This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/nov/26/turf-club-report-philip-fenton-drugs
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 2 | Version 3 |
|---|---|
| Turf Club publishes report from banned Philip Fenton drugs hearing | |
| (about 2 hours later) | |
| Philip Fenton, who was banned from racing for three years on Saturday after being found in possession of 1kg of the powerful anabolic steroid Nitrotain, was “less than truthful” and “uncooperative” when interviewed by investigators according to the official report on the case by the Irish Turf Club, which was published on Wednesday. | |
| The findings of the Turf Club’s Referrals Commitee, which deals with disciplinary matters, also state that the Club could not trace an individual named by Fenton as the supplier of the drugs which were found at his yard when it was raided by inspectors from Ireland’s Department of Agriculture in early 2012. The alleged supplier is not named in the report. | The findings of the Turf Club’s Referrals Commitee, which deals with disciplinary matters, also state that the Club could not trace an individual named by Fenton as the supplier of the drugs which were found at his yard when it was raided by inspectors from Ireland’s Department of Agriculture in early 2012. The alleged supplier is not named in the report. |
| One of the witnesses to give evidence to Saturday’s hearing was Christopher Gordon, the Turf Club’s head of security, who said that in his first interview with Turf Club investigators, Fenton said that he had known the man who supplied the drugs for “10 or 12 years”. | One of the witnesses to give evidence to Saturday’s hearing was Christopher Gordon, the Turf Club’s head of security, who said that in his first interview with Turf Club investigators, Fenton said that he had known the man who supplied the drugs for “10 or 12 years”. |
| The account of Gordon’s evidence continues: “When asked was he a rider in the past, Mr Fenton said he was. He went on to say that the individual visited his yard two or three times since he started training. When asked how much he paid for the products, he claimed they were a gift. He claimed he received the product around June 2011, some seven months before the DAFM inspection. When asked did he [Fenton] contact the individual about his prosecution and difficulties he stated no and that the individual concerned had split from his wife and severed his ties with Ireland. | The account of Gordon’s evidence continues: “When asked was he a rider in the past, Mr Fenton said he was. He went on to say that the individual visited his yard two or three times since he started training. When asked how much he paid for the products, he claimed they were a gift. He claimed he received the product around June 2011, some seven months before the DAFM inspection. When asked did he [Fenton] contact the individual about his prosecution and difficulties he stated no and that the individual concerned had split from his wife and severed his ties with Ireland. |
| “Mr Gordon said that Mr Fenton was also less than forthcoming about the number of times he met the individual. As stated above, he mentioned at his first interview that he visited his yard two or three times. This changed to every year when he was home on holidays, as well as chance meetings at racecourses. | “Mr Gordon said that Mr Fenton was also less than forthcoming about the number of times he met the individual. As stated above, he mentioned at his first interview that he visited his yard two or three times. This changed to every year when he was home on holidays, as well as chance meetings at racecourses. |
| “Mr Gordon said that they were unable to trace the individual named as the supplier as Mr Fenton did not have specific contact details but the profile of the supplier was similar to another individual based in the Middle East whom the Turf Club contacted in relation to the supply of the product. That individual denied having any involvement in the matter. | |
| “Mr Gordon said that for whatever reasons he has, it appears that Mr Fenton has been less than truthful and uncooperative with the Turf Club investigation into this matter.” | |
| Fenton admitted to a breach of the rules at Saturday’s hearing, a fact which was accepted as mitigation by the committee when deciding on the trainer’s penalty. The committee’s report states that initially, the panel decided that “the appropriate penalty for the offences under consideration was a period of disqualification of in the region of five to six years. In view of the evidence and the submissions by Mr [Michael] McGrath [Fenton’s solicitor] on mitigation, cooperation with the Referrals Committee and the actual financial and other effects of such a penalty on Mr Fenton, the committee imposed a disqualification of three years as the appropriate punishment in all of the circumstances.” | |
| Fenton has announced his intention to appeal against the penalty imposed by the Referrals Committee. A date for the hearing has yet to be set. | Fenton has announced his intention to appeal against the penalty imposed by the Referrals Committee. A date for the hearing has yet to be set. |