Nicky Henderson Found Guilty

Completely true Luke but the reality is the rules says "lay" and not "back" so he's in the clear. I'm sure there is a counter argument to that but Struthers isn't going to pursue - They'll just react and change the ruling.

Henderson knew he was in the clear when he did it - Ethically (For what its worth) he isn't though and i'm sure he knows deep down he was playing the system.
 
I was replying to your first point Luke - I don't think he's innocent though, wasn't he quoted as saying he cleared it with someone first? He knew what he was doing, he also knew that whilst it may be controversial, it wasn't a breach of the rules..
 
I was replying to your first point Luke - I don't think he's innocent though, wasn't he quoted as saying he cleared it with someone first? He knew what he was doing, he also knew that whilst it may be controversial, it wasn't a breach of the rules..
He discussed it with Edward Gillespie who gave it his blessing. Hopefully Mr Struthers had a word in Ed's ear telling him it was none of his effing business. :D
 
Occasionally bookmakers offer prices for a horse not to win-as things stand is this different to laying.

Strictly speaking, the rule says that laying a horse to lose is against the rules - suspect backing it not to win would be deemed identical.
 
He discussed it with Edward Gillespie who gave it his blessing. Hopefully Mr Struthers had a word in Ed's ear telling him it was none of his effing business. :D

That was my recollection but I didn't think it was right because what does it have to do with Gillespie!!! He probably wasn't best pleased with Henderson for naming him either; unless it was done officially but I can't believe that... MD of Cheltenham giving legal advice?!?! :rolleyes:
 
Strictly speaking, the rule says that laying a horse to lose is against the rules - suspect backing it not to win would be deemed identical.

If its not explicitly stated it won't stick... In the non-legal world everyone knows it amounts to the same thing...
 
The BHA have confirmed that no action will be taken against Nicky Henderson following the trainer's revelation that he'd placed a bet on himself saddling no winners at Cheltenham.
Rule (C) 64 of the Rules of Racing states that 'A trainer must not lay with a Betting Organisation any horse under his care or control to lose a race...instruct another Person to do so, or...receive the whole or any part of any proceeds of such a lay.'
Explaining the decision not to punish the trainer, Paul Struthers, Head of Communications for the Authority, said: "Whilst no one has suggested that Nicky Henderson would have wanted to train no winners at the Cheltenham Festival, it is the Authority's view that, if the bet was placed, it was ill-judged and inappropriate.
"Having sought advice, the decision has been taken not to pursue the matter because, as the Rule is currently worded, there is unlikely to have been a breach as there was not any separate lay of each runner.
"That said, we believe that a trainer placing such a bet, however intentioned, is wrong and we will be looking to amend the relevant rules to reflect this."


Not in the slightest bit surprised . As suspected the rule only prevented laying individual horses not backing no winners . Sloppy drafting and the spirit of the rules broken if not the letter .

Time for Nicky to engage Max Clifford perhaps - his PR is terrible.
 
Will the new draftings cover trainers / owners backing other horses in a race in which they have a runner? This could present some problems....
 
Very little discussion about this on Twitter from
people who are rarely short of an opinion.Where are all the brave journalists.
 
God I wish there was some decent racing on. If only so we could bin or ignore incredibly boring threads like these. This is the racing equivalent of the England football captaincy.
 
From the RP....

TRAINER Nicky Henderson will face a BHA inquiry after one of his horses, Heather Royal, tested positive for a prohibited substance in February.
A urine sample taken after Heather Royal finished sixth in a mares only bumper at Huntingdon on February 10 revealed the presence of the prohibited substance dexamesthasone.
Henderson will face a BHA disciplinary panel on June 23 to consider if he breached the rules of racing.
The BHA reports the disciplinary panel will consider whether Henderson breached rule (C)53 of the rules of racing, in that a sample taken on course tested positive for a banned substance.
They will also consider the disqualification of Heather Royal and whether Henderson breached rule C(13) and failed to keep complete medication records.
More to follow...
 
Surprised no one has made more of this. I like henderson, like the way he interviews/comes across etc. BUT seriously this deserves serious attention. Its not the 1st time but the 2nd time in the last 12 MONTHS. If this happened to a smaller trainer, im sure he kitchen sink will be thrown at him.
 
Surprised no one has made more of this. I like henderson, like the way he interviews/comes across etc. BUT seriously this deserves serious attention. Its not the 1st time but the 2nd time in the last 12 MONTHS. If this happened to a smaller trainer, im sure he kitchen sink will be thrown at him.

nothing much will be done about it..he's a good old egg..an establishment trainer

whereas yer Curleys are deemed the lower classes..and as such must be kept there

people make excuses for people like henderson..whilst castigating with every word the lower class trainer who steps out of line

the "class" system is alive and well within racing circles;)
 
She had the same skin problem that Binocular had back in march - and was the unnamed horse that was mentioned in all the reports about him as also still returning a positive result after the "safe" time, but that doesnt explain this one from February!!!

very odd.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top