Gordon Elliott fined in ‘thriller’ Cheltenham Competition contamination case

  • Horse & Hound is supported by its viewers. While you buy by hyperlinks on our website, we could earn fee on a number of the gadgets you select to purchase. Be taught extra

  • Coach Gordon Elliott was fined £1,000 in a “thriller” contamination case involving the horse who completed third within the 2022 Unibet Champion Hurdle on the Cheltenham Competition.

    Zanahiyr, who crossed the road 4 and a half lengths behind winner Honeysuckle, examined optimistic for 3-hydroxylidocaine – a metabolite of lidocaine – in a post-race urine pattern eventually 12 months’s Competition. Mr Elliott opted to have the B-sample examined, which confirmed the discovering.

    Lidocaine is a prescription-only veterinary medication, predominately used as a neighborhood anaesthetic. Additionally it is obtainable in over-the-counter merchandise and not using a prescription for people. Its use will not be banned by the British Horseracing Authority (BHA), however it can’t be current in a horse’s system on raceday and has a 72-hour detection time.

    The case was heard this afternoon (8 February) by the BHA’s impartial disciplinary panel, made up of chairman David Fish KC, Lyn Griffiths and Ian Stark.
    Mr Elliott accepted the breach and the disqualification, however how the substance got here to be within the horse’s system stays a thriller.

    The listening to hinged on culpability. The BHA claimed that the dearth of coaching for Mr Elliott’s employees on the way to forestall contamination meant that he couldn’t be thought of to have “low culpability”.

    However Rory Mac Neice, representing Mr Elliott, disagreed. He argued that the BHA’s thorough investigation discovered no hint of lidocaine at Mr Elliott’s yard, and that the drug was not current in any treatment taken by the 27 employees concerned with the horses on the Competition. He added that the “BHA’s personal investigation” discovered nothing to counsel the trigger was linked to something at Mr Elliott’s yard or his employees at Cheltenham. With that in thoughts, he argued that because the horse was more than likely to have come into contact with lidocaine at Cheltenham stables, that the individuals the horse could have come into contact with there have been exterior of Mr Elliott’s management.

    Charlotte Davison, who offered the BHA’s case, informed the listening to that Mr Elliott “co-operated absolutely” with the investigation and promptly admitted the breach.

    The listening to was informed how as a part of the BHA’s investigation, officers from the Irish Horseracing Regulatory Board made an unannounced go to to Mr Elliott’s yard. No traces of lidocaine have been present in any of the medicines, information of previous remedy, feed or dietary supplements.

    Mr Elliott additionally supplied treatment information of the 27 individuals concerned in travelling with and caring for his horses on the Cheltenham Competition, and none of those substances contained lidocaine.

    “That is what has been termed prior to now a ‘thriller case’,” stated Miss Davison.

    She added that though Mr Elliott submits that he falls throughout the low culpability vary, the BHA disagrees.

    “Mr Elliott, the BHA submits, has failed to make sure that any actual, not to mention ample precautions, have been in place on his yard – by that we clearly embrace travelling procedures when racing away – to stop potential contamination from employees taking treatment,” she stated.

    “Throughout his interview, Mr Elliott described safety at Cheltenham as ‘second to none’. And in any occasion, the principles of racing make it clear that it’s Mr Elliott, and Mr Elliott alone, who’s chargeable for the safety of his horses.

    “The BHA submits that Mr Elliott has no correct procedures in place to stop cross-contamination going down by members of employees taking treatment.”

    A part of an interview with Mr Elliott was learn out, the place he was requested about any employees coaching round stopping cross-contamination. He stated employees have been frequently spoken to about not urinating in stables “and that kind of stuff”, and added he’ll “should be tightening up on it”.

    Miss Davison added that though that is Mr Elliott’s first breach of anti-doping guidelines in Britain, he has had a earlier case, in Eire in 2018, in dissimilar circumstances, so she stated this case can’t be thought of a primary offence.

    Mr Mac Neice disagreed, stating that British guidelines make no reference to different jurisdictions.

    “It’s clear from the investigating officer’s report that Mr Elliott and his employees have absolutely and wholeheartedly cooperated with the BHA,” he stated, including that they have been “as anxious to search out the trigger” because the BHA.

    “What emerges from the BHA’s complete investigation is that this: the BHA concluded in its personal phrases that there was ‘little to no threat’ of contamination from the feed, dietary supplements or components saved or used at Mr Elliott’s yard, nor from any treatment stored on the yard. In different phrases, the BHA’s investigation has to all intents and functions discounted the opportunity of any cross-contamination from these sources.”

    The listening to heard the horse travelled from Mr Elliott’s yard in Eire to Cheltenham on 12 March and was stabled there till returning residence on 15 March.
    “There’s a important distinction by way of the horse’s safety whereas in his steady at residence at Mr Elliott’s yard and whereas stabled in any racecourse stables – that isn’t a criticism, it’s a reality,” stated Mr Mac Neice.

    “When at residence, the horse is underneath the whole management of Mr Elliott by way of who can come into contact with him. If you happen to or I have been to wander into Mr Elliott’s yard in Eire one afternoon, we might be stopped, requested what we have been doing and requested to go away.”

    He added that Mr Elliott has no management who enters the racecourse stabling space, including that that is the “unavoidable nature” of racecourse stabling and in the course of the Competition, it’s busy.

    “Different horses and people from unconnected yards and locations might fully innocently come into contact with, or be in very shut proximity to, the horse,” he stated.

    “We are saying that’s the overwhelmingly more than likely reason behind the antagonistic discovering. Solely unintentional, unintended, cross-contamination in the course of the interval the horse was stabled on the racecourse stables throughout final 12 months’s Cheltenham Competition.”

    Addressing the BHA’s submission that Mr Elliott didn’t have procedures to stop contamination in place, Mr Mac Neice identified that there isn’t a requirement to take action, and that the BHA additionally doesn’t require that of anybody coming into racecourse stables.

    Summing up, Mr Fish stated the panel was of the place that Mr Elliott’s culpability “falls into the low class”.

    “Balancing the mitigating and aggravating options, the panel takes the view {that a} high-quality of £1,000 is acceptable,” he stated.

    Zanahiyr was disqualified, with prize cash returned, and the placings might be amended.

    You may additionally be occupied with:

    Horse & Hound journal, out each Thursday, is filled with all the newest information and experiences, in addition to interviews, specials, nostalgia, vet and coaching recommendation. Discover how one can get pleasure from the journal delivered to your door each week, plus choices to improve your subscription to entry our on-line service that brings you breaking information and experiences in addition to different advantages. 

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *