Racing trainer slapped with monstrous SIX-YEAR ban for ‘unacceptable’ breach of horse treatment rules
TRAINER Mohamed Ramadan has been banned from horse racing for six years.
Last September he received 10 charges from the Emirates Racing Authority [ERA] following an inspection of his stable.
Two of Ramadan’s horses required particular attention, with Mutamaasik in a “very bad state” – with blistering, no pain relief and “significant, painful and infected” lesions.
Shmshan, meanwhile, was found to be “emaciated”, requiring anti-inflammatories and needing to be fed.
Ramadan, who is based in the United Arab Emirates, achieved 36 wins last season – but will now be banned until September 2030 following his “unacceptable” conduct.
He pleaded guilty to all 10 charges, being disqualified for nine of them and receiving a £1,000 fine for the other.
Of Ramadan’s conduct, an ERA report read: “They [the stewards] noted that racing relies on horses as its most integral component, and it is unacceptable for them to be treated in a manner that violates both the ERA Rules and community expectations.
“The Stewards also underscored the need for the penalty to serve as both a general and specific deterrent, ensuring the integrity and reputation of racing in the UAE are upheld for the future.”
After Mutamaasik and Shmshan were found in such bad condition, Ramadan claimed to have given them medication.
Subsequent blood tests, however, found no medication in their systems.
The medical cabinet within Ramadan’s stable was found to have had “some banned and unregistered products, and a large volume of phenylbutazone, which was not being used”, by Dr David Craig, who works as the ERA’s head of Equine Health and Welfare.
Craig added that he had “never seen a blister applied with this level of ferocity that it had been to Mutamaasik”.
Ramadan claimed to have taken a two-month leave of absence away from his stable.
He added that he left his horses with an unlicensed staff member during this period.
The stewards panel assessing Ramadan’s case were not moved by his explanations.
They found his testimony to be “inconsistent and difficult to follow”.