Nicky Henderson Found Guilty

For clarification:

17. To help in evaluating the evidence, it is necessary at the outset to record some undisputed facts and features of the case:-
(i) TA is a prohibited substance because it acts upon the blood system of a horse. This is obvious to anybody who knows that it aids blood coagulation and who reads the general definition in paragraph 2 of Instruction C1 with any care. And it is made even more obvious to anybody who reads the concluding part of that paragraph, which says:-
“For the purposes of clarity Prohibited Substances include:-
….. substances affecting blood coagulation”.
(ii) TA had been used for some time by Henderson. It was not possible to put an exact date on when he first used it, but it had been for some years before 19 February 2009. Nor was it possible from the evidence before the Panel to say how frequently it had been used, but it was accepted that it was typically given to horses which Henderson thought might benefit from it on the morning of their race.
(iii) Henderson said he ordered its use on MOONLIT PATH when doing afternoon stables 18 February 2009. The order was given in the presence of his head lad and his two assistants, Ben Pauling and Tom Symonds. If the instruction was given by Henderson during afternoon stables, it is likely to have been the day before 17 February because the practice diary referred to below was not modified after 1435 on 18 February. This detail is not significant in the greater scheme of things, however.
(iv) That order was transmitted to Mr Main’s practice (probably by Tom Symonds, suggested Henderson). The diary software page maintained by Mr Main’s practice was last modified at 1435 hours on 18 February and records that he was booked to visit Seven Barrows the next day for “1 x dycenene”. Dycenene is the brand name for another substance that can act as an aid to blood coagulation, called etamsylate.
(v) The Panel was told by Henderson that “Dycenene” was ordered because this was the substance originally recommended to him as a possible treatment for horses at risk of bleeding, and that is what Henderson and his staff asked for in cases where he thought it might help. But TA under the Cyklokapron brand name came to be the drug which Mr Main used in preference to Dycenene.
(vi) The Panel raised the question whether there could be any breach of Rule 200 by Henderson when he ordered the administration of Dycenene, yet Mr Main supplied and injected a different substance (TA), which is used for the same purpose though it has a different pharmacological effect. Mr Norris QC for Henderson disowned any reliance on this argument, saying that when Henderson ordered Dycenene, he was meaning a drug which aided blood coagulation to assist recovery from bleeding. The Panel concluded that he was right to reject this approach – Dycenene was the “label” used by Henderson and his staff to signify a request to Mr Main to inject an aid to blood coagulation, and he used Cyklokapron, i.e. TA. Mr Main himself says as much in a statement he signed on 3 June 2009.
(vii) The Medication Book contains no record of the injection given by Mr Main on 19 February. Though the ultimate responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of medication records lies with a trainer, the entries in the book maintained at Seven Barrows were generally made by one or other of the assistants, Tom Symonds or Ben Pauling. The book has two lines blank between entries for treatment of a horse on 17 February and of another horse on 19 February – blank save for a few largely undecipherable deleted words under the “horse identification” and “drug used” columns.
(viii) The “Animal History” maintained by Mr Main’s practice to record its treatments for MOONLIT PATH describes what happened on his visit to give the injection on 19 February as a “Pre Race Check”. The same description is given in the invoice addressed to Henderson dated 28 February 2009. Mr Main’s explanation for this (appearing in his signed statement of 3 June 2009) was that “Our training clients are aware that this equates to the injection of TA to the horse”.
 
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.

Yes, I agree with you, apologies if it didn't come across that way. Ultimately the buck has to stop somewhere and in this case it will always be with the trainer.
 
From RP....

JAMES MAIN, the vet at the centre of the inquiry that resulted in Nicky Henderson being fined and banned from making entries for three months in 2009, was on Tuesday night struck off from the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons register of vets for his role in the affair.
Main, who had been Henderson's main vet since 1992 up until the positive test of the Queen's Moonlit Path for tranexamic acid, a banned blood-clotting agent, at Huntingdon in February 2009, had admitted injecting Moonlit Path with TA on the morning of her racecourse debut, February 19, 2009, and in doing so knowing that he was in breach of the rules of racing.
The RCVS disciplinary hearing in London found him guilty of additional charges including that he had injected Moonlit Path when he ought to know that to do so would be in breach of the rules and that he had dishonestly concealed the use of TA in his clinical records.
After learning the results Main said: "I am deeply shocked and disappointed. The prospect of not being able to earn a living as a vet is a matter of grave concern and I would like a bit of time to consider my options with my legal advisers as to whether I appeal to the privy council or not.
"This whole process has been a drawn out and painful saga and I wish to apologise to all those involved for this regrettable episode."
 
Good to see we're back online (couldn't get TH from yesterday afternoon until now). It's a pretty brutal result for all those years of training and application - pathetic end to a career, but a good signal from the College that they don't want any wedges in the door, thank you, thin ends or not.
 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/feb/22/james-main-moonlit-path-struck-off

The Guardian article has some significant extra detail. James Main is struck off, and "no application to recover his licence will be accepted for 10 months". The RCVS committee also said it was "unimpressed by Henderson's evidence and ... surprised by his apparent lack of knowledge of the rules of racing".

The matter might not end there, because the BHA has requested a full transcript of the RCVS enquiry. James Main admitted to the enquiry that TA injections were a regular feature of his "pre-race checks", whereas the BHA gave Nicky Henderson a three month summer holiday based on evidence concerning only one horse.
 
Has Main been struck-off for telling the truth?

And Henderson keeps rolling along by lying through his teeth. (I'll add allegedly and in my opinion to save any possible aggro for the board!:ninja:)

Perhaps her Maj should consider moving her horses to someone less dodgy.
 
James Main was acting on instructions, both in administering the drug and in concealing that he had done so. It's reasonable to assume that he felt he had no choice. Yet he gets a shattered career, and Nicky Henderson - for the moment, at any rate - carries on as normal. It's an injustice.
 
Has Main been struck-off for telling the truth?

And Henderson keeps rolling along by lying through his teeth. (I'll add allegedly and in my opinion to save any possible aggro for the board!:ninja:)

Perhaps her Maj should consider moving her horses to someone less dodgy.

Charles Byrnes would already be in the electric chair by now:blink:
 
Don't think we've heard the end of this. Seems like a very well respected vet. Wonder how different this would have been without Royal links; pressure on vets and trainers imo.
 
Don't think the Royal link has played any role at all tbh. There's certainly more to hear from this though, especially as Main was acting on behalf of clients other than just Nicky Henderson.
 
Perhaps Nicky Henderson's tactic should be to persuade all the trainers who have used this drug to hold up their hands. What would the BHA do then?
 
Perhaps Nicky Henderson's tactic should be to persuade all the trainers who have used this drug to hold up their hands. What would the BHA do then?
If recent evidence is anything to go by a spate of failed drug tests in one particular area can be put down to only one thing, being located in "an up and coming farming area" :)
 
Last edited:
I got ticked off by the BHA even though I was 100% in the right (and eventually proved it in court and won my case) but the head of the committee just wouldn't hear anything wrong said about the other party - why? Because he was his shooting mate! And a thoroughly decent bloke (not what the judge said however!) So I am sure this still goes on and it depends on how much of a personal connection those at the BHA had with Henderson.
 
Possibly Rory, surprised they haven't tried running him on snake venom (if you use Rattlesnake Venom, the toxin is not currently known to the BHA and won't show up in a dope test) which slows the heart rate right down and stops the blood clotting so that it bursts. Not that I condone using Snake Venom when racing of course, just very commonly known.
 
I believe that snake venom is indeed known to the BHA - Nigel Hawke was caught attempting to use it in 2006, although on googling that, I'm stunned to see he got a £300 fine!!
 
Has Main been struck-off for telling the truth?

If the RCVS is anything like the General Pharmaceutical Council it's likely that he's been struck off for''bringing the profession into disrepute'' and it's quite likely they're making an example of Main for not knowing/abiding by the rules of what can/can't be administered to racehorses. I'm not a legal expert but if he/his legal team could in anyway prove that he was put under substantial pressure by Henderson/members of his team/the owner I think he could have a fairly good case for being reinstated onto the RCVS register particularly if he is adamant he's acting in the best interests of the horse(s) under his care. However, I think that might also depend on whether there's any further investigation by the BHA into Henderson's conduct and the outcome of that. IMHO there should be more investigation to be done as in this case Henderson is the man in charge at that yard and he should be aware of what's going on and a trainer of his experience should be aware of what can and can't be administered, I just don't think there's any excuse for not knowing things like that.
 
That makes it much clearer to me that it wasn't just any stable medications chart that was "inadequate", but that Main deliberately hid the administration of the banned drug for years from his practice. So, we have his admission that he administered the substance to Henderson's horses for years and all that time, Henderson was entirely oblivious and unaware. Would he not, perhaps, be a little surprised when some previous bleeders miraculously stopped bleeding? Had the midnight incantations and the burning candles worked or.. or.. good God, no, surely not some sort of drug he'd never heard of, had never authorised, and wasn't on the write-up sheet in the tack room? No, definitely the incantations, then. And the wizard's hat.
 
Last edited:
Certain snake venom is known Rory, but apparently Rattlesnake Venom is of a different kind and doesn't show on the tests, however I wouldn't want to chance it.
 
Certain snake venom is known Rory, but apparently Rattlesnake Venom is of a different kind and doesn't show on the tests, however I wouldn't want to chance it.

Quite right. What is your view, as an insider, on the previous use of TA? Do you think many trainers used it?
 
Word is use of it was rife, my sources impeccable. But still no more detail than that and every day it seems you learn more about the goings on!

I know I've stuck up for them both, and don't want to say too much on the matter, but knowing what I know now - indeed I've always known Main is no shrinking violet - I'd not be joining in with any outpourings of sympathy for the poor hard-done by vet who was merely doing as he was told. It doesn't even work like that in most yards anyway, the vets tend to get involved in the yard to an extent, know what's what, suggest medication/treatment for the horses and are rarely 'ordered' to do anything, especially against their will.
 
Quite right. What is your view, as an insider, on the previous use of TA? Do you think many trainers used it?

I've known one or two use TA but never seen it make any desired effect. I've never knowingly had it used on one of my horses, but I did once pay a good few quid for an American Paste to be administered to one of my horses when we fancied him strongly. We knew it shouldn't be administered but the Vet at the time said that this wasn't a banned substance, although it was probably because the substance wasn't actually locally known. The horse was a bleeder, and it was known as "mojo" paste. The horse actually won on this occasion but at £76 for the paste, it would have been expensive to use it a lot. What it did I don't know.

Any horses that I feel are going to bleed now, we tend to run or exercise them on Homo Plus, which is a herbal remedy, actually works to some degree and is perfectly legal, and not that expensive.
 
Back
Top