Home » Racing & Sport » Official » NHA: Trainer Adam Marcus Fined

NHA: Trainer Adam Marcus Fined

'Strong mitigating factors'

Adam Marcus

Adam Marcus

The National Horseracing Authority confirms that at an Inquiry held in Cape Town on 5 February 2016, Trainer Adam Marcus was charged with a contravention of Rule 73.2.6, in that he was the person responsible for the horse, TUMBLES, when a urine sample taken from this horse after it had been presented to be passed through the starting stalls at Kenilworth Racecourse on 10 August 2015, disclosed upon analysis the presence of Furosemide.

Furosemide is a prohibited substance in terms of the Rules of The National Horseracing Authority.

Trainer Marcus pleaded guilty to the charge.  The Inquiry Board accepted his plea and found him guilty as charged.

After considering all the evidence and the strong mitigating circumstances , the Inquiry Board imposed a fine of R15 000.00 which is wholly suspended for a period of three years, provided that Mr Marcus is not found guilty of a contravention of any Rule relating to prohibited substances during this period.

Have Your Say

Comments Policy
The Sporting Post encourages everyone to feel free to comment in the spirit of enlightening the topic being discussed, to add opinions or correct errors. All posts are accepted on the condition that The Sporting Post can at any time alter, correct or remove comments, either partially or entirely.

All posters are required to post under their real and verified names, you can adjust your display name on your account page or to send corrections privately to the Editor. The Sporting Post will not publish pseudonyms.

The views of any individuals that are published are NOT necessarily the views of The Sporting Post.

11 comments on “NHA: Trainer Adam Marcus Fined

  1. Paul says:

    Are the “strong mitigating circumstances” disclosed? And if not, why so?

    1. Editor says:

      Hi Paul – we anticipated the question and contacted the NHA upon receipt of the press release.

      The undermentioned points were quoted as broad mitigating factors:-

      Class 4 drug – used for therapeutic purposes
      It was prescribed by a Vet and recorded in register
      The sample wasn’t taken in racing – horse was being certified at stalls
      When advised that specimen was to be taken, the trainer disclosed medication to Stipes
      He is a first-time offender and has a clear record – 26 years of age, been training since 2012.

      This list was obtained telephonically and is thus a general summary only.
      Regards

      1. Paul says:

        Thanks, Ed and sorry to be so predictable. Suppose it would be too much to expect the press release to contain such obvious info (“strong mitigating circumstances”), thereby obviating the need for your enquiry.

        1. Editor says:

          100% Paul – you thought exactly as we did. We have suggested possibly more elaboration on info – but that must not happen at the expense of turnaround – and they are pretty good with getting the findings out promptly. There is plenty of room for improvement – like on the AGM/SGM.

          But the NHA communication machine is improving – particularly on the racing info front.
          Now let’s predict we get shot down…

  2. strange this as the medication was given by a vet, the stipes were advised about this prior to the sample being taken. his vet register shows it. yet they choose to find him guilty. are the nha mad or just incompetent or dumb. this is not the aim of dope testing. performance enhancing drugs is what they should be looking for.

    on what grounds did the nha have to charge him when everything was declared as required by the nha. this drug is lasix a duiretic. the vet must give a reason why this horse was on it surely.

    dont worry there are a few more cases to come up some on steroids lets see what the national horse racing actors come up with.

    mr editor since i last advised you some more have come up posiitive. but again we will have to wait and see.

    take them to court mr marcus

  3. Steve Reid says:

    Barnes asks some interesting questions. I have on occasion seen trainers administer Lasix to horses that are known bleeders, and sit waiting for the horse to “pee” before the work is done. No vets. This happened years ago when I still had the inclination to get up early to see my battlers work, so I am sure that I am not bringing racing into disrepute by penning my experiences…. I am in full agreement with Barnes when he questions the motives behind fining a trainer at a starting stall certification. Will Lasix affect the horses behaviour in terms of the way the horse behaves when attempting to acquire the certificate? Rather the NHA do race day testing or pre-race testing and look for the proper stuff.

  4. Louis Goosen says:

    As a Licensed Trainer, I am totally confused by this case and the resultant findings and penalty.

    1. Editor says:

      Can you elaborate Louis?

  5. akesh says:

    I dont understand what is going on here.
    Everything seems above board.Surely there has to be a distinction between administering something in in secret in competition to gain an unfair advantage as opposed to a disclosed administration out of competition

    1. A guy is completely forthcoming to the authorities and based on what he tells them he is then fined. I would love to know how ‘mens rea’ would play out here in terms of the law. With all sincerity, maybe Adv Maselle could way in here?

  6. juan nel says:

    73.2.6 at any time on the day when it is presented for the purpose of determining whether a
    suspension should be lifted contains a PROHIBITED SUBSTANCE;

Leave a Comment

‹ Previous

Sham’s PE Feature Double

Next ›

Schofield Faces Charges Over Horse Sale