Nicky Henderson Found Guilty

Harbinger

Harbinger

At the Start
Joined
Mar 22, 2004
Messages
11,282
From The Guardian:

Nicky Henderson, one of jump racing's most senior trainers, faces the possibility that he will lose his licence after the disciplinary panel of the British *Horseracing Authority decided yesterday that he had administered a banned and potentially performance-enhancing drug to a runner owned by The Queen.

Henderson's mare Moonlit Path tested positive for tranexamic acid, which is used to prevent internal bleeding, after finishing unplaced in a novice hurdle at Huntingdon on 19 February. The substance was administered via a syringe on the morning of the race.

A seven-hour hearing in London yesterday, at which Henderson admitted a number of more minor breaches of the rules of racing in connection with the case, also found him in breach of Rule 200, in that he "allowed, or caused to be administered, or connived at the administration of, tranexamic acid …either with the intention of affecting her racing performance or in the knowledge that her racing performance could be affected by such".

The possible penalties for a breach of Rule 200 range from a fine up to a suspension of Henderson's licence for five years. The panel will reconvene next Monday to consider Henderson's penalty, and will also consider any mitigating circumstances before it is confirmed.

Henderson looked tired and shocked as he left the hearing, in the City of London offices of the BHA's solicitors. He refused to comment on the decision.

Henderson's only public comment on the case is a statement issued on his behalf last month by the National Trainers' Federation. In the statement, he said that "the substance concerned was administered by my vet entirely in the interests of the horse's welfare, which is always paramount. There was no *intention to enhance performance".

The simple fact that Henderson allowed a banned substance to be administered to one of his horses on a race-day is hugely embarrassing in itself. However, that it was also one of the very few jumping horses owned by the Queen will compound the distress, and Henderson must fear that he will lose his royal patronage, regardless of any penalty that may be handed down by the BHA's panel.

It had been expected that Henderson's penalty would be imposed yesterday, but the panel decided that the breach was sufficiently serious to require further consideration.

To date, the largest fine imposed on any British trainer is £20,000, which was handed down to Michael Wigham in March 2008 after he was found in breach of the non-trier rules for the second time in less than a year. Wigham's licence was also suspended for 35 days.

The next-highest fine dates back 21 years, to 1998, when David Elsworth was fined £17,500 after Cavvies Clown tested positive for a prohibited substance.

Henderson, 58, has enjoyed great success throughout his 31-year training career. Last season, though, was one of his most successful for several years, and included a Champion Hurdle win with Punjabi. In all, Henderson's horses won more than £2 m in prize money.

He now faces an anxious seven days as he awaits the panel's penalty. The staff at his Seven Barrows yard in Lambourn will face uncertainty too, although Henderson would be able to transfer his licence to an assistant if his suspension is relatively brief. The summer months are also a quiet time for his yard, which would not expect to bring out its best hurdlers and chasers until October at the earliest.
Click to expand...

(emphasis mine)
 
It's hard to imagine how daft such a high-profile, highly-regarded trainer would be to do this: everyone knows that one, sometimes two, horses are selected for testing out of each race, so the chances that his would be pulled in were always on the table. It's bad enough that Wigham administered a substance which, although legal, mustn't be administered on the day of racing. In fact, no 'substances' are to be administered on the day of racing, although we know that it does happen - but that THLs are usually canny enough to dispose of any evidence in a lay-by's rubbish bin, not carefully label it with the horse's name, and helpfully drop it outside its stable for a wandering officio to spot! But this is a little different - it's a banned substance, and shouldn't be in the horse, not just on the day of racing, but on any other day. It also doesn't say much for his vet that he gave the stuff to the horse, knowing that it would show up if it was taken for routine testing. It doesn't say much for the vet that he gave it a banned substance, full stop, but to have given it on a raceday was particularly foolhardy.

Do yards get a bit above themselves once they take in horses for Her Madge? Do they imagine that they stand outside rules because they train for the monarch, and expect to be treated with some sort of deference by the BHA or other bodies? It puts the BHA in a difficult spot, too: they have to make the punishment severe, because they've severely punished other trainers for lesser transgressions, and presumably they might also want to make it clear that a privilege like training for royalty doesn't exempt anyone from proper behaviour - in fact, it carries an additional requirement to employ discretion and care. "QUEEN IN HORSE DOPING SCANDAL" wouldn't be the headlines they'd be delighted to see.
 
There has to be more to this story than has been told in public so far. Nicky Henderson certainly isn't stupid and he's not the type to knowingly run one on banned substances, either. He knows how small the chances are of getting away with it and he has so much to lose through a positive test. Let's face it, he's not going to risk his very successful training career by giving one moderate mare an illegal substance, is he? Not least when she is owned by the Queen.

So it follows that there must be a lot more to the story than has been said so far. Maybe the vet was insistent the substance wasn't a banned one, who knows?
 
Shadow Leader said:
There has to be more to this story than has been told in public so far. Nicky Henderson certainly isn't stupid and he's not the type to knowingly run one on banned substances, either. He knows how small the chances are of getting away with it and he has so much to lose through a positive test. Let's face it, he's not going to risk his very successful training career by giving one moderate mare an illegal substance, is he? Not least when she is owned by the Queen.

So it follows that there must be a lot more to the story than has been said so far. Maybe the vet was insistent the substance wasn't a banned one, who knows?
Click to expand...

I'm inclined to think along these lines too.
 
It's also worth pointing out that there are some perfectly legal substances and feed supplements that can be used to help bleeders.
 
It would be very interesting to know what NH said in his defence. The vet really should've been aware that the stuff was illegal, but it still stands that NH knows full well it shouldn't have been given to the animal on a raceday, whatever it was. There are horses being treated with Bute, but they have to have it out of their systems on racedays. As I said, it would be daft for him to take such a risk.
 
When this was first reported I'm sure that I read that someone else was involved and that NH said that he would take responsibility - iirc.
 
redhead said:
When this was first reported I'm sure that I read that someone else was involved and that NH said that he would take responsibility - iirc.
Click to expand...

The Queen!!!! and Noble Nicky has taken the rap for her. The Queen is the biggest horse fixer in the business - shock :blink:

Can she be warned off courses that she actually owns though?
 
Likelihood is someone else screwed up but, as the trainer, NH has no choice but to take the rap.

I shall get the inside info tomorrow as seeing one of NH's best muckers racing!!!
 
From The Guardian...

Nicky Henderson is one of the finest National Hunt trainers the sport has seen. He has enjoyed almost unbroken success since taking out a licence 31 years ago, is the most successful current trainer at the Cheltenham Festival and has won most of the sport's top prizes.
But if he eventually escapes with nothing more than a fine after being found guilty of a breach of Rule 200 yesterday, Henderson should also consider himself a very lucky man. Rule 200, which concerns the admission of substances to affect performance, goes to the heart of the sport's integrity. The possible penalties include a large fine or a suspension of Henderson's licence, or both, and, while no one would enjoy seeing him suffer such a public humiliation, there may be no option.
Consider, for example, the penalty handed down to Matt Gingell less than two weeks ago when he admitted "milkshaking" his horses, an offence under the same rules that prohibit "the administration of a prohibited substance with intention to affect the performance of that horse... or with knowledge that its racing performance could be affected". Gingell, who had relinquished his licence just before his hearing, was banned from the sport for two years.
There are, of course, differences between the two cases. Gingell's offences were found to be deliberate and persistent while we must assume – pending the official publication of the panel's reasons for yesterday's findings – that Henderson was guilty of an honest, albeit remarkably stupid, mistake.
Stupidity was no defence for Rio Ferdinand when he missed a drug test, though, and nor should it be for a trainer who breaks one of the essential rules on which the sport's integrity is founded.
Another serious concern about a fine, no matter how significant, rather than a suspension, would be the message it would appear to carry about the enduring effects of class within racing. It would suggest that, if you are a farmer with a nondescript cv, you will quite rightly get hammered for a breach of Rule 200 and, if you are an old Etonian who trains for the Queen, you will not.
Henderson may well point out in mitigation that removing his licence would threaten jobs in his stable. That is probably nonsense; if a yard that size does not have an assistant who can take over, something is badly wrong. Even if it is true, though, the best way for Henderson to respect his staff is not to allow anti-bleeding agents to be given to his runners on race-day in the first place.
To gain the respect of those it controls, any system of rules not only needs to be enforced without fear or favour; it must be seen to operate on that basis too. The Gingell case set a useful precedent, making it clear that performance-enhancing substances will not be tolerated. The Henderson case must not suggest the opposite.
That would allow ambitious and unscrupulous young trainers to give anti-bleeding drugs to their horses in the knowledge that, even if they are caught, their barrister will be able to claim Henderson's case as a precedent. It would, therefore, be no worse than 50-50 that they would lose their licence and, even if they did, they might well get it back by taking the BHA to court.
A ban from training of at least three months should be the minimum for any trainer found guilty under Rule 200, regardless of excuses, record or connections.
Click to expand...
 
The substance that was used was tranexamic acid. This is given to humans to stop bleeding i.e. women with heavy periods (sorry to be graphic guys!) - its a prescriptive only drug.
I would suspect that NH knew exactly what he was giving the mare and chanced it as presumably she was a bad bleeder. Maybe his vet did suggest it would get under the radar but the fact is he has been found guilty of giving a horse a performance enhancing drug which under current BHA rules is illegal. Therefore he should face the consequences. It is no different to Matt Gingell giving his horses "milkshakes" even if the prat was stupid enough to lie and say the horse had escaped and got into the feed room where it proceeded to eat vast quantities of bicarbonate of soda prior to the race (purlease!).
Should NH be treated any differently because he chose to come clean straight away and held his hands up instead of fabricating some fairy story? IMO - no. He abused the system and just because he is "someone" in racing as opposed to a "nobody" (MG), he should get the same punishment.
 
Last edited:
They'd be as well not bothering as all that will effectively happen is his horses will run under some other trainer's name for a couple of years. In fact the BHA would be as well not bothering having a security department. I'll never forget the time two stories appeared in the racing post on the same day. One was about Paul Scotney in America on a fact finding tour to see how they patrol the drugs situation. The other told how a convicted doper was working for some other stable during his two year suspension and was free to wander the racecourse stabling area. That wasn't the way the rp put it but that was the way it was.
 
I know full well what the BHA are like and their inadequacies!
The last yard I was training from had a banned trainer there "training" under my name. He was free to come and go as he pleased - and did. When I discovered he was continuing his "malpractices" and was happy enough for me to take the rap if he was caught again, I pulled the plug and packed up rather than go against what I believe in - which is running my horses on merit every time. He however ran a horse from my yard under a completely different trainers name. The BHA were informed of his movements but as usual did zero. I was quite gobsmakced that they felt it fine for me to be compromised and my licence to be on the line but he could continue to behave as he always did - just so he could in their words "earn a living - human rights and all that!"
 
I cannot believe that Nicky Henderson would risk his licence and successful career by administering a banned substance to a moderate mare owned by the Queen. It's a no-brainer. Is it also not a bit risky to state on a public forum that in the opinion of the poster he did it on purpose?
 
Last edited:
Shadow Leader said:
I cannot believe that Nicky Henderson would risk his licence and successful career by administering a banned substance to a moderate mare owned by the Queen. It's a no-brainer. Is it also not a bit risky to state on a public forum that in the opinion of the poster he did it on purpose?
Click to expand...

Is it relevant why he did it? Just because we see him as a decent person doesn't changes the facts and rules.
 
I'm not looking at it from the point of view of whether he's a decent person or not; I don't know him. I'm just asking why he would put his entire career at risk for a moderate mare? It doesn't add up; the guy's got more than three braincells to rub together after all. Which is why I'm of the opinion that there is more to this story that has so far been reported and why I'm not jumping to conclusions and casting aspersions.
 
Obviously when it is against the law that is the law, end of. However I do wonder why this drug is banned as altho it can be seen to sometimes enhance a horse's performance (as it helps blood to clot and not flow) it is also in the welfare interests of a horse who bleeds to have it. Or they could die on the track. In my humble opinion this is one drug which should be allowed, and named. :mad:
 
jinnyj said:
I know full well what the BHA are like and their inadequacies!
The last yard I was training from had a banned trainer there "training" under my name. He was free to come and go as he pleased - and did. When I discovered he was continuing his "malpractices" and was happy enough for me to take the rap if he was caught again, I pulled the plug and packed up rather than go against what I believe in - which is running my horses on merit every time. He however ran a horse from my yard under a completely different trainers name. The BHA were informed of his movements but as usual did zero. I was quite gobsmakced that they felt it fine for me to be compromised and my licence to be on the line but he could continue to behave as he always did - just so he could in their words "earn a living - human rights and all that!"
Click to expand...

A shocking if unsurprising story Jinny. Glad to hear you run them all on their merits. That makes 3 of you (Godolphin and Henry Cecil in case you were wondering).
 
jinnyj said:
The substance that was used was tranexamic acid. This is given to humans to stop bleeding i.e. women with heavy periods (sorry to be graphic guys!) - its a prescriptive only drug.
I would suspect that NH knew exactly what he was giving the mare and chanced it as presumably she was a bad bleeder. Maybe his vet did suggest it would get under the radar but the fact is he has been found guilty of giving a horse a performance enhancing drug which under current BHA rules is illegal. Therefore he should face the consequences. It is no different to Matt Gingell giving his horses "milkshakes" even if the prat was stupid enough to lie and say the horse had escaped and got into the feed room where it proceeded to eat vast quantities of bicarbonate of soda prior to the race (purlease!).
Should NH be treated any differently because he chose to come clean straight away and held his hands up instead of fabricating some fairy story? IMO - no. He abused the system and just because he is "someone" in racing as opposed to a "nobody" (MG), he should get the same punishment.
Click to expand...
Jinny - sadly within racing people like yourself are the exception rather than the rule.

If more people would come clean and tell the authorities about the drugs cheats - of which there are many then racing would be cleaner and much fairer for all
 
Back
Top