BHA now faces dilemma over doping cases

After losing appeal in landmark case, racing’s rulers need to rethink punishment strategy

The British Horseracing Authority lost an appeal last week against the decision of an independent disciplinary panel not to fine trainer Philip Hobbs for running a horse which subsequently tested positive for cetirizine, an antihistamine and a banned substance.

It was a triumph for the credibility and reputation of racing in this country.

To start with, we should celebrate the fact that the governing body lost. That would not happen in Russia or North Korea, and it frequently did not in this country either in the old days, when the Jockey Club’s cabal of over-entitled aristocrats ruled racing.

It was helpful that Hobbs happened to be the trainer who ended up being the test case for the interpretation of the wording of the BHA’S rule book. There was never any insinuation that this trainer, who is as straight as a die, was considered by the BHA to have knowingly done anything wrong. That is important, because the appeal was about establishing where the BHA is with the wording of its rule book, and not about the innocence or guilt of a sound professional.

But that is not the end of the matter; in fact it is the beginning. There does not seem to be any conflict around the principle that trainers are strictly liable in cases where their horses test positive for a banned substance.

What is up for debate, however, is whether that trainer should automatically receive further punishment over and above their horse being disqualified in such circumstances.

What is certain is that one punishment does not fit all, because every case is different. I have devised three scenarios here for you to peruse and judge.

1 Horse A runs from a yard with excellent security protocols, but tests positive for the stopping drug ACP. In other words, it has been ‘got at’, which will be to the detriment of the trainer, who may have been cheated out of a big win. Even though that trainer had procedures in place over and above reasonable expectations, should he/she also be fined?

2 Horse B runs from a yard with impeccable medical protocols and records, but tests positive for a substance commonly used to treat a minor ailment. Circumstantial, but not conclusive, evidence is gathered which points to a third party outside the control of the trainer being responsible. Is the trainer more or less culpable than the trainer of horse A?

3

Horses C, D & E, trained by different trainers, all test positive for a banned substance. They all ran at the same race meeting and had been stabled in boxes adjacent to each other. It is suspected, but not proven, that the cause lay with contaminated bedding material supplied by the racecourse. Should the trainers be punished? If so, how severely?

The problem that the BHA has, on behalf of the whole racing industry, is balancing fairness with integrity.

Nobody with racing’s interests at heart wishes to see the bar lowered as far as maintaining drug-free, clean and honest racing in this country. Indeed, in many ways, perhaps the deterrent levels should be higher. Australia, for instance, is draconian on this issue.

Only by maintaining these high standards will the sport continue to attract international investors, who create jobs in Britain. Such credibility is also why horses bred and raced in this country are sought after for export to other countries. And integrity underpins punters’ confidence that the sport is honest and transparent.

If the BHA and its rules committee insist that standards of integrity can be upheld only if further punishment is mandatory, but accept that a wide range of punishment is appropriate in the cause of fairness, that ‘range’ then becomes the issue.

The top end of the range is easy; anyone wilfully doping horses to go faster or slower should be banned for life. It is at the other end of the spectrum where the trouble kicks off.

Is fining trainer of horse A £1, for example, an unfair slight on his/ her character, or an erosion of the integrity of racing?

Earlier on this year, I suggested here that Patrick Milmo QC’S role on the independent appeal board appeared to be nothing more than that of an emasculated performing seal. Therefore, I took great pleasure in seeing him in the guise of a very different animal last week.