No ban for Hughie Morrison
Hughie Morrison has avoided a ban following the conclusion of the Our Little Sister doping case.
The disciplinary panel imposing a £1,000 fine after determining the trainer was not involved in administering an anabolic steroid to the filly.
Morrison was facing a potentially career-ending disqualification of anywhere between one and ten years.
The panel concluded on the balance of probabilities that Morrison was not involved in administering nandrolone laurate to Our Little Sister, stating it was instead done "by person or persons unknown, for unknown reasons".
The verdict added: "It may have been done to target Mr Morrison, but even that remains speculative."
The result is a significant defeat for the BHA, which had argued the principle of strict liability meant trainers are responsible for the positive tests of horses in their care, regardless of proven involvement.
Jamie Stier, chief regulatory officer for the BHA, said: "Racing is based on fair play and respect for the rules. That's how we earn the trust and confidence of the participants and all those who watch or bet on our sport, without whom there would be no racing industry.
"British racing has a zero-tolerance policy towards the use of anabolic steroids, which are proven to help performance in sport. We must have a level playing field with integrity. We must protect the welfare of our animals.
"The rules are clear that it is the trainer’s responsibility to prevent horses taking part in our sport with prohibited substances in their system. It is important, therefore, that the trainer in this case has accepted he was in breach of the rules of racing, and that the disciplinary panel has confirmed that, as the responsible person, Mr Morrison is in breach of the rules.
"As was set out in our opening submissions, the BHA had no positive case to put to any individual witness because the BHA could not say who administered the anabolic steroid to the horse. However, it was the BHA’s case that Mr Morrison’s assertion that this was a malicious act by someone completely outside of his control is unlikely. It was not the BHA’s case that the administration of the substance ‘must have been done by Mr Morrison or somebody at his direction’.
“We respect the panel’s decision, the rules of racing have been upheld and the matter of penalty is a matter wholly for the disciplinary panel to determine.
“The panel also confirmed that the BHA ‘properly ran the case’. They found that it was not the duty of the BHA to protect Mr Morrison, that the attacks on the adequacy and good faith of the BHA’s investigation ‘wholly failed’ and, with one exception, criticism of the BHA’s conduct was misplaced.
“The one exception related to the fact that a hair sample was not taken. The BHA has always said that we would not use hair sampling as primary evidence until such point as there is international agreement and also full accreditation.
"Until that happens, hair samples are not accepted as regulatory samples, which limits our ability to use them in disciplinary cases. Therefore, it would not have been appropriate for the BHA to rely on hair sampling as part of its evidence in this case. Had we done so, it would have been open to challenge."
22 December 2017