BHA seek to amend rules after Philip Hobbs case

The British Horseracing Board has announced it will seek to amend the rules of racing "to avoid weakening the ability for penalties to be imposed for breaching the equine anti-doping rules" after losing a landmark case against a ruling by a

In an unprecedented move, the BHA had appealed the decision of the panel in August not to impose a penalty on trainer Philip Hobbs, after Keep Moving tested positive for cetirizine, which is an non-sedative antihistamine that is a banned substance on racedays, following his third-placed finish at Ludlow in January.

The horse was disqualified as a matter of routine, but the panel decided Hobbs had established the administration of the drug was unintentional and had taken all reasonable precautions, so, in its interpretation of the rules, he should not be penalised, a verdict that was upheld by the appeal board.

The BHA had argued that when the source of the substance cannot be established, it followed a trainer should be accountable under the principle of strict liability, that "regardless of intent or motive, under the Rules of Racing the trainer is the person responsible for any prohibited substance found in a horse in their care".

Jamie Stier, the BHA's chief regulatory officer, said: "This appeal was brought to seek clarification in relation to the interpretation of Rule (G)11.4. Whilst the appeal board's judgement does not challenge the principle of strict liability, it has shown there is an issue with the way the Rules of Racing are currently written.

"In order to address the point raised by the appeal board, there needs to be an amendment to the current rules."

Stier added: "A sufficient deterrent is fundamental to the enforcement of a effective anti-doping regime in any sport and therefore it is of vital importance that the principle of strict liability is backed up with appropriate penalties."

Martin Bourne, partner at Knights 1759, handled the case on behalf of Hobbs, working with the National Trainers Federation and counsel Roderick Moore.

He said: "I'm delighted the judicial panel upheld the original decision not to impose a penalty. This is the first time a case like this has been heard and it a very good decision for Mr Hobbs and the wider horse training community.

"There is a clear difference, when applying the 'no penalty' rule, between an obvious performance-enhancing drug and an over-the-counter antihistamine, as the risk on innocent contamination from human to horse is so much greater - a fact both the disciplinary panel and the judicial panel took on board."

He added: "The BHA's regulatory arm argued that unless a trainer can prove how the drug got into the horse the trainer cannot obtain the benefit of the 'no penalty' rule.

"Roderick Moore argued that such an interpretation was not supported by the words used in the rule which were designed to protect trainers who found themselves, through no fault of their own, in Mr Hobbs' position. Happily the judicial panel agreed with that view."

The NTF said it would "strongly discourage" the BHA from seeking a rule change.

A statement read: "The NTF is very pleased with the appeal board's decision in this landmark case. Its effect is to confirm that the absence of a known source of a prohibited substance in a horse's sample is not a bar to a disciplinary panel absolving a trainer of a personal penalty under the strict liability rules as long as the particular facts of the case demonstrate that the trainer has met the threshold required by the rules.

"We note that in response to this decision, the BHA will seek a rule change. We would strongly discourage them from this. Each case will still turn on the facts. Far from obstructing its ability to regulate the sport, the BHA should recognise that this ruling gives trainers an incentive to ensure they apply the very best management practices to prevent their horses from being administered with or contaminated by a prohibited substance whether in their home stables or at a racecourse.

"There is no such incentive if the trainer is penalised whatever the circumstances. It should not be forgotten that the result does not change the inevitable disqualification of the horse with serious consequences for the connections including the trainer. This in itself is sufficient deterrent.

"We want to be clear that the NTF fully supports British racing's rules on equine anti-doping and their objective to ensure that everyone competes on level terms on British racecourses. Our interest in the appeal was to ensure fair treatment of trainers under those rules."