Result of enquiries (K Dalgleish, D Swift, M Harley) heard by the Disciplinary Panel on 12 November 2015
Press Release
Keith Dalgleish
1. On Thursday 12 November 2015 the Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) held an enquiry into admitted allegations of breach of the Rules of Racing by the trainer Keith Dalgleish. His horse SANTEFISIO ran in the Tilbrooks Landscape & Tuddenham Nurseries Handicap at Newmarket on 29 May 2015, nine days after it had received an intra-articular corticosteroid injection, Duphacort Q, on 20 May 2015. This was administered by Dalgleish’s Veterinary Surgeon, William Marshall, and recorded in the trainer’s medication book. An inspection of Dalgleish’s yard revealed this when the BHA’s Veterinary and Equine Welfare teams visited to conduct out of competition testing because of previous positive sample findings for horses from his yard.
2. This meant that Dalgleish was in breach of Rule (A)74, Ground 4, which provides that a horse will be disqualified if it emerges that it was not qualified to run in a race as provided by Schedule (B)3. That Schedule states (at Paragraph 11A) that a horse must not have been administered an intra-articular corticosteroid on the day of its race or on any of the 14 days before the race.
3. The second breach admitted by Dalgleish was of Rule (A)29. This provides that a person who “knows or believes that a horse is not qualified for a race” must not enter or run it in a race.
4. But it was clear on the evidence that neither Dalgleish nor his Veterinary Surgeon, Mr Marshall, knew of the change to the Rules at the end of 2014 which introduced the 14 day stand down period after intra-articular injections of corticosteroid. They both certainly should have known of this. In Dalgleish’s case, he could and should have known of it at least from a BHA message to trainers on 21 November 2014 and from the National Trainers Federation November/December 2014 newsletter.
5. Dalgleish’s failure to pick up on this provides no excuse: he is deemed by Rule (A)2.3 to know the Rules, including amendments to them. The change to the Rule was introduced because of veterinary concerns about the increased risk of injury to horses who run within the 14 day period.
6. When considering penalty, the Guide to Procedures and Penalties indicates a fine of between £750 and £2,000 with an entry point of £1,000 for a breach of Rule (A)74 and Schedule (B)3 Paragraph 11A. Given Dalgleish’s prompt admission of breach, and the evidence which did establish that neither he nor his Veterinary Surgeon were acting in any underhand way, the Panel imposed the entry level fine of £1,000.
7. At the hearing, which Dalgleish did not attend, the Panel indicated that it would not impose any separate penalty for the admitted further breach of Rule (A)29, as there was no additional wrongdoing which was alleged to be an ingredient of this breach but not of the Rule (A)74 breach. Having considered the matter further when preparing these reasons, the Panel came to the conclusion that there was in fact no breach of Rule (A)29. It is a provision mainly designed to catch cases where a trainer (or owner) runs a horse which is, for instance, the wrong age or which did not meet other race conditions. If Dalgleish had actually known of the 14 day stand down period and then run SANTEFISIO, he would have been in breach. But the Rule requires actual knowledge or belief, rather than deemed knowledge.
8. So the only penalties remain the £1,000 for breach of Rule (A)74 and Schedule (B)3 Paragraph 11A and the disqualification of SANTEFISIO from the race.
