why on God's earth would you want a horse to sustain a fatal injury? It would look bad enough to have run a broken-down horse to its death, as many would've thought without the PM revealing all, and there's virtually no likelihood of it being insured following its previous breakdown. Please explain why you think that would be the purpose of the exercise.
 
Of course, this sort of stuff will wipe away the feelgood Tony McCoy factor. I'm just waiting for another Panorama programme.
 
Back
Top