Disciplinary Panel results of fast-tracked cases 29/04/2024 

@ 12:00:00

Pauline Robson

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

1. On 16th February 2024 BLUE PLAN a horse trained by Ms. Robson was entered to run at 5.02 at Kelso in the Hello My Darling Remembering Andrew Quigley National Hunt Flat Race (Class 4). The horse was required to be presented for confirmation of identification in the ordinary way with reference to the passport. In fact, the horse presented was not BLUE PLAN. The matter was reported, the horse withdrawn and after an Enquiry a report was made to BHA head office. It was established that the mistaken identity occurred as follows:

2 horses, one of which was BLUE PLAN were in the same field prior to either horse going into training. It was arranged that the other horse was to be removed from the field to another trainer. The owner removed the wrong horse. Therefore, the horse remaining with Ms. Robson was mistakenly thought to be BLUE PLAN and that horse went to Kelso.

THE RULE

2. Rule (D)7:

A Responsible Person must:

7.1 promptly check the identity of any horse that comes into their care against the Passport and

7.2 immediately report any discrepancies in the markings or microchip in a Passport to the Racing Calendar Office.

THE PROPOSAL AGREED BETWEEN THE PARTIES

3. Following a BHA letter by E mail of 17th April proposing a Fast Tracked Procedure including a proposed sanction of a fine of £750, Ms. Robson replied in a signed Fast Tracked Acceptance Form accepting responsibility for the breach and agreeing to the sanction.

CONSIDERATION

4. This proposed procedure is subject to approval, or not, by the Judicial Chair. I have considered the matter. No one here is suggesting anything other than inadvertence and human error. There is a degree as in other Rules of Racing, necessarily, of what lawyers call strict liability, the purpose being to call for care and close attention in complying with the Rules by relevant participants in Horseracing. Guidance as to penalties under the Rules indicates an Entry Point fine of £750 and a Range of £450 - £1,500. I agree that the proposed penalty is proportionate and fair, and I order it accordingly.

Ella Pickard

THE RULE

1. Under the Rules of Racing it is the duty of a Trainer to notify the authorities if a horse trained by him or her has been gelded in advance of a race in which the horse is due to run:

Rule (D)28: A Trainer must notify the Racing Calendar Office if a horse in their care has been gelded

28.1 by no later than closing for the horse’s next race …

THE FACTS

2. GENTLEMAN ROSS, trained by the Respondent, ran in the Chetwood Investment Novice’s Hurdle Race (Class 4) (GBB Race), the 2.50 at Taunton on 26th March 2024. The fact of the gelding of the horse had not been notified.

THE PROCESS

3. On 11th April 2024 the BHA wrote to Ms Pickard pointing out the apparent fact of the breach of the Rule. They also proposed that the matter could in their view be dealt with under the above procedure and that a penalty of £200 could be agreed upon, subject as ever to the judgement of the Judicial Chair. On 23rd April Ms Pickard completed and signed a Fast Tacked Procedure Agreement on the above terms. To her credit, she added that she was “extremely sorry” for the breach and she would “triple check” in future.

CONSIDERATION

4. A fine of £200 is the entry point under the penalty guidelines.

5. There is no reason to think that the Respondent will not be as good as her word. The object of the process would therefore appear to have been achieved and I approve of and endorse the procedure and the penalty.

Chris Down

THE FACTS

1. WILLOW CAUGHT, a horse trained by the Respondent, ran at Bangor-On-Dee Racecourse in the Nightingale House Hospice “Junior” National Hunt Flat Race (Class 4) on 20th April 2024. The horse had been gelded but no notification of the gelding was notified until the day of the race thus it appeared that the Respondent is in breach of Rule (D)28.

THE RULE

2. RULE (D) 28:

A Trainer must notify the Racing Calendar if a horse in their care has been gelded:

28.1 by no later than closing for the horse’s next race…

3. Thus, Mr Down was out of time.

THE PROCESS

4. On 23rd April the BHA wrote to the Respondent pointing out the apparent breach and inviting him to accept the above procedure and a penalty of a £150 fine. On 24th April Mr Down accepted the procedure and the penalty in a signed acceptance form. It was set out further in mitigation that this was a genuine mistake which had not been corrected until notification on the day of the race.

CONSIDERATION

5. The Entry Point under the penalty guidelines is a fine of £200. It is clear that the BHA in proposing a fine under that amount have taken into account Mr Down’s admission, apology and explanation of a mistake. The mistake is not of course a defence but in considering the propriety of the procedure and the penalty I see no reason to question a sensible and fair process. I order a fine of £150 accordingly.

Micky Hammond

THE FACTS

1. ARRANMORE, a horse trained by the Respondent, was due to run in the 5.20 at Wolverhampton, the Stay Golden With BetMGM Safer Gambling Handicap Stakes (Class 5) on 9th December 2023. The horse was transported to the course but did not run, withdrawn as ARRANMORE was, by the Stewards. They were right to do so. On arrival for ID check, the Veterinary Officer (V0) noticed the presence of a pink substance around the horse’s mouth. The VO reported the matter to the Stewards and there was an enquiry resulting in withdrawal by order of the Stewards of the horse. The VO went to the horsebox to investigate and found a used oral syringe with a label “Bleader Gard.” Enquiries of the Stable Representative at the course revealed that he had been told by the yard Assistant Trainer to give the horse “Coligone” to settle the horse’s stomach before the trip but had accidentally picked up the wrong substance and administered it. It is agreed between the parties that the substance was “Bleader Gard.”

THE RULE

2. RULE (D)11: From 12.01 on the day of a race in which a horse is declared to run  

11.1 no substance may be administered to a horse except for normal feed and water offered by mouth, or water administered in small quantities using a bulb syringe..

3. Thus, it may appear that neither “Bleader Gard” nor “Coligone” should have been administered whichever of the 2 was in fact ingested and no instruction should have been given to the Stable Representative conducting the horse to administer any such substance.

PHARMACEUTICAL EVIDENCE  

4. “Bleader Gard” is available over the counter. It consists of antioxidants, bioflavonoids and nitric oxide precursors to promote healthy lungs and blood vessels. It may have pharmacological effect and could be considered a Category B substance.

5. “Coligone” is a paste substance which has an alkalising effect. It could be considered a Category B substance.

6. Applying the above Rule neither of these substances could or should be administered on a race day and the Rule has clearly been breached.

PROCESS

7. On 11th April 2024 the BHA wrote to the Respondent asserting the breach and inviting him to agree, if he accepted the breach, to the above procedure and a fine at the Guideline Entry Point of a £1000 fine.

8. On 25th April 2024 the Respondent completed a signed Fast Tracked Acceptance Form accepting the breach, the procedure and the penalty proposed.

CONSIDERATION

9. It falls to me to decide if the agreement and the penalty is appropriate and just and in the interests of racing. It is remarkable and of concern that a yard employee should be told to administer any substance in breach of the Rule which must surely be well known. Having said that there is no evidence before me of performance enhancement. The horse was withdrawn, thanks to the VO and the Stewards. In all the circumstances I am prepared to agree to the procedure and the proposed penalty. So ordered.  

Notes to Editors:  

1. The above fast-tracked cases were heard by HH James O’Mahony, Deputy Judicial Chair of the independent Disciplinary Panel. More information about the fast-track system can be found here . 

Please note, the BHA Judicial Panel is an independent body which encompasses the Disciplinary Panel, Appeal Board and Licensing Committee. It receives administrative support from the BHA via the Judicial Panel Executive.