Henderson

Re: Henderson

Julian Earl — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 20:29:37 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]

[quote user="Julian Earl"]Regardless of Peter's answer, your reply here is disingenuous; the question should be whether you would go in front of the DC for not following the TB rules and then repeatedly lying about it (the results, say) in order to help a farmer. The answer is different and more relevant then.[/quote]

Oh I dunno. With your scenario, you'd be dropped as an OV as well. Who's ever been up before DC for this and what did they get?

[/quote]

Who and how many? No idea apart from the example cited above. But certifying a herd as having passed when it hasn't has serious implications and should be taken seriously. How many people have been found out may be a more apposite question.

You do raise a (mildly) interesting question: when certifying a test result, is one certifying the method used as well, or just the numbers in the columns?

[quote user="J G Wray"]If you certify horses for export without supporting evidence then AH will dob you in, but I chose the TB example, because as you will recall, back at the turn of the century just before FMD Defra published a report on how shoddy the TB testing done by vets was. There was a decision made not to dob those who had taken shortcuts in to RCVS, even if they had done it several times. BVA was embarrassed and RCVS started to get it knickers in a twist over paraprofessionals.

Thank goodness there weren't dozens of vets up before RCVS for false certification based on poor testing eh?

JGW[/quote]

See the above comment. Anyway, hypocrisy is the normal state for many institutions and indeed the human race, although needless to say the RCVS are excluded from this perception of mine. However, that does make it right.

Re: Henderson

J G Wray — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 18:16:20 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]I don't understand the leniecy of this sentence[/quote]

Ah well here's news, hot off the press, to baffle you further.

The RCVS were represented in France not so long ago at a French Disciplinary. The French vet in question altered dates for re entry under the PETS. The vet was given a two week suspension at some point in the next five years.

So, certification relating to another country, even when it relates to rabies, echinococcus etc.is not viewed with the same, err seriousness as the Anglo-Saxons. Poor young Mr Okano.

I'm bewildered by the severity of the sentences handed out by RCVS.

JGW

Re: Henderson

Bob Russell — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 17:45:44 GMT

Wow! What a difference in severity of sentence compared to more recent decisions. Have the DC changed that much recently?

Re: Henderson

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 16:41:12 GMT

I think that was actually much more serious than Mr Main-because of the massive scope for damage to food confidence and the little remaining agricultural "prosperity " if cosumers start thinking that veterinary surgeons aren't TB testing properly. We know that TB testing is one of the most mind-numbing jobs that exist (and toe-numbing as well in winter ) but tell the public that we have to have special training to go onto the panel, but some veterinary surgeons not on the panel are doing the job, and they are likely to think that they are guaranteed to get TB from drinking milk- I don't understand the leniecy of this sentence

Wynne

Re: Henderson

Edward Jones — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 16:21:42 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]

Oh I dunno. With your scenario, you'd be dropped as an OV as well. Who's ever been up before DC for this and what did they get?

[/quote]

This is the only one I can think of in recent history . Mr Iwan Parry was found to have signed TT result forms for tests that had been done by non-LVI vets. 2 month suspension!

Re: Henderson

Wren — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 14:19:40 GMT

[quote user="Julian Earl"]

I raised a question but did not dispute it.

[

[/quote]

I apologise - it's a long old thread and my memory isn't what it was!

And to whoever said that when they did racehorse practice they assumed that any drug was banned unless proven otherwise - I think that's the best and safest way to approach all competition horse work.

I think that the main issue for me lies not in the punishment meted out to the vet but in the comparatively minor one handed out to the trainer. Two governing bodies, two punishments but if you assume 50:50 blame then one punishment seems disproportionately small.

Re: Henderson

J G Wray — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 22:51:38 GMT

Oh I dunno. With your scenario, you'd be dropped as an OV as well. Who's ever been up before DC for this and what did they get?

If you certify horses for export without supporting evidence then AH will dob you in, but I chose the TB example, because as you will recall, back at the turn of the century just before FMD Defra published a report on how shoddy the TB testing done by vets was. There was a decision made not to dob those who had taken shortcuts in to RCVS, even if they had done it several times. BVA was embarrassed and RCVS started to get it knickers in a twist over paraprofessionals.

Thank goodness there weren't dozens of vets up before RCVS for false certification based on poor testing eh?

JGW

Re: Henderson

Julian Earl — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 20:35:54 GMT

[quote user="Wren"]

Horses ARE regularly drug-tested (someone earlier disputed this) with routinely the winner and any horse showing an unexpected improvement or decrease in form being tested.

[/quote]

I raised a question but did not dispute it.

[quote user="JGWray"]

Now this is a non sequitur. If you fail to follow AH guidelines when you TB test, you get dropped from the OV panel, you don't get put in front of DC.

[/quote]

Regardless of Peter's answer, your reply here is disingenuous; the question should be whether you would go in front of the DC for not following the TB rules and then repeatedly lying about it (the results, say) in order to help a farmer. The answer is different and more relevant then.

Re: Henderson

Wren — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 18:41:23 GMT

Leaving the main thrust of the debate aside I can roughly explain Jockey Club/FEI rules on banned substances:

Basically any drugs other than antibiotics, antifungals and antiparasitics are not allowed to be used within a specified pre-race period depending on the drug. Drugs have a withdrawal time - for instance you cannot use ACP within 9 days of racing. Antibiotics such as procaine penicillin cannot be used as the procaine element will lead to a positive drug test (though it is highly unlikely to be performance enhancing). Trainers are not allowed to administer anything, banned or legal, on the day of racing.

You have to be particularly careful with creams containing minute amounts of steroids and also cross contamination between feed buckets - I know of more than one top racing yard which will not administer any in-feed medication at all because of this risk and at least one Olympic medal has been lost on this basis.

Horses ARE regularly drug-tested (someone earlier disputed this) with routinely the winner and any horse showing an unexpected improvement or decrease in form being tested.

Re: Henderson

Bob Russell — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 17:30:57 GMT

Men have been found out. Of course women are put onto pedestals to facilitate observation! (sorry blatant sexist comment).

Re: Henderson

Peter Ding — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 16:59:40 GMT

“We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.”

.........and some, like you(?) are content to stay in the gutter ?

I expect to get my feet dirty if i don't watch where i tread. I try and stay out of the gutter, it's a struggle sometimes, but you can at least try......

Be the change that you want to see in the world. -Gandhi

Life is tough. Life is tougher if you're stupid. - John Wayne

In your terms vets are women placed on pedestals, society is men putting them there. In such circumstances at least wear clean underwear, or none at all if you prefer....!

Re: Henderson

J G Wray — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 16:25:53 GMT

[quote user="Peter Ding"]down in the gutter I'm surprised you can breathe at all, it stinks[/quote]

You feed me the line.....

“We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.”

It's often been said the profession puts itself on a pedestal. My ex-Head Nurse had a theory about pedestals; she used to say "Why do men put women on pedestals? - so they can look up their skirts"

Hmmmm

JGW

Re: Henderson

Peter Ding — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 15:38:29 GMT

You talk as though a balance will never be applied....it will....he may appeal, he may seek re-listing in due course. His career is tarnished, not ended.

His practice will carry on and he will still receive significant remuneration in the interim, he will probably pick up a few more horse clients who want to win at any cost, plus ca change.....

The other point is Henderson 's penalty was manifestly ludicrously lenient. That is what the article you quoted clearly indicated. We all know it.

I sincerely believe society will reassess it to be far too lenient once the BHA have examined the evidence now available. The penalty will still probably be fudged of course because it is Nicki Henderson... but that is racing for you....

Mr Main was the NTF veterinary representative on the BHA Veterinary Committee and a member of the Counter Analysis Committee , highly familiar with the rules of racing. He should certainly have known that no substances are permitted to be administered to a racehorse on the day of racing other than routine food and water. IMHO his dishonesty was the critical factor in determining his fate and sentence, not what he actually gave the horse..

Accepting responsibility and consequence for dishonesty is personal thing, you obviously don't believe in it. I do.

The air is breathable up here where most people and vets are.... down in the gutter I'm surprised you can breathe at all, it stinks.....

Re: Henderson

J G Wray — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 15:04:25 GMT

[quote user="Peter Ding"]"Striking off" is a punishment of indeterminate length perhaps only requiring demonstration of a change of attitude before re-instatement.[/quote]

Well it says it all really, because I'm not sure that I know of many other legal institution which imposes a tariff of indeterminate length for something of this magnitude. Re-instatement after striking off involves other considerations including likelihood of "reoffending" or recidivism. In the case of those influenced by poor health or drug habit - neither of which contributed to Mr Main's case - this is also taken into account. Contrition goes only a small way to move RCVS when struck off. The person struck off can re apply after ten months if given leave and then has to wait for DC/Council to process the application which may take months more.

[quote user="Peter Ding"]I am frankly amazed that you appear to think that if one lay person gets off incredibly lightly, far too lightly, for breaking rules and cheating then everybody should, including even those whom society relies on to be scrupulously honest and to keep accurate records.[/quote]

If society accepts Henderson's tariff as fair then Main's is unfair. What's so difficult about that?

[quote user="Peter Ding"]Like it or not we are occasionally asked to 'police' activities involving animals. Betraying that role is just as serious as any other form of gross professional misconduct. One is not fit to practice until one realizes that is the reality.[/quote]

Now this is a non sequitur. If you fail to follow AH guidelines when you TB test, you get dropped from the OV panel, you don't get put in front of DC.

[quote user="Peter Ding"]Vets are obliged to hold the principles of honesty and integrity dearly. If they don't, are they fit to be vets?[/quote]

Fine words but empty, because it behoves all in a civilised society to be honest and act with integrity. But they don't and society has evolved checks and balances to cope. This check on Mr Main is too severe.

Incidentally, to digress enormously, I had to check whether you were quoting Mr Watkinson there. He would have us all for dishonesty and lack of integrity from his moral high ground. How is it up there by the way?

JGW

Re: Henderson

Peter Ding — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 13:41:47 GMT

You're still exaggerating... no-one has suggested corporal punishment and as far as i am aware one can still apply to be re-instated to the register once struck off..

Characturizing those who disagree with you as a "hang -em and flog em brigade" is facile.

"Striking off" is a punishment of indeterminate length perhaps only requiring demonstration of a change of attitude before re-instatement.

I am frankly amazed that you appear to think that if one lay person gets off incredibly lightly, far too lightly, for breaking rules and cheating then everybody should, including even those whom society relies on to be scrupulously honest and to keep accurate records.

Like it or not we are occasionally asked to 'police' activities involving animals. Betraying that role is just as serious as any other form of gross professional misconduct. One is not fit to practice until one realizes that is the reality.

If Mr Main had principles, and was firmly of the opinion that this product was not a performance enhancer and was of welfare benefit to the animal, then i would have more respect for him. IF he had made every effort to get it removed from the list of banned substances (publicly) and had recorded accurately (privately) what he had administered to his patients, even more respect. IF he had got the owner to sign a disclaimer accepting responsibility for the decision to use the product even though it was against the rules of racing, even more respect, IF he had used that defence (that of a technical offence only, as the list was outmoded) and made no secret of his views I could respect him and would be vehemently arguing on his behalf against such a striking off. As presented however I cannot. It is a reasoned stance not an emotive one.

Vets are obliged to hold the principles of honesty and integrity dearly. If they don't, are they fit to be vets?

Re: Henderson

J G Wray — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 12:55:20 GMT

[quote user="Peter Ding"]Where is your evidence that this suspension is an "over reaction"?[/quote]

Not suspension, striking off- different.

We've been over this. I hold the opinion that what happened to Henderson and what happens outside our quirky little profession, including the 'Quins episode, marks this out as an over reaction - evidence. I am of the opinion that this was formulaic punishment, created by precedent, - see previous discussions ref DC - where there's no wish to break with precedent and that's anachronistic and vindictive and in context of what's going on outside the profession an "over reaction".

It is also my opinion that the supporters of this level of punishment have an outmoded view of the profession as an institution, or they would be more tolerant. The idea that standards would come crashing down or that vets collective integrity or gravitas would be affected by leniency is ludicrous hyperbole - in my opinion. I think the profession's altogether more robust than the hanging/flogging brigade suggest.

Given how Henderson has been handled, Mr Main does not deserve what he got.

JGW

Re: Henderson

Eamon McAllister — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 12:38:56 GMT

[quote user="Peter Ding"]

[/quote]

I hope that they declared to the Inland Revenue it and paid the tax.

Re: Henderson

Peter Ding — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 12:23:32 GMT

Quite, but you missed out the falsifying records repeatedly bit, that is also important.

Re: Henderson

Bob Russell — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 12:11:49 GMT

Sorry - I cannot see how a veterinary surgeon administering a banned substance to a racehorse and then being 'struck off' is an over-reaction. A younger vet with less experience and knowledge may have a small degree of defence through ignorance and such a severe sentence could be questioned. This was a very experienced practitioner with no excuse for not knowing what drugs are on the banned list.

A number of years ago I worked in a practice which looked after a very small yard of racehorses. We assumed all drugs were 'banned' unless proven otherwise.

Re: Henderson

Peter Ding — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 11:53:39 GMT

Where is your evidence that this suspension is an "over reaction"?

Mr Main can apply to be re-instated presumably: it is the eventual duration before he is re-admitted to the register that determines whether or not it is an over reaction, surely.

Re: Henderson

J G Wray — Tue, 01 Mar 2011 18:20:26 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]Trial by one's peers has always been considered the gold standard-and the evidence is that the public interest is being served because they are not over-lenient-but they also know the uncertainties, the difficulties, the pressures[/quote]

Quite so but in a Court the jurors, the peers, determine guilt but not sentence. DC does both. DC were given terms of reference by the BHA and could have looked harder at similar offences elsewhere, but this over reaction is what they came up with.

There is also the small matter, alluded to "in another place", of the DC not really being a trial so much as a rubber stamping of the work of the PIC. The DC never goes ahead these days without a watertight evidence trail.

JGW

Re: Henderson

Peter Ding — Tue, 01 Mar 2011 17:47:14 GMT

That was perhaps his get-out....Get Liz down here and I'll do it if she signs a Royal Warrant....

Did Mr Main have to remove the Royal Crest and the "by appointment to" , when he was struck off?

A strange alien world, that of racing, especially at Newmarket I remember the Greets/Ricketts once telling me of being handed suitcases of money from time to time by a sheik's aide. If they accepted it, it was in effect full and final settlement of their equine account up to that point ( tens of thousands generally) Usually there was far more than they owed in one currency or another, but not always....a delicate situation perhaps requiring the ability to gauge how much was in a closed suitcase by weight in the hand: if in doubt one presumably insisted they leave payment till next time and handed it back....

Re: Henderson

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 01 Mar 2011 17:41:19 GMT

And who but veterinary surgeons are fit to dispense judgement on veterinary surgeons ? Trial by one's peers has always been considered the gold standard-and the evidence is that the public interest is being served because they are not over-lenient-but they also know the uncertainties, the difficulties, the pressures

Wynne

Re: Henderson

J G Wray — Tue, 01 Mar 2011 17:33:02 GMT

[quote user="Peter Ding"]I know of no trainer who can "order" a vet to do anything.[/quote]

Hands up all those who, as an assistant or partner who expressed reservations about doing something, like providing or administering medication, has had a senior colleague go ahead and do it anyway? What's the difference?

We know Mr Main colluded and the consequence of the interaction between Mr Main and Mr Henderson was the administration of TA, so the semantics of being"ordered" looks thin because the effect was what he was found guilty of.

I remember arriving in a practice back in 1985 and being told that there were some clients who expected us to go through the tradesman's entrance...

[quote user="Peter Ding"]An excellent article pachyderm, mostly criticizing the the punishment of Henderson as being too lenient rather than Main's being too Draconian. [/quote]

Quite so, but who is remotely clued up on the machinations of regulation of this peculiar little profession? IN the BBC report of Henderson's hearing

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/horse_racing/8126558.stm

there is the following:

"..A British Horseracing Authority panel, chaired by Tim Charlton QC, concluded that a total ban on Henderson was not warranted - but also that a fine was not enough..."

The DC consists of

Dr Christopher Chesney
Mrs Beverley Cottrell (Vice-Chairman)
Professor Sheila Crispin (Vice-Chairman)
Mr Richard Davis
Mrs Caroline Freedman (Chairman)
Mrs Catherine Goldie
Mr Charles Gruchy
Professor Peter Lees
Miss Christine Shield
Mr Richard Stephenson

and has a "Legal Assessor" - a QC

So the BHA has direct, current legal input including to sentence and the RCVS DC can only take advice from Counsel. In any comparison of two regulators are you absolutely sure our own RCVS will come out as a more informed and credible organisation? I'm not so confident about that 'cos when I last looked , as experienced dispensers of justice the DC looks like a fine bunch of vets.

JGW

Re: Henderson

Malcolm Ness — Tue, 01 Mar 2011 16:48:07 GMT

[quote user="Peter Ding"]I know of no trainer who can "order" a vet[/quote]

What??? - not even the Queen's trainer.......................