Regarding the decision of the independent Disciplinary Panel to find trainer Hughie Morrison in breach of Rule (G)2.1 of the Rules of Racing and impose a 拢1,000 fine, Jamie Stier, Chief Regulatory Officer for the British Horseracing Authority (BHA), said:
鈥淩acing is based on fair play and respect for the rules. That鈥檚 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.
鈥淏ritish 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.
鈥淭he rules are clear that it is the trainer鈥檚 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.
鈥淎s 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鈥檚 case that Mr Morrison鈥檚 assertion that this was a malicious act by someone completely outside of his control is unlikely. It was not the BHA鈥檚 case that the administration of the substance 鈥榤ust have been done by Mr Morrison or somebody at his direction鈥�.
鈥淲e respect the Panel鈥檚 decision, the Rules of racing have been upheld and the matter of penalty is a matter wholly for the Disciplinary Panel to determine.
鈥淭he Panel also confirmed that the BHA 鈥榩roperly ran the case鈥�. 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鈥檚 investigation 鈥榳holly failed鈥� and, with one exception, criticism of the BHA鈥檚 conduct was misplaced.
鈥淭he one exception related to the fact that a hair sample was not taken. We would like to take the opportunity to explain more fully why this was the case. 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.
鈥淲e now await the Panel鈥檚 full written reasons before we can comment further on this matter.鈥�
