Nicky Henderson Found Guilty

Have I missed something ? The implication of the question was the lack of an entry was because the person in charge of the horse and the medical book knew it was wrong .

What could Henderson do other than admit that ?
 
Ardross said:
Have I missed something ? The implication of the question was the lack of an entry was because the person in charge of the horse and the medical book knew it was wrong .

What could Henderson do other than admit that ?
Click to expand...

The person in charge of the horse is surely the trainer, especially when the horse is owned by the Queen. Henderson has been playing the innocent as if the running of his yard is none of his business, which might be true, but doesn't reflect well on him.
 
Where does this leave the BHA? They didn't have Main or the 2 assistants giving evidence from what I can remember. Had they done so the result could (but probably wouldn't) have been different. Where does this leave Symonds as a fit an proper person to hold a licence (which I am most sure he is) when he applies.

The whole thing is an utter joke nad no doubt reflects the penalty that Howard Johnson won't get either when he gives his defence "Oh I was only the trainer and I just didn't appreciate it was against the rules!"

This is more like it - From the RP:
USA: Leading trainer Rick Dutrow, so often stalked by controversy, could face a formal review of his licence after the latest in a series of transgressions.
Best known for the exploits of 2008 Kentucky Derby winner Big Brown, Dutrow was suspended for a total of 90 days earlier this week after two separate infractions.
He is appealing against the bans, imposed by New York for a positive drug sample in a winning horse from a race at Aqueduct last fall and for possession of hypodermic needles in his barn.
On Thursday, Ed Martin, president of Racing Commissioners International (RCI), formally requested the New York State Racing and Wagering Board commence a review of Dutrow's licence.
The RCI is an official body existing to "protect and uphold the integrity of the pari-mutuel sports...by encouraging forceful and uniform regulation".
In a letter to the New York Board, Martin wrote: "I formally request the Board to commence a proceeding and issue a notice to show cause as to why his license should not be revoked given what appears to be a lifetime pattern of disregard for the rules of racing."
According to the RCI website, Martin noted that Dutrow had violated the rules of racing at 15 tracks in nine different states and had been cited on a total of 64 occasions.
"In reviewing Mr. Dutrow's career in racing you will find a variety of violations that need to be assessed in determining whether there is pattern of disregard for the rules sufficient to take action on his racing license," Martin added.
"How many so called honest mistakes can one have before you question whether there has been a total disregard for adherence to the rules. I ask the New York Board to make that determination and examine Mr. Dutrow's career in racing to see if sufficient evidence exists to say enough is enough."
 
Last edited:
Not been following the whole saga with the RCVS but have it on good authority that Symonds will be training himself come next NH season so hopefully he can make a real go of it without the interference of others.

Jinnyj - the BHA aren't able to force Main to give evidence at one of their enquiries though the RCVS have powers of subpoena under the 1966 Veterinary Surgeons Act so any attempt by him not to give evidence would be rather pointless.

18 months later the BHA still look at best very amateurish and at worst utterly clueless - one of the basic rules/regulations for holding a license, working on licensed premises, owning a horse, attending horses in a racing yard should be willingness to attend any inquiry held by the BHA - failure to attend should result in being warned off for bringing the sport into disrepute, as should attempting to prevent someone from attending or for that matter interfering with a witness.
 
I quite agree, Martin. Especially when Main was the NTF advisory vet. What I was trying to imply was exactly that - that the BHA look useless once again. I see they are currently reviewing whether or not to let Lydia Pearce take over her husbands licence. Initially they refused but he has convieniently moved out into their son's flat. So that's OK then - no contact between mother & son, & father? I appreciate that the owners are keen to keep the horses there and there are staff but for goodness sake - the guy has been warned off. He knew the risks and if the knock on effect has consequences then he should have thought about that earlier.
 
Irish Stamp said:
18 months later the BHA still look at best very amateurish and at worst utterly clueless - one of the basic rules/regulations for holding a license, working on licensed premises, owning a horse, attending horses in a racing yard should be willingness to attend any inquiry held by the BHA - failure to attend should result in being warned off for bringing the sport into disrepute, as should attempting to prevent someone from attending or for that matter interfering with a witness.
Click to expand...

Fair point. although isn't the hope that Symonds "can make a real go of it without the interference of others" rather at odds with that view given that he has wilfully broken the rules? Unless you believe that he deliberately lied at the inquiry, which would make him the perfect candidate to hold a licence. :blink:
 
Good point Rory - tbh I was rather confused as to why they didn't tell the owner (even though she is The Queen) that racing the horse wasn't the best idea, think I read somewhere that TS had seen her bleed 10 times at home prior to debuting.

My view above would be the ideal situation - "interference" being from a boss or an owner telling him to do X or Y and cover it up or help cover it up. In the ideal world everyone would have to attend any inquiry that the BHA call or face being warned off - I doubt that will happen as the way I've phrased it sounds like some Eastern European dictatorship but with the way the trainers and owners seem to be behaving that is probably what British racing needs right now - not that it will happen as the applecart is something the BHA don't seem to want to upset.
 
Irish Stamp said:
Good point Rory - tbh I was rather confused as to why they didn't tell the owner (even though she is The Queen) that racing the horse wasn't the best idea, think I read somewhere that TS had seen her bleed 10 times at home prior to debuting.

My view above would be the ideal situation - "interference" being from a boss or an owner telling him to do X or Y and cover it up or help cover it up. In the ideal world everyone would have to attend any inquiry that the BHA call or face being warned off - I doubt that will happen as the way I've phrased it sounds like some Eastern European dictatorship but with the way the trainers and owners seem to be behaving that is probably what British racing needs right now - not that it will happen as the applecart is something the BHA don't seem to want to upset.
Click to expand...

Playing devil's advocate Martin. Everyone I know who knows Tom Symonds speaks well of him, but of course that's true of Nicky Henderson too. The bottom line is that the rules are being broken with impunity by those who believe that they shouldn't apply. That's what needs to be dealt with as much as anything.
 
I agree entirely Rory - the question that should be asked is why a mare who'd bled so often on the gallops that they felt the need to give her a banned substance in order to aid recovery was deemed fit enough by the persons involved (most notably Nicky Henderson) to race.
 
rorydelargy said:
The person in charge of the horse is surely the trainer, especially when the horse is owned by the Queen. Henderson has been playing the innocent as if the running of his yard is none of his business, which might be true, but doesn't reflect well on him.
Click to expand...

True but surely Henderson has admitted to taking his eye badly off the ball and relying on the vet to know his stuff. It does indeed suggest he did too much " delegating without supervision"

If he had known that it was banned , the idea he would have allowed it to be done to an outsider owned by the Queen strikes me as bizarre.
 
Ardross said:
True but surely Henderson has admitted to taking his eye badly off the ball and relying on the vet to know his stuff. It does indeed suggest he did too much " delegating without supervision"

If he had known that it was banned , the idea he would have allowed it to be done to an outsider owned by the Queen strikes me as bizarre.
Click to expand...

but he didn't expect it to be found out - after all ..he is jovial, good egg Nicky - no one would possibly expect any wrongdoing by him
 
Ardross said:
True but surely Henderson has admitted to taking his eye badly off the ball and relying on the vet to know his stuff. It does indeed suggest he did too much " delegating without supervision"

If he had known that it was banned , the idea he would have allowed it to be done to an outsider owned by the Queen strikes me as bizarre.
Click to expand...

Henderson, and most other trainers in the country know exactly what tranaxemic acid is, what it does, and why it's banned. He's also known James Main for many years, and I doubt anything has gone on without his general knowledge.
 
rorydelargy said:
Henderson, and most other trainers in the country know exactly what tranaxemic acid is, what it does, and why it's banned. He's also known James Main for many years, and I doubt anything has gone on without his general knowledge.
Click to expand...

And your evidence is ?
 
Irish Stamp said:
I agree entirely Rory - the question that should be asked is why a mare who'd bled so often on the gallops that they felt the need to give her a banned substance in order to aid recovery was deemed fit enough by the persons involved (most notably Nicky Henderson) to race.
Click to expand...
Exactly this. The Queen is a very knowledgeable horsewoman and I really can't see that she would be adamant the horse had to run if she was aware of its history of bleeding.
In which case if the frequency of bleeding was bad as has been reported surely Henderson has a responsibility to advise the owner that the horse isn't suitable for racing, whoever that owner may be.
 
NH's attempt to squirm out from his duty of care to all in his remit, equine and human, is unbecoming and inappropriate to the post of a trainer to the Queen. If one wanted to play this melodrama out further, one might say that as she represents the head of the Commonwealth, etc., etc., she should not be tainted by further acquaintance. If I were her Grand Vizier, her horses would be departing the Henderson yard to one where integrity would not be compromised, and Her Madge's new trainer would assume accountability at all times.
 
It's all been handled really badly, hasn't it? I haven't re-read the thread in its entirety but I do remember that I defended Main and probably Henderson - however the more of this story that comes out, the more it's fairly plain to see that was a case of defending the indefensible. Hanging your staff out to dry is just plain wrong so far as I can see - however there must be more to it than that; both Ben and Tom are still working for Henderson, didn't leave nor were sacked, which possibly begs further questions.
 
Thing is, Shadz, regardless of even if it was a goof at his stables, you'd expect to him to say something along the lines of "While the member of staff responsible is no longer with us/is utterly contrite/yadda-yadda, I have to accept ultimate responsibility for what happens at my yard, and deeply regret any embarrassment this incident may have caused... " - blather, blather/look of contrition. Slight passing of the actual buck, but asking for forgiveness, rather than just getting huffy and blaming it onto someone else. Which US prez had "The Buck Stops Here" engraved as a motto for his desk? But that's what all trainers should accept.
 
Ardross said:
And your evidence is ?
Click to expand...

Ardross,

James Main made it clear that he has a roster of clients in Lambourn for whom he regularly carried out what he called a "pre-race check", while Laura Young, when one of her horses tested positive claimed that she was innocent, but that use of the drug was commonplace in Lambourn, from what she had been told. Naturally, although the relatively unsuccessful Ms Young knew all about it, every Lambourn trainer interviewed not only claimed they never used it, but that none of them had ever heard of it, which is odd, as it's a remarkably popular drug. Pat Murphy said "there were various different trainers you would hear about who had 'a cure for bleeders', but I'd imagine they would be pretty silly if they were still using it now".

As one of Murphy's longest standing owners pointed out, the RCVS would do well to find out exactly how much TA (which no-one in Lambourn has heard of) has actually been ordered by the Veterinary practices which serve those yards. It would certainly make interesting reading.
 
rorydelargy said:
Ardross,

As one of Murphy's longest standing owners pointed out, the RCVS would do well to find out exactly how much TA (which no-one in Lambourn has heard of) has actually been ordered by the Veterinary practices which serve those yards. It would certainly make interesting reading.
Click to expand...

I cannot understand how someone that bright could still have horses with Murphy??:rolleyes:
 
Back
Top