So Howard Johnson is banned for four years. 1 year for the adminsitering of an anabolic steroid and 3 for the denerving of a horse. Obviously he didn't actually do it himself - it was the vet - but ignorance is no defence. Meanwhile, a number of jockeys are under investigation for potential race fixing. The BHA has already hinted at life bans where they are found guilty and indeed we have seen some cases where serial offenders have now been banned for life. We also had an 18 month ban for one Mr K Fallon who tested positive for cocaine. I'm not condoning race fixing, or the use of drugs, and bans are deserved (regardless of what I might think about the harshness in some cases). However, it would seem to me that giving a horse a steroid is far worse than a jockey taking a recreational drug; and the denerving of a horse and then running it is probably as cruel as you can get (I am sure that Ron, Princess Newmarket and others who actually own or have been around horses will have their own views on that and it would be interesting to hear them). In a year where the sport has had some really horrible stories played out live in front of TV audiences (the main ones being Aintree, Newbury and the King George at Ascot) the clamour from the less informed elements of the animal rights lobby has been louder than usual. To have a situation where fixing a race now carries a bigger penalty than deliberately compromising the safety of a horse strikes me as very worrying. What do others think?
I will start by confessing that I do not have much time for the Animal Rights lobby, just on the simple principal that they are usually trying to apply entirely human characteristics to animals. Just as everybody would like to see the use of drugs eliminated from other sports (e.g.: the Olympics, the Tour De France) I do not condone their use in horseracing and I have no problem with a trainer being banned for administering steroids to his horses; and I have no problem with jockeys being banned for using recreational drugs (or drink) as they could cause serious injury to others by competing under the influence. In this particular case, I do not accept Howard Johnson’s plea of ignorance as an excuse for the fact that he ran a horse illegally on eight occasions. It is his job to know the rules and he should have known that having the horse operated upon would disqualify it from racing. The tragic incidents that have occurred in heavily publicised races this year obviously provide a stick with which certain elements will try to beat the sport, but these horses are bred and trained to race and these things do unfortunately happen. I do not recall any huge demands for motor racing to be banned when Roland Ratzenberger and Ayrton Senna died on consecutive days at San Marino in 1994. Apologies if that all sounds very matter-of-fact and unsympathetic.
Some of the "punishments" within the sport do tend to support the theory that the "purity of the turf" is more important than animal welfare. There was much discussion on this forum around the Prince Of Wales Stakes where Dettori broke the rules on whip abuse and received a moderate ban, yet the result stood. To me the horse should have been placed second, that would have acted as a real deterrent in future. As it was the jockey missed a couple of days of meaningless racing, hardly a punishment at all. It is becoming more and more difficult to make a living in horse racing with diminishing prize money and the high cost of keeping horses in training. Most people would acknowledge that rules are bent on a regular basis to try and land a plot, but should this really surprise us, given how thinly the funds in the sport must be spread. Whilst this in no way is an excuse for neglecting animal welfare, is it perhaps a sign that turning a profit is now becoming the overriding factor in racing, as in most other walks of life? Reading the findings of the investigation into Striking Article, and the subsequent media coverage, one can draw any number of conclusions. On the one hand, the trainer and his vet carried out the palmar neurectomy in order to reduce the suffering of an animal in their care, and were unaware of the fact that the horse was no longer eligible to race. Now take the other extreme - the horse cost 150 grand and connections want some return on that. Get him able to race by any means necessary and try and win a couple of races. The real motivations and justifications will likely never be known but I believe this case serves to reinforce the fact that horse racing is extremely competitive, is full of "shadowy practices" and has little or no room for under-achievers.
Maybe it might have something to do with the fact that the non-triers/race fixing issue affects the core integrity of the sport? I'm all for the "hang 'em and flog 'em" if a jockey or trainer has been found guilty under the non-triers/race fixing rules because it compromises the complete and utter integrity of the game, which could have a detrimental effect on attendances and on/off course betting, thereby affecting the levy. Obviously the nutters out there won't be satisfied until all forms of horse racing is banned so they're far more likely to bang the drum about the 'horse welfare' issue. Personally I think that the majority of horses are pretty well cared for (apart from the occasional bad apple), and that to concentrate too much on horse welfare would be giving unnecessary ammunition to the nutters.
There is a simple answer to this - a resounding NO. I'm a big fan of horse racing and have been for more years than I care to admit. I get excited when my selection moves up to challenge, or when it's battling on to hold off a late challenge. Basically I'm like any other punter; I find horse racing exciting, frustrating, sometimes depressing; but any emotions I may have about a horse winning or losing are completely overshadowed by the suffering of a horse. It’s sickening when it is purely and simply an accident (unfortunately accidents do happen) but to think it can happen as a result of cruelty is beyond my understanding. There are so many ways of deceiving the punter, the bookmaker and the handicapper in order to pull off a betting coup and pick up some decent prize money in order to pay the bills. There are rules and if the rules are broken penalties are imposed but to be honest I couldn’t care less. Punters are aware of this and they bet knowing full well that things “go on”. The administration of anabolic steroids is generally for the purpose of building up muscle and in some cases may be useful as a recovery treatment. In some cases this may be used instead of treating the underlying cause of underdevelopment (eg the horse may be suffering from malnutrition due to ulcers in which case the treatment of the ulcers is the better remedy albeit more expensive). Without going into detail the administration of anabolic steroids can have adverse effects, particularly on young horses and mares. However, I’m not going to dwell too much on this. What has really shocked me is that a trainer has raced a horse that was in so much pain it needed a neurectomy. The simple fact is that a horse, just like a human being, will start to limp and quickly come to a standstill if suffering a pain in the leg whilst racing. A nerve block will prevent the horse from feeling the pain and so the poor horse could therefore carry on running until it literally breaks down. That the man claimed ignorance of the rules is beyond belief. This is not about rules; it is about out and out cruelty to animals and he should not be allowed near horses again. I am strongly opposed to making a horse run beyond its natural ability. The horse gives so much to us humans and asks for nothing in return. It is completely unaware of what or why some treatments are being administered yet some trainers continue to abuse them with performance enhancing drugs which could have devastating effects. And it is all driven by greed. Such cruelty and general lack of respect for the welfare of horses will do more harm to the image of horse racing than anything. In answer to the question raised, we punters know what goes on; we can choose to bet or not bet. When it comes to the importance of the image of the sport there is simply no comparison.
I agree it was right to throw the book at Johnson. The welfare of the horses has to be paramount. But I'm not sure I agree with QM that it is wrong to apply human characteristics to animals - surely humans themselves are animals. One thing that bugs me with this case and others (e.g. those involving Henderson) is the role of the vets. Surely the vet involved in the Johnson case was in a better position than the trainer to understand the implications and needs to be struck off. Similarly the vet(s) involved in the Henderson mix-ups seem to have gone unpunished. That does not seem right to me.
OddDog, the small hole in this theory is that the horse was disqualified from all eight races so the only returns the owners got were winnings from betting on the horse. As has previously been stated (and is stated in the findings), ignorance of the rules is not an excuse. Anybody that buys a racehorse, whether that be for a few hundred guineas or several million, should not do so under the misapprehension that they are going to make any money. The problem of diminishing prize money can easily be addressed by cutting the fixture list and getting rid of the plethora of mediocre meetings that are staged purely for the bookmakers, who already have French, South African and American racing piped into their offices by satellite as well as virtual gambling. Chance Gardener, this is surely a consensus opinion amongst punters everywhere. Everyday we see lots of non-triers and no action is apparently taken. The BHA should have a video replay committee sitting watching all the day's races and handing out bans to jockeys and trainers - that would soon persuade them to reform their act. Unfortunately, racing is still largely run by the same set that have always run it but with a few professional management people added to pull the purse strings. Ron, I do not disagree with your general comments, but I thought that it might be useful to point out that appended to this sentence should be "however, their use is strictly forbidden in race horses". There are some forms of drugs that can be used within the rules to medicate horses; however, the horse must be free from those legal drugs before it can race. There is no way that somebody who has been in the sport as long as Howard Johnson did not know the rules governing drugs. As far as I am aware, Fulkes, there is no requirement for vets to know the rules of racing anymore than they have to know the rules of the Kennel Club for dogs. It is up to the people actually involved in the business to know the rules of their own game. It is perfectly true that humans are animals but, other than cannibals, I do not recall any humans that rear and kill humans for food. So treating animals by the same rules is completely ridiculous.
QM. QM. "however, their use is strictly forbidden in race horses". I'm not certain if this is correct. It can be used and is used for recovery purposes; but as you rightly say, the horse must be free from the drugs before it can race, or entered into the sale ring. But whether right or wrong on that point, I was more concerned about the cruelty of making a horse run with a nerve block. My point being that the pleading ignorance of the rules is totally irrelevant in this case; it was sheer cruelty for which there is no excuse, nor forgiveness. The point about the vet is also very valid. There is no way the vet could not have been aware that the horse was going to be raced. But this cannot in any way excuse the trainer as anyone with even the slightest concern for the welfare of the horse would have enquired about the effects and implications of the nerve block and any respectable vet would have ensured he knew, if indeed it was the vet who gave the injection.
I agree with everything you have put Ron and feel most Horse racing fans would. I happen to be a real animal lover and have had my love of horse racing questioned on occasion. I offer the same reasoning each time that horse racing is far from an inherently cruel sport but does have elements that need improving and rules such as whip etc that need clarifying and enforcing properly. In this case making the horse race again after serious surgery that can mask instability was totally cruel and without regard for the horse, anyone who does such a thing should as you put it not be allowed anywhere near a horse. Even if he did not know it was not allowed to race he should have known what the possible consequences could be legal or not.
Ron, quoting directly from the BHA rules on equine science and welfare: I interpret that as meaning no anabolic steroids. The relevant part of the general Rules can be found here.
Fair enough QM. I hadn't read the rules but I had read that they can be used. I presume therefore that when they are used legitimately in racehorses, they must be officially "out of training". Thanks for that. Purely for interest, on the subject of nerve blocking, about 10 years ago one of the top vets in the world (from Newmarket) used a nerve block on one of our pony show jumpers to precisely isolate an injury, which confirmed both front suspensory ligaments had gone. It could have been a lot worse. The day before he had helped GB to the Gold medal but on this occasion after jumping the first few fences clear, Amanda got off and walked him back and nobody, including the judges, had the slightest idea why as the pony appeared to be going so well. He was walked up and down by the local vet who gave him the OK but Amanda insisted there as something wrong and we took him home. Had we listened to the vet or had someone else been riding it does not bare thinking about. After 12 months of extra special care he was back to normal. The reason I mention this is because we were sickened when on 2 occasions we have seen the jockey get off before the the off as though he has suspected something amiss then, after the vet has trotted up the horse, it has been allowed to run; and guess what. I'm not going to mention who the trainer as on both occasions.
