Findlay Warned off for 6mths

Aldaniti

Aldaniti

At the Start
Joined
Dec 21, 2005
Messages
2,360
Location
Wickford
Not allowed to run his horses or enter a course for 6mths

So what happens to Denman? he wouldn't be able to run until mid December
 
Last edited:
From the BHA website

OWNER HARRY FINDLAY DISQUALIFIED FOLLOWING DISCIPLINARY PANEL ENQUIRY






RESULT OF AN ENQUIRY HEARD BY THE DISCIPLINARY PANEL ON WEDNESDAY 9TH JUNE 2010
· Owner Harry Findlay disqualified for six months beginning Friday 11 June 2010
· Horses registered in his mother’s name cannot race while she remains owner or part owner during the disqualification period


Full Verdict
 
I don't think anyone believed his claim that he accidently laid his horse.

I can perfectly understand why it is against the rules for an owner to lay their horses, but with prize money being so shite I can also see the temptation would be great. I've been tempted myself with my petty little horses some of who still started favourite, but knowing the rules I did not do it. Even accidently! :lol:

I guess this means that unless he sells his half of Denman to Paul Barber Den cannot run until January. He wons masses of horses, there must be quite a few trainers who are not too amused this morning.
 
Aldaniti said:
Not allowed to run his horses or enter a course for 6mths

So what happens to Denman? he wouldn't be able to run until mid December
Click to expand...

Nicholls won’t be happy about missing the Hennessy with Denman.

No doubt something will be sorted by the BHA, possible transfer to Paul Barber, or at least run in Barber’s colours.
 
Ridiculous - he did nothing wrong - once again (like AOB), I'm not interested in the technical this or that, but plain common sense.
 
How could Findlay claim to have been in financial difficulty when he presents himself as one of the country's biggest and most successful punters?
 
Hamm said:
Ridiculous - he did nothing wrong - once again (like AOB), I'm not interested in the technical this or that, but plain common sense.
Click to expand...

I agree... any pro backer has to lay back positions when odds change. However, as an owner and pro gambler, he should be careful not to break the rules as those who are rogues could point to this as a precedent. There seems no doubt he has broken the rules, albeit for piddling inconsequential amounts. It would be nice to think common sense would prevail, but this is rarely the case in horseracing.
 
Desert Orchid said:
How could Findlay claim to have been in financial difficulty when he presents himself as one of the country's biggest and most successful punters?
Click to expand...

Anyone who owns the number of horses he does will sooner or later find themselves in financial difficulty. It's a bottemless pit. You need to be an oil-rich Arab or one of the Irish mafia... I mean established breeding operation... to manage it.
 
Hamm said:
Ridiculous - he did nothing wrong - once again (like AOB), I'm not interested in the technical this or that, but plain common sense.
Click to expand...

Well, actually he has done something wrong, he has broken the rules regarding owners laying horses they own. Okay, maybe many do this but when you are this high profile and big mouthed about it you'd think he would have had the common not to do it.

I've always felt that there was a bit of 'desperate' about Findlay and this just proves it for me. He won a million pounds on Denman, and obviously spent it all, badly elsewhere. He's an addict.

This is a very different event than O'Brien not wanting his horses trotted to death. This is not about the welfare of a horse.

When it comes to betting you cannot apply common sense, you must abide by the rules of racing.

Whether or not we agree with the rule that owners cannot lay their horses it has been told to us again and again and if you chose to ignore this, or are not cautious when your finger is on 'bet' 'lay' then you must be prepared to accept the consequences.

He has put a lot of trainers and other owners in a difficult position, he is involved with so many horses. And he has put racing in the papers for all the wrong reasons.

I know he is a bit of a folk hero to gamblers but not to all of us.
 
Hamm said:
Ridiculous - he did nothing wrong - once again (like AOB), I'm not interested in the technical this or that, but plain common sense.
Click to expand...

He definitely did do something wrong - have you read the full detail of the ruling?

In the first instance, he stated that he only laid his horse to reduce his risk. Had this actually been true, why then was it found that the lay had been placed before any back bets on the account? When confronted with that, Findlay then claimed it was a mistake - obviously one that a pro punter would make to the tune of £20k. Luckily for him the panel couldn't prove otherwise, or he would almost certainly be facing a longer ban.

It would seem in both instances that he traded on the horse using the inside knowledge that he gained from being in a privileged position (i.e. the owner) - this is wrong and is clearly against the rules.

However, if an owner has backed a horse to win heavily and then decides to reduce his risk by laying off a portion of the bet, then I don't necessarily think this can be construed as cheating - it is however still against the rules at current. This was not the case here though.
 
I've edited this bit to infinity and beyond, but I have heard that Findlay did do a bit of time for fraud. I suppose those who don't think the apple falls that far from the tree won't find his 'wrong button' excuse acceptable.

I'm not sure how you break rules otherwise, Hamm. You speed, you crash, you kill your passenger. Oh, I pressed the accelerator by mistake, you say. I've only broken the rules in a technical sense, so any punishment would be lacking common sense. When do you begin to massage rule-breaking? When you like the person, or when you don't? When you think someone's a bit of a card, but not when they appear to be a bit stuffy or boring?
 
Last edited:
His mother's horses will still be running (including Denman) and will run in the colours of The Sangster Family (or the other partner's in the case of Denman).
 
Harry brings something to the party-unlike some of the tossers here with Victorian values.
For me the crux of the matter is what was the benefit to him and is the punishment proportionate.
 
Obviously I realise he has broken the rules in a technical sense - common sense hasn't prevailed here.

Once again the BHA go after a high profile target, such as in the Cape Blanco incident, rather than focussing on much more pressing matters in racing - good job Paul Roy!
 
Isinglass said:
I've always felt that there was a bit of 'desperate' about Findlay and this just proves it for me. He won a million pounds on Denman, and obviously spent it all, badly elsewhere. He's an addict.

I know he is a bit of a folk hero to gamblers but not to all of us.
Click to expand...

You clearly seem to have a chip on your shoulder re Findlay.

He is not a hero to me, but is far from a villain in racing. Whether you like it or him or not, he has very much added to the visibility of racing - this does not entitle him to break rules willy nilly but neither does it mean he should be targeted by Paul Roy and his cronies.
 
LUKE said:
Harry brings something to the party-unlike some of the tossers here with Victorian values.
For me the crux of the matter is what was the benefit to him and is the punishment proportionate.
Click to expand...

spot on. :)
 
Last edited:
We all have to abide by rules of some sort in life,Findlay broke the betting rules end off perhaps it will stop him mouthing of about what a great gambler he is although i doubt it he suffers from verbal diarrhoea at the best of times.
 
endevour269 said:
We all have to abide by rules of some sort in life,Findlay broke the betting rules end off perhaps it will stop him mouthing of about what a great gambler he is although i doubt it he suffers from verbal diarrhoea at the best of times.
Click to expand...

Tell us how much he benefitted by.The rules are lagging behind a fast changing environment.
 
Surely how much he benefitted by is not the point he did not abide by the rules if they need changing fine but there is no point in bleating if you get caught out.
 
endevour269 said:
Surely how much he benefitted by is not the point he did not abide by the rules if they need changing fine but there is no point in bleating if you get caught out.
Click to expand...

By your logic anyone pressing the wrong button by mistake could be liable to punishment.In my opinion it goes against the principles of natural justice.
 
Back
Top