Queen's Trainer or Not, Ban Must Be Applied

Nicky Henderson is one of the finest National Hunt trainers the sport has seen. He has enjoyed almost unbroken success since taking out a license 31 years ago, is the most successful current trainer at the Cheltenham Festival and has won most of the sport's top prizes.

But if he eventually escapes with nothing more than a fine after being found guilty of a breach of Rule 200 yesterday, Henderson should also consider himself a very lucky man. Rule 200, which concerns the admission of substances to affect performance, goes to the heart of the sport's integrity. The possible penalties include a large fine or a suspension of Henderson's license, or both, and, while no one would enjoy seeing him suffer such a public humiliation, there may be no option.

Consider, for example, the penalty handed down to Matt Gingell less than two weeks ago when he admitted "milkshaking" his horses, an offense under the same rules that prohibit "the administration of a prohibited substance with intention to affect the performance of that horse... or with knowledge that its racing performance could be affected". Gingell, who had relinquished his license just before his hearing, was banned from the sport for two years.

There are, of course, differences between the two cases. Gingell's offenses were found to be deliberate and persistent while we must assume – pending the official publication of the panel's reasons for yesterday's findings – that Henderson was guilty of an honest, albeit remarkably stupid, mistake.

Stupidity was no defence for Rio Ferdinand when he missed a drug test, though, and nor should it be for a trainer who breaks one of the essential rules on which the sport's integrity is founded.

Another serious concern about a fine, no matter how significant, rather than a suspension, would be the message it would appear to carry about the enduring effects of class within racing. It would suggest that, if you are a farmer with a nondescript cv, you will quite rightly get hammered for a breach of Rule 200 and, if you are an old Etonian who trains for the Queen, you will not.

Henderson may well point out in mitigation that removing his license would threaten jobs in his stable. That is probably nonsense; if a yard that size does not have an assistant who can take over, something is badly wrong. Even if it is true, though, the best way for Henderson to respect his staff is not to allow anti-bleeding agents to be given to his runners on race-day in the first place.

To gain the respect of those it controls, any system of rules not only needs to be enforced without fear or favor; it must be seen to operate on that basis too. The Gingell case set a useful precedent, making it clear that performance-enhancing substances will not be tolerated. The Henderson case must not suggest the opposite.

That would allow ambitious and unscrupulous young trainers to give anti-bleeding drugs to their horses in the knowledge that, even if they are caught, their barrister will be able to claim Henderson's case as a precedent. It would, therefore, be no worse than 50-50 that they would lose their license and, even if they did, they might well get it back by taking the BHA to court.

A ban from training of at least three months should be the minimum for any trainer found guilty under Rule 200, regardless of excuses, record or connections.