O'Brien off to the BHA...

G

Guest_

At the Start
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
14,178
Location
Ireland
By Graham Green 2:39PM 7 JUN 2010 AIDAN O'BRIEN is to face a BHA inquiry arising from events following the victory of Cape Blanco in the Totesport Dante Stakes at York last month.
Ireland's champion trainer and one of his employees have been charged with breaches of rule (A)37 and (B)83 in that he encouraged and/or caused groom Pat Keating to refuse to comply with two instructions issued by the racecourse stewards.
The first was an instruction that Cape Blanco be trotted up before the BHA's veterinary officer and the senior racecourse veterinary surgeon as part of their examination of the colt before he left the track.
6646-donal-aidan-o-brien.jpg
Aidan O'Brien: complained on day
PICTURE: Edward Whitaker
The second instruction was to attend a stewards' inquiry after refusing to trot up Cape Blanco.
O'Brien is also charged with a breach of rule (A)30.1, which deals with acting in a manner prejudicial to the conduct and/or good reputation of racing.
Keating is charged with two breaches of rule (B)83 regarding his failure to comply with the instructions. No date has been set for the inquiry.
Speaking on the day, O'Brien was harshly critical of the request from vets to see Cape Blanco trot.
"It's the most insane thing I've ever heard," said O'Brien on the day. "Why would you want to trot him again on a bruised heel and cause him more pain?"
 
Ridiculous.

To think they spend their time and energy dealing with things such as this when there are much more pressing matters for the BHA.

Clueless.
 
Hamm said:
Ridiculous.

To think they spend their time and energy dealing with things such as this when there are much more pressing matters for the BHA.

Clueless.
Click to expand...

Couldn't put it better myself. There are non-triers every day which break their rules and they spend their time on this case.
 
So, let's see, if it were John Bridger's Class 5 00000-6 3 y.o. filly, and he and his groom refused to trot her up for the vet to look at, it'd be wrong for him to disobey, but not if it's AOB?

The BHA has to spend time on every case, regardless of who's who, when there's been a clear breach of the rules. Armchair stewards deciding who should be referred and who shouldn't don't count, or the BHA would need revolving doors on a 24/7 basis.

If the vet wants to see a horse trot, he has a right to ask. If he can't see what's wrong, and the trainer's insisting his horse is lame, the vet can't verify it unless he's had the chance to do so. I don't see what the problem is with this - rules are generally made for a reason (unless by a paranoid Labour govt.). You comply, or you face an inquiry, get a fine, stood down, or thrown in jail, depending on what the rules are and who made them.
 
Krizon, as to your first point, I'm not sure what you are trying to say - I would have exactly the same opinion regardless of the trainer. It is because of the trainer that this 'case' is being brought to the BHA.

The point in the final paragraph shows quite clearly you didn't follow what happened quite so closely - Cape Blanco did trot up as requested, then he had his legs bandaged, and was asked to trot up again - O'Brien was more than within his rights to refuse, seeing as the horse had already trotted up and this was not going to be to the benefit of the horse.
 
I didn't follow anything that happened at the time, because I was doing other things (gasp!). I just went by what was put up above, Hamm. No mention of two sets of trotting-up in that, is there? If the horse had a bruised heel, why did he have his legs bandaged? Bandaging its legs has nothing to do with a bruise to the foot.

What I am saying is that if the vet wants to see a horse trot, turn, walk up and back, or wishes to run his hands over the animal, it's within his right to ask, regardless of the animal's owner's or trainer's status. Your trainer could be the Right Hand of God, but if the vet wants to assure himself of something, he is vested by the BHA with the authority to so act. It's not up to the trainer to decide what is to the 'benefit' of his horse - it's the vet's responsibility to sign it off as sound or unsound when leaving the course. If you were the vet, you'd be pretty pissed off that a trainer stopped you doing your job.
 
The vets asked to see the horse trot - and they got their wish and the horse was lame.

The horse was then iced and polticed when the vets came back again to see the horse trot. That is when O'Brien said no.

Hard to understand what good or benefit was going to come from asking a clearly lame horse to trot again after treatment.
 
krizon said:
I didn't follow anything that happened at the time, because I was doing other things (gasp!). I just went by what was put up above, Hamm.
Click to expand...

Good for you. But why are you then making sweeping comments?

O'Brien did absolutely nothing wrong.
 
Galileo said:
The vets asked to see the horse trot - and they got their wish and the horse was lame.

The horse was then iced and polticed when the vets came back again to see the horse trot. That is when O'Brien said no.

Hard to understand what good or benefit was going to come from asking a clearly lame horse to trot again after treatment.
Click to expand...

Am I missing something. This was a horserace where punters were going to be having money on all the horses. One of those horses is suspected as being lame and is trotted up. Confirmed lame. Trainer asks if he can have some time to work on the injury. Vets say "go for it....but we'll be back to make sure he's able to run". Trainer does his best. Vets arrive back and say "there's millions on this horse, so we want to make sure the punters get a run for their money". Trainer says no.

You ask what benefit there was going to be from trotting a horse up after treatment. If it couldn't trot....how could it run??
 
You'd think O'Brien was a patient man, though, so why woud he be getting cross?
If he was cross, you'd think he had a good reason, no?
Well, I would ....
 
Wasn't he have meant to have been on the phone to the vet for over half an hour or something? Then he wanted them out of there so that he did not miss the flight.

Will the vet have to explain why he wanted to see the horse again or that is not in question?
 
the horse had just run on rock hard ground - he may have been jarred up - why was there any need to add futher discomfort?

problem with these rules is..no common sense is applied when making them up
 
Rules were broken, it is right that the BHA should enquire why. Hopefully common sense will prevail at said inquiry.
 
Rules are broken every day.

The horse is fine and has ran since and it didn't affect the result.

Absolutely brain dead stuff from the BHA as usual.
 
Of course Ballydoyle can break any rules they like, being as rich as Croesus gives anyone this privilege, that is the way of the World.
 
I do not think Ballydoyle being wealthy has anything to do with what happened on the day other than it may well have caused more attention where none was due.

This issue is about the lack of common sense and I doubt very much if it had not been Ballydoyle if they would have been asked to trot the horse again. :mad:

Sheesh, no wonder racing is falling apart and on the decline.
 
It's a piffling storm in a teacup - but it's not the first time O'Brien's fallen foul of the BHA. People must have very short attention spans if they've forgotten how he disgracefully delayed last year's Derby, for a start.

All the BHA and senior racecourse vet wanted to do was to be able to sign off on the nag being sound enough to travel back to Ireland, ffs. The animal went lame in the Dante and they wanted to be sure it wasn't any worse before it set off on an arduous journey. It's their job to ensure that any horse reported as injured in any way is fit to leave the course. It's their responsibility to AOB's and anyone else's animal. Just not a big deal, except that AOB made it one.
 
krizon said:
All the BHA and senior racecourse vet wanted to do was to be able to sign off on the nag being sound enough to travel back to Ireland, ffs. The animal went lame in the Dante and they wanted to be sure it wasn't any worse before it set off on an arduous journey. It's their job to ensure that any horse reported as injured in any way is fit to leave the course. It's their responsibility to AOB's and anyone else's animal. Just not a big deal, except that AOB made it one.
Click to expand...

The horse had already been trotted up. If the Vet wasn't there than he should have been.

The head lad and AOB had both said the horse was fine to leave. I'm sure they would have signed something if necessary.

Ballydoyle does get up to tricks in smaller races, in Ireland mostly.
This was not the right instance to pick a fight with them.
 
krizon said:
It's a piffling storm in a teacup - but it's not the first time O'Brien's fallen foul of the BHA. People must have very short attention spans if they've forgotten how he disgracefully delayed last year's Derby, for a start.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone here has a short memory - I mentioned this on a thread a month or so back, but that has nothing to do with this - he was wrong then, but is very much in the right on this occasion.

Surely you would want someone to judge each issue on its own merits?
 
Back
Top