Nicky Henderson Found Guilty

The decision is not "waffle" and really should be read completely by anyone wishing to comment on the particulars of the case.

For example, to answer your question about the BHA asking to see the medication chart:

(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.
Click to expand...
 
I think points 21 and 22 are the telling points.

He knowingly, persistently, broke the rules and consistently concealed breaking the rules.

The panel may or may not be correct in accepting his honourable motives, but lets face it, what you are thinking at the time you deliberately decide to persistently break the rules is completely unprovable. There are those with dishonourable motives that can surely put a good yarn together about why they broke the rules - will this have to accepted as extenuating circumstances due to this precedent.

The reason I say "may or may not be correct in accepting his honourable motives" is that if he is justified in his assumption that it is a matter of correct animal welfare to administer TA to certain horses prior to racing and knew it was against the rules to do so, why did he not try and get the rules changed so that all horses could benefit from the treatment. As a senior trainer he is very likely to have his views carefully listened to with a good possibilty of acceptance in this day and age if he had a strong enough case. Instead he furtively applied it to his own charges and showed no concern to the suffering the lack of application of the treatment was causing to those outside the yard.
 
Last edited:
It's quite amazing that the BHA are expected to be able to investigate these things without having any power to compel potential witnesses to give evidence - in this case, it seems like there are plenty of questions to be answered by the assistant trainers and the vet.
 
True.

I doubt it effected the outcome of this decision though. The assumptions the panel have made about the actions and motivations of the staff and vet of Henderson reflect negatively on Henderson. If they could shed a more favourable light on the case against him I suspect they may have found there way to turning up.
 
It seems to be that someone or other has been telling 'porky pies', and you have to feel that if it was a lower profile trainer there would have been a ban involved.
 
James Main seems a bit of a shady character to me - they near enough said he lied throughout the investigation and that Henderson not blaming his Head Lad's doesn't excuse the fact he cheated.
 
Colin Phillips said:
It seems to be that someone or other has been telling 'porky pies', and you have to feel that if it was a lower profile trainer there would have been a ban involved.
Click to expand...

I think that is what leaves a bad taste. I have a lot of time for Henderson, but at the same time he should not get off simply because of who he is. A smaller or less well known trainer would be hammered.
 
Henderson is a very lucky man and any trainer of lesser standing would have faced a far more severe penalty.

He was found to have knowingly broken the rules on more than one occasion - "the panel has no way of knowing how frequent(ly)" - and systematically covered up the fact.

The panel then accept his assurance, in the face of the above finding, that his main motive was the welfare of the horses involved rather than to improve performance. They don't offer any argument as to why they accept this assurance (point 30).

They even take into account when deciding the penalty that the drug probably wasn't as effective as Henderson thought it was going to be (point 31).

Then there is point 34, where they refer to Mr Henderson's "enormous contributions to the sport".

Does he deserve such consideration? I don't think so. If anything the more logical thing to have done was to treat him even more severely than an ordinary trainer.

Incidentally, the vet Mr Main does not come out of this well, which is a serious matter given his standing in the sport.
"He is the Senior Veterinary Surgeon at Newbury racecourse. He sits as the NTF representative on the Veterinary Committee and on the Counter Analysis Advisory Committee of the BHA. He is also the NTF’s Veterinary Advisor."
Click to expand...
Might he be warned off?
 
Galileo said:
I think that is what leaves a bad taste. I have a lot of time for Henderson, but at the same time he should not get off simply because of who he is. A smaller or less well known trainer would be hammered.
Click to expand...

This is not just the case for Henderson. It happens everywhere in life and you can look at every celebrity that came before the law and how they have been treated differently by courts. Henderson is a celebrity within racing and is going to be treated differently than Joe Soap. Some things in life are just not fair but you either fight it or accept it. Make your choice and it gives you your answer as to whether this decision is ok or should have been a two year ban.
 
Quite an interesting read and not that "waffly" at all.

I find it hard to believe that the Vet, in view of his other official duties, was unaware that TA is a prohibited substance and his behaviour since the mare was found to be positive for it is decidedly shifty.

NH's blustering about "detectable" substances also speaks volumes. Is he using other substances that aren't?

Wonder if someone else will pick up the 40k tab? :whistle:

Like many others here, I find the summertime ban for a major NH trainer laughable. He's a cheat and he's been caught cheating. The punishment should be one that hurts, not a tap on the wrist and a "take it easy through the summer, old chap". While I think there may be something in the rulebook about timings of penalties for trainers and jockeys, this would not exclude making the ban longer and making it hurt.

On the other hand, perhaps their view was that he may feel the disgrace of being banned more keenly because of his hitherto clean record.

I can believe that he was concerned for the welfare of his horse, but if her lungs are bad enough to need Becotide and an open-sided box, should she really be running, particularly in view of her lack of talent?

If there is to be full justice from this case, the Vet should be investigated thoroughly as well.

How very disappointing, Mr Henderson.
 
Racing pundit John McCririck disagreed with the decision to ban Henderson.
He said: "This is a very serious offence, but what the BHA have done to Nicky Henderson is absolutely outrageous.
"This is a man of proven integrity but he has been condemned in a secret court in a tribunal, of which we have not seen the evidence."
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:
 
For someone who seems to advocate hanging for dropping your hands his attitude towards a proven drug cheat is somewhat puzzling from McCririck.
 
By PA SPORTS STAFF 1.49PM 3 JUL 2009
TRAINER Nicky Henderson said the three-month ban handed to him by the British Horseracing Authority on Friday was "harsh" and added that it would have an impact on the season ahead for the leading jumps stable.
Henderson learned of his fate on Friday morning, having last week been found guilty of using a prohibited substance on the Queen's Moonlit Path atHuntingdon in February. He was also hit with a record-breaking £40,000 fine.
In a prepared statement, Henderson said: "I am obviously hugely relieved that this saga has been concluded and, even though this seems a harshsentence, we accept the findings and can now look forward again to the future and an exciting season ahead.
"As we are unable to have any runners for three months in our name, it is going to be all the more difficult to emulate last season's amazing results, but this will make us try even harder to do so.
"Although the medication should not have been administered, I can only reiterate, as the panel has accepted, that it was only given in the interest of the welfare of Moonlit Path herself.
"The support that I and all the family and the team have received over the last very testing weeks has been quite overwhelming and, under the circumstances, so much appreciated.
"My owners, fellow trainers, both National Hunt and Flat, so many friends, everyday racegoers have given us so much encouragement and backing. I can only thank you all enormously - and this includes my legal team. I simply cannot tell you how much it has meant to me and everybody at Seven Barrows."
Click to expand...
 
Still if he fancies a jolly up at Galway there is nothing to stop him having runners there or anywhere else in Ireland during the three months.
 
I'm guessing the BHA accepting and reenforcing the animal welfare line was the price paid for agreement not to appeal.

Despite the fact that Henderson recieved favourable treatment based on his reputation and my being slightly uncomfortable by the way the BHA wriggled out of giving him a punishment the bare facts would imply he was entitled to, and any precedent that might set or message it might send out, it probably was a fair punishment for this incident.

( Ardross , PDJ and BrianH would have had a field day with that sentence)
 
I can't imagine the Queen's horses being sent to run in Ireland as a means of escaping British justice
 
Back
Top