Nicky Henderson Found Guilty

Toobe said:
From what I recall, the wording in regards to Symonds, does not directly apportion blame to him and Henderson took it on the chin stating that any ommisions involving his staff were down to him. If the lad for whatever reason either carried out instruction contrary to the rules of racing would, I should imagine, be in some trouble. Whether he or his boss ensured the entry was not shown or not. I would imagine this may open a different kind of case based on the circumstances.
Click to expand...

The wording is this:-

"Henderson's explanation for the omission of any record of TA administration on 19 February to MOONLIT PATH and for the omission of any record of the previous occasions it was given to other horses was this. He assumed that the omission was deliberate and was decided upon by one of his assistants (probably Tom Symonds in the case of MOONLIT PATH). He thinks they must have done this because they were aware of the Instruction C9 ban on race day treatments, (of which he himself was partially ignorant because he thought it was only a ban on giving anything other than food and water when on the racecourse)."

Now if that's not case of dropping your assistants in it (and young Tom Symonds in particular) I don't know what is. One can only speculate as to why Henderson's QC was so adamant that Tom Symonds should not appear before the Panel as a witness, but it doesn't take a lot of working out.

Sadly, Henderson's evidence to the Enquiry contradicts his statements (to the press) that he was "taking it on the chin", and it is these attempts to wriggle off the hook that I find just as distasteful as the offence he was guilty of.
 
Surely though it has to be said that if the ommission was deliberate, it would have to be known who instigated this, and it does not say who decided on the ommission. If Symonds is the one to make the entry then it would then be a question of whether he decided to make the entry or not. A bit like if you were told to jump off the roof, would you. If Symonds has worked for Henderson for sometime then loyalties would naturally come into the equation, symonds could have even told his Gov'nor blame me as it was my choice,mistake or whatever. As Henderson has apportioned blame in regards to his staff to himself, this may be why the fine was considerable, when comparison is taken with say the Lynch and Williams cases and the financial costs across the board in regards to their behaviour.
 
But the omission of any record was deliberate; the Panel described it as systematic. The question is, did Henderson's various assistants take it upon themselves to omit these entries (as he claimed), or were they acting under instruction?

The Panel were very keen indeed to hear from Tom Symonds, but this was blocked by Henderson's QC. Draw your own conclusions.
 
Just because someone exhibits all the trappings of outward integrity shouldn't blind us to the fact that the priviledged classes are not above a bit of skullduggery. Indeed any examination of the Eton alumni will quickly reveal a long line of criminal miscreants, decievers and darn right dishonest types who cloak themselves in the veneer of visible decency. Henderson is no different it would appear (sadly).

My initial reaction was one of disappointment, and also one of being reasonable certain that Henderson would be pretty well let off (like i said, the flimsiest of potentially plausible excuses would be used). It is this that kind of drew the paralell in my mind with Bardolph, and whether the racing authorities would play the role of Henry V when faced with the same dilemma of having a long time favourite and old friend caught breaking the rules.

I'm increasingly finding myself sympathetically disposed however to the likes of Jinny who I imagine can't be alone in echoing the sentiments of smaller yards/ lower profile trainers who know full well that they'd never have been given anything remotely close to such leniency. Is there for instance, any reason to believe that Henderson is a 'good egg' and all round better person than Jinny? And even if there is, how can this really constitute a defence?.

I don't really see any duplicity or contradictions in Shadow Leaders position either. Both trainer and vet can be perfectly capable (and it would appear very good) at their chosen occupations, but it doesn't follow that this automatically means that they aren't above skullduggery, which is pretty well what i think she's saying. One is an issue of professional ability, the other is more closely tied in with personal moral judgement or integrity, which although grey areas might bring the two into conflict now and then, they are essentially different creatures. Corporate fraudsters are not dissimilar in being able to run very successful businesses, whilst helping themselves round the fringes. It isn't a reflection on their abilities but rather their morality.

It's often the case that such people get exposed through sheer arrogance eventually which is brought about by repeated familiarity and complacency. To no small extent this is reinforced by a tacit appreciation that they can get away with things that little people wouldn't do, and therefore they gain in confidence about their ability to operate outside of the normal boundaries, and in a worst case scenario, even come to view it as their entitlement, which leaves them unable to even distinguish between right and wrong. Luckily there's no suggestion that Henderson has reached this advanced stage of denial yet and become intoxicated by a sense of being above regulation.

It's a shame that trainers couldn't act together and hand out their own sentance by withdrawing en-masse every time Henderson enters a horse. If they kept that up for a week, pressure would soon mount on the BHA to do something from bookies, owners, racecourses, sponsors, punters, TV and media alike. Who knows, even an image consultant might say something to them? They've proved that they can mobilise when it comes to organising boycotts of minor seaside tracks in protest over prize money before, bet they wouldn't take it a step forward and say we'll turn any Nicky Henderson horse into an exhibition round of show jumping in public
 
Last edited:
Warbler said:
I'm increasingly finding myself sympathetically disposed however to the likes of Jinny who I imagine can't be alone in echoing the sentiments of smaller yards/ lower profile trainers who know full well that they'd never have been given anything remotely close to such leniency. Is there for instance, any reason to believe that Henderson is a 'good egg' and all round better person than Jinny? And even if there is, how can this really constitute a defence?
Click to expand...

I do agree broadly with all of what you are saying Warbler, but in response to this quote I feel it is worth pointing out that the BHA (as do other authorities and a lot of courts) must surely take past records into account before dishing out their punishments. Not referring to the Henderson case or specifically any case but taking the example of any smaller trainer as previously mentioned here, the [example of the] smaller trainer may already have past records of small misdemeanours or the such and that is more than likely to be taken into account before passing sentence the same as if a trainer is to present a long career without any previous blemishes. So you can't really compare like with like by saying that any smaller trainer would have been warned off and for longer. Each case is more than likely judged on its merits and the past record of said trainer.
 
In general terms 'previous' can be used when sentancing "is anything known" etc and provided due process has been observed and applied fairly then it's probably difficult to argue that it shouldn't be a consideration when handing down a sanction.

It makes it difficult I tend to agree therefore when talking in terms of big 'establishment' trainer against small trainer, as although we'd endeavour to try and achieve equality of treatment in an ideal world, there will always be grey areas where a degree of latitude can be incoprorated in the verdict, which in turn gives rise to the allegation of one rule for one etc.

As i think you're saying?, we haven't got the luxury of perfect like for like cases or personalities, so to a large extent we're having to muddle by a bit in the realms of hypothesis and speculation, and with that we're always inviting double standards and the seemingly arbitrary application of sanctions (it happens in law enough times). I presume there's guidelines in place? and that the eventual interpretation of these permits a degree of judgement to be exercised by the hearing
 
There is no doubt that racing has a bias, I understand that there are many cases which should be heard and because they show further negligence in regards say the BHA or authorities do not get heard on those grounds. Basically once the authority proceeds it incriminates its own negligence and or inability in the first instance, which then naturally raises the question their role in the situation. When connections within the organisations then too have connections to the incident this has a tendency to place blocks in the way of any justice taking place. Criminal in itself I would imagine. I think the baby P case shows this in a form. The council gave the killer every opportunity to act as safe guards which should have been in place were not acted upon, and it seems that the excuse for this is that the council were frightened of any possible claim against them were they to act. Classic signs of needing to grow a backbone.
 
My comments about NH having all his runners dope tested, at cost to himself, were musings on how he might repair damage to his reputation and do not refer to any press releases I have read.

I hope this was a single error of judgement by NH but reading the hearing summaries I was lead to believe that suspicion remains (Systematic was the word that made me uncomfortable.)

NH needs to do much more than stay away from the racecourse and pay the fine, hence my proposition that might:

1) Show NH does truly understand the need for clean racing
2) Persuade his owners that any systematic mal-practices cannot take place
3) Be a clear warning to all other people tempted to go this route
4) Support the racing authorities position of trying to treat transgressors appropriately (applying strict sentence but expecting guilty parties to go further in acknowledgement)

How else can NH walk up to receive his well earned winners trophies without an atmosphere of ‘wink, wink – nudge nudge.’

MR2
 
The systematic part would worry me, in the respect that if the BHA have used this terminology then they would have had to have had proof that it was the case. This would then bring further into question the comments of Jon Ryan in respect of them not proving relevant and the sample was proof. Which would show they they were only relevant to be ommitted to cover the fact that it had gone on for sometime and the BHA didn't even notice. The other occasions would I believe show BHA negligence or similar inadequacies and the reason at this stage as to why the BHA would not want them used in evidence. In my opinion of course.
 
Toobe, I'm sorry but I have a bit of difficulty in understanding your posts.

It wasn't the BHA who used the word "systematic" but the independent Enquiry Panel. And they used the word systematic because NJH admitted that the omission of entries in the Medication Book over the years had been exactly that.....systematic.
 
Why did an independent enquiry panel view the case? I thought that type of thing took place post any disciplinary and not pre.
 
Ah, I see, Monty. I thought you'd read somewhere that NH had promised to dope-test his horses - now I realise it was just your own thinking on it. As I say, though, pretty much unworkable for all kinds of practical and financial reasons.
 
If such high profile trainers had been fund guilty over here it would have been big news, no doubt about it.

Kinda casts a cloud over Irish racing.
 
Doesn't say much for the average racing journo in Ireland either. It's their job to make it big news.
 
BTW, on a similar note, does anyone know what salbuterol is? That's what was found in Paco Boy's system that caused him to be disqualified from the Moulin last year (another story that didn't make much of a splash).
 
Google tells us it is better known as salbutemol, which wikipedia says is used to treat exercise-induced asthma.
 
Having a quick look Gareth it's used in inhalers to help asthma sufferers - within horses it apparently helps with blockages in the airway. Can see why someone would want to use this on a racehorse - particularly one with breathing problems.
 
Also known as ventolin, which is probably the most commonly known brand name. Comes in the little blue inhalers that everybody must have seen loads of during their lifetime? I've got hundreds of 'em.
 
Are you collecting them, Shadz? Should I have kept mine, too, including the rich-brown Seretide inhalers, now superseded by purple ones? If only I'd realised there was a collector's market!
 
Back
Top