Berkshire Equine Vet Struck Off for Dishonesty and Breaching Racing Rules

LONDON, February 23, 2011 - The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons
last night [22 February 2011] directed that a veterinary surgeon from
Berkshire be removed from the Register, following his administration of a
prohibited substance to a racehorse and his subsequent attempts to conceal
his actions.

At a six-day hearing that concluded yesterday, James Main, a partner in
the O'Gorman, Slater, Main & Partners veterinary practice in Newbury, and
former lead veterinary surgeon to racehorse trainer Nicky Henderson, faced
four charges of serious professional misconduct concerning his treatment of
Moonlit Path, a six-year-old mare owned by The Queen.

Three of the charges related to Mr Main breaching British Horseracing
Authority (BHA) rules by injecting Moonlit Path with tranexamic acid (TA) on
the day she was due to race; the fourth charge related to his dishonest
concealment of this treatment in his practice clinical records. Nicky
Henderson had himself faced a BHA Inquiry into this case in 2009 and
subsequently been sanctioned.

The Committee heard that on 18 February 2009, Mr Henderson's yard
requested a veterinary surgeon attend Moonlit Path to administer an injection
of Dycenene the following morning. The injection was requested as the mare
was prone to exercise-induced pulmonary haemorrhage. Mr Main attended on the
morning of 19 February and injected the horse with intravenous tranexamic
acid. Moonlit Path raced at Huntingdon later that day, along with the
eventual winner, and favourite, Ravello Bay - another horse trained by Mr
Henderson. Moonlit Path finished sixth and a urine sample taken from her
after the race tested positive for TA.

Of the four charges, Mr Main admitted injecting Moonlit Path with TA on
the day she was due to race when he knew this breached the BHA's rule
prohibiting any substance other than the horse's usual feed and water being
given on race day. However, Mr Main denied knowing that, if tested, a horse
would test positive for TA (thereby imposing a strict liability on the
trainer); he denied administering a prohibited substance to a horse with the
intention to affect that horse's racing performance; and, he denied
dishonestly concealing the TA injection by omitting it from his clinical
records and referring to it as a 'pre-race check'.

The Committee heard and carefully considered evidence from Mr Henderson
and his employees, from BHA investigating officers and its Director of Equine
Science and Welfare, from an expert equine physiologist and from Mr Main
himself. In its findings, the Committee stated it was "unimpressed by Mr
Henderson's evidence and surprised by his apparent lack of knowledge of the
rules of racing."

Whilst the Committee accepted Mr Main believed at the time that Moonlit
Path would not test positive for TA, it considered he failed to fully inform
himself of the medicinal product he was using; especially so as TA does not
possess a Marketing Authorisation as a veterinary medicinal product. In so
doing, he did not meet his professional obligation to provide Mr Henderson
with the information and advice he needed.

The Committee concluded that TA was a prohibited substance and, whilst
accepting that Mr Main's concern had solely been for Moonlit Path's welfare,
he had actually breached BHA rules by affecting her performance through
administering such a substance.

Finally, the Committee found that Mr Main had deliberately concealed the
TA injection to Moonlit Path by describing it in his notes as a 'pre-race
check' - a protocol developed over several years between the practice and Mr
Henderson. Such inaccurate clinical records were in breach of the RCVS Guide
to Professional Conduct and led the Committee to conclude he had acted
dishonestly. The Committee also found Mr Main "did not act with candour" by
claiming to have administered the TA injection the day before the race. On
questioning by the Legal Assessor, however, he admitted that he had known
that Moonlit Path was racing the same day that he administered the injection.

Professor Sheila Crispin, chairing the Committee, said: "[We] regard it
as wholly unacceptable practice that a veterinary surgeon should be party to
serious breaches of rules of another regulatory body in the field of animal
welfare … and which go to the very integrity of racing.

"Whilst the findings relate to a single incident, [we] are satisfied that
Mr Main's actions amounted to pre-meditated misconduct … It is highly
relevant that Mr Main held positions of responsibility within the racing
industry where he was required to uphold the rules and standards of the
profession," she added.

Noting Mr Main's "long and hitherto unblemished career as a highly
respected equine veterinary surgeon", the Committee accepted Mr Main's
evidence that the reason for the administration of tranexamic acid was solely
his concern about the welfare of the horse. Nevertheless, it found his
evidence was "evasive, lacking in candour and on some aspects of the case his
evidence was untrue."

Professor Crispin concluded: "…proven dishonesty has been held to come
at the top end of the spectrum of gravity of disgraceful conduct in a
professional respect … Having considered carefully all the mitigation put
forward on Mr Main's behalf, [we] have concluded that Mr Main's behaviour was
wholly unacceptable and so serious that removal of his name from the Register
is required."

NOTES FOR EDITORS

1.The RCVS is the regulatory body for veterinary surgeons in the UK and
deals with issues of professional misconduct, maintaining the register of
veterinary surgeons eligible to practise in the UK and assuring standards of
veterinary education.

2.RCVS disciplinary powers are exercised through the Preliminary
Investigation and Disciplinary Committees, established in accordance with
Schedule 2 to the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (the 1966 Act). The RCVS has
authority to deal with three types of case:

a)Fraudulent registration b)Criminal convictions c)Allegations of
disgraceful professional conduct

3.The Disciplinary Committee is a constituted judicial tribunal under the
1966 Act and follows rules of evidence similar to those used in a court of
law.

4.The burden of proving an allegation falls upon the RCVS, and the RCVS
must prove to the standard that the Committee is sure.

5.A respondent veterinary surgeon may appeal a Disciplinary Committee
decision to the Privy Council within 28 days of the date of the decision. If
no appeal is received, the Committee's judgment takes effect after this
period.

6.Further information, including the original charges against Mr Main and
the Committee's findings and decision, can be found at
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary.

For more information contact: Ian Holloway, +44(0)20-7202-0727,
i.holloway@rcvs.org.uk

For more information contact: Ian Holloway, +44(0)20-7202-0727, i.holloway at rcvs.org.uk