A Grand National-winning trainer has been banned from racing for eight years and fined £5,000 after a disciplinary panel heard he deprived a horse of water, used diluted bleach to treat wounds and drove a Gator vehicle at his string to frighten them onto the gallops.
Maurice Barnes rode Rubstic to victory in the 1979 Grand National at Aintree, becoming the first Scottish-trained horse to win the race. After retiring from the saddle, he became a racehorse trainer based in Brampton, Cumbria, holding a licence for 36 years until retiring last year.
BHA investigators carried out an unannounced inspection of Barnes's yard in September 2024, after which ten charges were brought against him, seven of which related to horse welfare. The 75-year-old reached a plea agreement with the BHA when the case was considered by an independent disciplinary panel.
Charges detailed before the panel
Fiona Wise, representing the BHA, said there were examples of Barnes failing to seek veterinary treatment for horses which fell below the standard of care expected of trainers.
Outlining some of the charges, she said one related to “Mr Barnes's practice of depriving a horse that was due to race of water in the run-up to that race.”
“A further charge was the use of a yard broom as a means of grooming a horse which, as the panel will be well aware, is not an accepted horse husbandry manner of looking after animals and was deemed likely to cause a horse fear and distress and potentially discomfort,” she said.
Investigators found three horses with wounds requiring veterinary attention which showed signs of bacterial infection.
Use of bleach and Gator vehicle
Wise continued: “Charge 5 related to Mr Barnes's practice of using diluted amounts of bleach to treat wounds sustained by horses in his care. Again expert opinion was there was no good reason to use such a household bleach in this treatment.
“It was the veterinary officer's opinion that the use of bleach on wounds was likely to cause pain to horses as it does to humans and may cause unnecessary inflammation, potentially damaging the new tissue.”
Wise said there were nine horses with “overly long feet” while also detailing how Barnes “would use a motorised gator to frighten or intimidate reluctant horses going onto the gallops.”
“There was evidence that on occasion he brought his gator into contact with horses and staff riding the horses.” He would also use his horn.
She added: “It was correct to say that no horses were injured in relation to these events. However it was very much the case that it was a welfare breach. A frightened horse is inherently more at risk of sustaining injury if ending up loose without its rider.”
On one occasion this had resulted in a rider falling from her horse and breaking her collarbone, the hearing was told.
Sanction and referral recommendation
Barnes accepted many of the practices outlined in the charges, which covered a five-year period up to 2024, and agreed to a fine of £5,000 and an eight-year restriction on working in racing, during which he would also be unable to reapply for a training licence.
His legal representative Nathan Taylor said: “Some of Mr Barnes's methods undoubtedly could be considered old-fashioned, but there is no malice, no deliberate wilful neglect to any of his horses at any time.
“It is very important to say that the use of diluted bleach was admitted as a capful of bleach amongst a bucket of water which would have a negligible effect or no pain effect on a horse.”
He said the horses concerned “have all gone on to be very successful horses, suffered no long term harm.”
Taylor continued: “Mr Barnes is very, very traumatised by this and has taken this very badly. His welfare has died.
“As of October 2024 the horses were all in good condition other than having overly long feet. There was no suggestion at that point that any horse needed any veterinary care other than that of a farrier.”
Panel chair HH Clement Goldstone KC approved the proposed sanction but added: “We think it only appropriate to recommend in the strongest possible terms that the BHA gives consideration to drawing the attention of the RSPCA to the history and extent of Mr Barnes's breaches.
“We accept that the BHA has no power beyond its own jurisdiction to control Mr Barnes's conduct and contact with animals in general.
“But we are concerned with the bigger picture of welfare of animals generally and the prevention of neglect and cruelty to animals generally and whether in this case the history of Mr Barnes's treatment of his animals has given rise to breaches of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which would of course be outside the scope of any action by the BHA.”
