Home » Racing & Sport » Prohibited Substance – Dorrie Sham Fined

Prohibited Substance – Dorrie Sham Fined

Costs order of R5 000

Dorri Sham

Dorrie Sham

The National Horseracing Authority confirms that an Inquiry was held at its offices in Port Elizabeth on 10 November 2016.

Trainer Mrs D A Sham was charged with a contravention of Rule 10.5.14, in that she was the person responsible for the horse, MR HANSEN, when an ‘out of competition’ blood specimen taken from this horse at her Racing Stable at Fairview on 29 July 2016, disclosed upon analysis the presence of Flunixin, the treatment and administration of which was not accurately recorded in her veterinary treatment register.

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

Mrs Sham pleaded guilty to the charge.

The Inquiry Board found Mrs Sham guilty as charged and imposed a penalty of R30 000 of which R15 000 is wholly suspended for a period of 36 months provided she is not found guilty of a contravention of the rules relating to prohibited substances during that period.

In addition, The Board directed Mrs Sham to pay R5 000, being a portion of the actual costs and expenses incurred by The National Horseracing Authority in connection with the Inquiry proceedings in terms of rule 84.6.

Further, the suspended penalty of R20 000 imposed by an Inquiry Board on Mrs Sham at an Inquiry held in Port Elizabeth on 15 June 2016 for a contravention of Rule 73.2.4, is brought into effect.

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 comments submitted anonymously or under pseudonyms.

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

9 comments on “Prohibited Substance – Dorrie Sham Fined

  1. Andrew says:

    The use of prohibited substances by trainers is happening way too often. I doubt that the NHRA is starting do something different. We know that the NHRA has limited resources. Nowadays when a trainer is caught with an ‘out of competition’ positive for prohibited substances it is mainly through anonymous tip offs and information.

    The penalties imposed are becoming more and more disheartening for punters. Trainers are laughing at the NHRA for providing guidelines for penalties. They know the maximum penalty to be imposed before they cheat and push the limits of the system.

    Each case of use of prohibited substances should be dealt with on its own facts. If I was sitting on the inquiry board as since the trainer has recently been found guilty of a similar offence relating to prohibited substances, I would have fined her R350,000 with R300,000 suspended for five years provided she is not found guilty of a contravention of the rules relating to prohibited substances during that period. A message must be sent. The trainer must continue to have the suspension hanging over her head for five years.

    History shows us that the majority of trainers who have been found guilty by the NHRA under the prohibited substances rule are repeat offenders. Although being found guilty under the prohibited substances rule is not regarded by the NHRA as cheating, punters have a very different view of this.

  2. Ian Jayes says:

    Sound healthy horses do not need drugs and unsound, unhealthy horses should not be in training for racing.

  3. Warrenl says:

    Andrew

    You may have missed Robyn’s Article.

    http://www.sportingpost.co.za/2016/11/beware-of-the-leopard/

    Make your opinion around this , however a word of caution although, don’t forget Rule 72.1.43.

  4. Dorrie Sham says:

    Mr Jayes, this horse was under vet treatment due to unsoundness issues and was in the process of being retired from racing however I couldn’t let him go to a new home until he was sound which is why he was under treatment at that time. I also insisted that he was gelded before leaving.
    The substance was prescribed in our vet register for this horse but was not written into book on day it was given as we (all trainers ) were not aware that this had to be done even after prescription.

    Andrew….see above

    Dorrie Sham

  5. Brett Maselle says:

    The excuse proffered by trainer Sham is unacceptable in my books.

    Trainer Sham says “this horse was under vet treatment due to unsoundness issues and was in the process of being retired from racing however I couldn’t let him go to a new home until he was sound which is why he was under treatment at that time. I also insisted that he was gelded before leaving…”

    The blood specimen was taken on 29 July 2016. According to Formgrids Mr Hansen ran on 8 August 2016 (less than two weeks later) on the Fairview polytrack. So much so for the horse being in the process of being retired!

    If the above excuse was given to the inquiry board in mitigation of the penalty and accepted by the board then there is a problem.

    Moreover, if a horse is to be retired, protocols have to be followed in terms of the NHA rules. Looking at past NHA racing calendars, it appears that the NHA does not have any records of this horse being officially retired. This together with the run on 8 August 2016 also raises questions whether the horse was at the time of the taking of the specimen UNSOUND and/or in the process of being retired.

    1. Paul says:

      Not sure exactly what is meant by “in the process of” being retired – akin to saying “a bit pregnant”? Either the horse is retired, or not. Perhaps Trainer Sham meant “in the process of being rehomed”? But then runs again!

  6. Jess K says:

    So, if I read this correctly, trainer Dorrie Sham has been found guilty twice in the space of 5 months of her horses being found having (a) prohibited substance(s). Once in contravention of Rule 73.2.3 ie “on course” having run and once in contravention of Rule 10.5.14 ie “off course”.
    Then this “attempt” at trying to justify it on SP.
    Methinks, she got off lightly !

    1. MGram says:

      Rules rules rules. It seems that they are there for apprarances. I have gone through the NHA registrations and can not find notification of Mr. Hanson geing gelded or retired. Perhaps some rules are more important than others?

  7. Bob says:

    Case set aside and all charges Withdrawn

    Cheers

Leave a Comment

‹ Previous

Uncle Tommy

Newsflash – Flamingo Park Delayed

Next ›

Winning Ways

Winning Ways Off Air