I'm going to try again, because a few of you seem to have issues with reading and comprehension. Please re-read the NHA press release. I have highlighted the relevant bits for those of you who are having trouble grasping the relevant facts.
The National Horseracing Authority confirms that at an Inquiry held in Cape Town on 28 March 2013, adjourned and resumed on 4 April 2013, Trainer John W McDonald was charged with a contravention of Rule 10.5.1, in that as a Licensed Trainer subject to the Rules of The NHA and responsible for the care, treatment, and training, of horses under his control, HE failed to provide a reasonable level of care and treatment to a number of horses under HIS control.
This resulted in horses under HIS control on and before 17 March 2013, showing, on examination, poor condition, and varying degrees of neglect. Mr McDonald was also charged with a contravention of Rule 72.1.17, in that HE misled the Stewards by intentionally concealing the presence and therefore failing to provide access to a horse called FORTIS, which was under HIS control at the time of an Official Stable Investigation on 17 March 2013.
This resulted in the Veterinary Surgeon who was performing the examinations being unable to examine and assess the condition of this particular horse on the day. Subsequent evidence which has been obtained and presented during the Inquiry has shown this horse FORTIS to be in a very poor condition, and it was concluded that the intention to mislead was as a result of this condition of the horse.
Mr McDonald pleaded GUILTY to both the charges.
THE INQUIRY BOARD found him guilty of both the charges. After considering all the EVIDENCE, and all the mitigating factors the Inquiry Board imposed the following two penalties.
The penalty imposed with regard to Rule 10.5.1, is that Mr McDonald’s Trainer’s Licensed be cancelled, which is wholly suspended for a period of five years, provided that Mr McDonald is not found guilty of a contravention of the Rules relating to the welfare of horses under his control during the period of suspension. The penalty imposed with regard to Rule 72.1.17, is that Mr McDonald’s Trainer’s License be cancelled.
Mr McDonald has the Right of Appeal against both the penalties
Those are INDEPENDENT NHA / SPCA findings. Not me, not anyone else. If you cannot accept the NHA's authority and decisions, then please explain who should decide these things? They have had Stipes and vets examine the horses. As have the SPCA. But you obviously feel that none of the various people who examined the animals are sufficiently qualified / experienced to pass judgement. I accept that. So in your humble opinion, which authority should we get a third opinion from because clearly the NHA and SPCA are muppets in your opinion who cannot adequately separate animal care from other influences.
You seem to think that racing should be based on some sort of Miss Congeniality contest, rather than the capability to care for animals? Please try and take your heads out of your butts and see that neither the NHA or the SPCA have said Mr Mac is a bad person. The FACTS are that on examination, the NHA and SPCA have found that horses in his care were deemed to show neglect and that he had failed to provide a reasonable level of care. That has nothing to do with his personality, sexual preference, colour of his skin, number of boxes, car he drives, suburb he lives in, hair cut, favourite music, or any other reason that you might invent for people to have some sort of personal issue with this. I cannot understand how you cannot see that this is NOT a personal issue and trying to make it one simply shows poor reasoning skills on your behalf. The only people making this personal are you guys. By your argument the fact that Mr Mac's horses show a lack of reasonable care is a direct result of the fact that other people have some sort of personal vendetta against him. Um. Ok. Please explain how other people are responsible for making his horses look below par??? I may be a bit of a slow learner, but as far as I know, the only person responsible for the horses in Mr Mac's barn is Mr Mac. So if there are problems with the horses, how is that someone else's fault??
If I choose to feed my dog on nothing but lettuce and it gets sick, all I have to do is pick a fight with my neighbour and it then becomes their problem ! I LOVE your thinking !!
By your logic, if people do things that other people deem either illegal or socially unacceptable, it's perfectly OK as long as they are nice people and realise that they have a problem, but are too proud to seek help. Really ??? If I go to Pick & Pay and they sell me faulty or bad products, I should accept it as long as the manager is a scream at parties? If you're a nice guy, you can do as you like ?? Well, I'm afraid I am going to have to argue with you. I think that people ought to do things based on their ability to carry out their jobs. Particularly when there are other lives depending on them. But hey, that's just my opinion.
As per the NHA press release, Mr McDonald pleaded GUILTY to both the charges. But by your logic, that's perfectly OK, because he's a nice guy.
Please let me know if you need any help managing your finances. I'm well read, well traveled and am an absolute riot at parties. Do I get the job????
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Topic Author
