The waiting is over for Kevin McNab who, along with Jock Paget, has been cleared by the FEI Tribunal of any wrong-doing in regards to the Burghley anti-doping case
Kevin’s horse Clifton Pinot tested positive for the banned substance reserpine at the Land Rover Burghley Horse Trials and Kevin was provisionally suspended from all competition. Although the suspension was provisionally lifted in June the FEI Tribunal rendered its Final Decision in both cases of Clifton Promise (Jonathan Paget, NZL) and Clifton Pinot (Kevin McNab, AUS) yesterday
Following the decision Kevin said:
“I am very pleased that this is finally over and I can move on with my career without it hanging over me. It’s been tough for my whole team to be in limbo for so long. Allegations such as the one that I have had to face affect many more people than the person accused and I thank them for their support, which has meant so much to me. It is in times of adversity that you really find out the character of people and I have been humbled by the support that I have had from my owners, particularly Clifton Pinot’s owners Frances Stead and Russell Hall, who have been rocks ever since we received the notification of the positive test result last year. Everyone is now looking forward to moving on and to concentrating on our horses.
“I knew I had done nothing wrong — I’m not a doper and I’m careful about what I feed my horses. I always knew that it had to be contamination and the written decision by the FEI Tribunal makes it absolutely clear that I was not at fault. I am a strong supporter of anti-doping. It has been a very unpleasant experience and I hope that if anything good can come out of this it will be that my case and that of Jock’s serves as a reminder that the effect of doping-related allegations against the innocent are extremely distressing and the protection of innocent parties is as important as detection of the guilty.”
Mr McNab’s lawyer Rory Mac Neice, Head of Sport at Ashfords LLP, added:
“For the last 10 months Kevin has faced the threat of the destruction of his career, a career that he has worked very hard to build and that has great value to him and those around him. It is difficult to underestimate the effect that doping allegations have on those who are innocent. Kevin is a man of great integrity and what has been most impressive about him throughout this matter is his unwavering support of the need for sport to take a robust anti-doping position.
“Most people will agree that there should be a robust and consistent anti-doping procedure in sport but great care must be taken to ensure that the pendulum does not swing too far the other way so that the innocent are also protected. I would like in future to see the FEI take an strong investigatory role following initial positives and to do so at an early stage to ensure that in cases where there is no fault, such as Kevin’s, these cases can be identified and resolved much more quickly.”
In its summary of findings the Tribunal advises that it is not imposing any sanctions on Kevin McNab as the Person Responsible (PR) based on the reasons outlined below;
“13.9 In this context the Tribunal takes note of the steps taken by the PR in order to avoid a positive finding for Prohibited Substances; namely confirming with the manufacturer that the product was free of Prohibited Substances, and checking the product’s representation on the manufacturer’s website. In addition, the Tribunal takes note that the PR had used LesstressE around competitions prior to the Event since 2012, and that the Horse had tested negative for Prohibited Substances once before. Further that the PR knew that Mr. Paget’s horse CLIFTON PROMISE had tested negative four times before despite the fact that it had been administered LesstressE prior to competing. On the other hand the Tribunal understands that the PR had not consulted any veterinarian prior to the use of LesstressE, nor had he acquired any third party (independent) certification in order to confirm the purity (absence of contamination) of LesstressE. The Tribunal finds that if the administration at the Event would have been the first time the PR had used the product, or the first time he had been tested on the product, then it might have found that without independent third party guarantee, the PR might have to assume the risk of contamination, and might therefore have found him to be at fault. The Tribunal however finds that in the case at hand, the PR had used LesstressE at the Event after having used it in the past, and multiple testing for Prohibited Substances of the Horse and the horse CLIFTON PROMISE, which the Tribunal considers to be comparable to an independent third party testing authority. The Tribunal therefore believes that the PR had the right to rely on the product, and in particular to expect that the product did not contain any Prohibited Substances. The Tribunal therefore comes to the conclusion that given the specific circumstances in the case at hand, the PR could not have reasonably known or suspected that certain subsequent batches of LesstressE would be contaminated with Reserpine.
13.10 In conclusion, the Tribunal finds that the PR has succeeded in establishing that he bears No Fault or Negligence for the rule violation. The Tribunal further finds that any otherwise applicable sanctions (except disqualification) with regard to the PR shall be eliminated”
Click here for the full texts of both decisions
