Findlay Warned off for 6mths

G-G, you'll also no doubt be a registered owner with the Racehorse Owners' Association in order to be given a PASS photocard to present at racecourses to prove your ownership. You'll also be employing an NTF-registered and accredited trainer. You can ask either of these about the rules of laying your own horse to lose or any other points of betting etiquette. You've also got a bevy of stewards and BHA security staff in the weighing-room to approach and seek the guidance of if you're really going to be overly concerned about the rights and wrongs of your betting. Between the offices and staff of the ROA, the NTF, the BHA and presumably also the NJPC, you really don't lack for sources of information. It's not as if e-mail, FAX, phone, letter, or cleft stick aren't available to send in your query if you can't approach someone in person.
 
Last edited:
Songsheet said:
Many of the points raised above are perfectly logical and acceptable about why the rule maybe wrong but it's a bit of a case of bolting the door after, etc! The rules were there. If you read them and didn't like the look of them, you either decide not to become an owner or you lobby hard to change them and/or the penalties tat can be meted out.

It's called democracy. In the meantime, the status quo holds and you have to abide by the rules.

Findlay has an appeal lodged, as is his right. Until that has been heard, he should put up and shut up - and so should his close connections.
Click to expand...

How does democracy come into an arguement about laying horses.I haven't heard anything so ridiculous since Clivex linked Paul Carberry to the war on terror.
 
krizon said:
G-G, you'll also no doubt be a registered owner with the Racehorse Owners' Association in order to be given a PASS photocard to present at racecourses to prove your ownership. You'll also be employing an NTF-registered and accredited trainer. You can ask either of these about the rules of laying your own horse to lose or any other points of betting etiquette. You've also got a bevy of stewards and BHA security staff in the weighing-room to approach and seek the guidance of if you're really going to be overly concerned about the rights and wrongs of your betting. Between the offices and staff of the ROA, the NTF, the BHA and presumably also the NJPC, you really don't lack for sources of information. It's not as if e-mail, FAX, phone, letter, or cleft stick aren't available to send in your query if you can't approach someone in person.
Click to expand...

It is VERY tempting to put this to the test, and to ask a few stewards, trainers and BHA security staff whether, for instance, I can back against my horse, whether my partner can lay my horse, whether I can lay a horse in my stable, back against a horse in my stable (of which I have been occasionally "guilty", through inattention more than malice) or whatever. I would be astonished if I got correct answers from everyone.

Instead, I have written to the ROA asking whether they feel any imperative to assist new owners on this matter.

Incidentally, while I joined the ROA voluntarily, I do not like the cut of their jib in many respects. Refusal to join the ROA should not make you a second-rate owner or cut you off from advice that is needed by you as an owner.
 
Last edited:
krizon said:
None of us who have owned or currently own a horse will have read through all the RoR, I'm sure, but enough is picked up by osmosis around racing people, if nothing else. We can't visit our horses in the racecourse stables, for instance, but surely we're not so thick we'd need the RoR to say we can't? True, we should be stopped by stable security staff, but most people just understand they're not free to wander at will.
Click to expand...

Well, that's not strictly true, Krizon. Of course you may visit your horse in the racecourse stables, if you are signed in as an owner along with your trainer. They're actually very amenable to such a thing, having visited horses of mine and got them ready for their race in the yard beforehand.
 
Last edited:
LUKE said:
How does democracy come into an arguement about laying horses.I haven't heard anything so ridiculous since Clivex linked Paul Carberry to the war on terror.
Click to expand...

an argument for the arguments sake, and a very weak one as well. democracy does not come into laying horses, but abiding the rules, and i very much believe you know the difference as well, luke. this thread is getting ever so slightly weary - I haven´t read the whole code of law but know fully well there are things I am not supposed to do as a lawful citizen.

i never ceases to amaze me how much emphesis - to the exclusing of just about everything else - people put into the betting side of having horses. sad state if thats the only reason to come into racehorse ownership, but this surely is a very very naive view on my behalf.
 
krizon said:
G-G, you'll also no doubt be a registered owner with the Racehorse Owners' Association in order to be given a PASS photocard to present at racecourses to prove your ownership. You'll also be employing an NTF-registered and accredited trainer. You can ask either of these about the rules of laying your own horse to lose or any other points of betting etiquette. You've also got a bevy of stewards and BHA security staff in the weighing-room to approach and seek the guidance of if you're really going to be overly concerned about the rights and wrongs of your betting. Between the offices and staff of the ROA, the NTF, the BHA and presumably also the NJPC, you really don't lack for sources of information. It's not as if e-mail, FAX, phone, letter, or cleft stick aren't available to send in your query if you can't approach someone in person.
Click to expand...


From a previous thread yes I am, but my point was that Weatherbys have never sent me anything about being an owner other than invoices. The ROA have never sent any literature on the rules of betting either. I very rarely bet anyway and would never advise anything to anyone when my horse runs regarding money either.
 
crazyhorse said:
an argument for the arguments sake, and a very weak one as well. democracy does not come into laying horses, but abiding the rules, and i very much believe you know the difference as well, luke. this thread is getting ever so slightly weary - I haven´t read the whole code of law but know fully well there are things I am not supposed to do as a lawful citizen.

i never ceases to amaze me how much emphesis - to the exclusing of just about everything else - people put into the betting side of having horses. sad state if thats the only reason to come into racehorse ownership, but this surely is a very very naive view on my behalf.
Click to expand...

Laying your own horses isn't unlawful.I honestly can't believe the words democracy and unlawful are being used against HF.
 
Peter o Sullevan made a point last week about Raymond Guest laying off part of a bet on Sir Ivor for the Derby -why was that acceptable and not the actions of HF.
 
G-G - I'll be most interested in the ROA's response to you and yes, I agree with a lot that could be said about membership of the ROA and the TBA, too! I don't know why everything has to be so cumbersome and so costly - but I guess we'd wander off-topic a bit too far if I got the bit between my teeth on that one, so best I don't! Of course there has to be a method of identifying owners as real and not chancers, but I don't know why the complex, form-filling stuff that goes on with Weatherbums doesn't result in a photo ID that doesn't cost us a packet to renew every year. No - I can see I'm already distracting myself off-point - but do let us know what info you get! Also, yes, I'd like owners on here to just test the ability of the people I've mentioned to come up with appropriate answers. As we all know from the vagaries of stewards' inquiries' results, racing doesn't always seem to sing off its own hymnsheet, so a few discreet inquiries would be most interesting.

Shadz - I didn't know you had a trainer, 'cos I didn't know you were racing any horses of your own (I must be out of touch with some posts here), but I'm very surprised you went into the stables as an owner and not, as I know some people do, as the trainer's rep or with a stable pass. That would mean you could then visit any horse in the stabling area and molest any of them at will. How very odd. :blink:
 
LUKE said:
Peter o Sullevan made a point last week about Raymond Guest laying off part of a bet on Sir Ivor for the Derby -why was that acceptable and not the actions of HF.
Click to expand...
Gentleman's agreement not illegal or against any rule that I know of, then or now, as long as it's not done on the course. You could even sell part of your ante post bet back to the bookie that laid the original bet if the price had dropped.
The modern rule is specifically to target the exchanges.
 
walsworth said:
Gentleman's agreement not illegal or against any rule that I know of, then or now, as long as it's not done on the course. You could even sell part of your ante post bet back to the bookie that laid the original bet if the price had dropped.
The modern rule is specifically to target the exchanges.
Click to expand...

You cannot lay your own horse-are you getting confused.
 
LUKE said:
Laying your own horses isn't unlawful.
Click to expand...

No-one said it was. Crazyhorse was clearly making the analogy that people are expected to abide by the laws of the land, but it is primarily up to us as individuals to make sure we know what the laws are. The same principle stands here: follow the rules, and if you think the rules are wrong, do something constructive to change them.
 
Ten years ago what HF did was allowed and there is every possibility that it will be allowed in future years.The rules are trailing modern day realities.
 
Okay, I've got again to confess a hopeless ignorance of the rules of gambling. Luke, was it okay 10 years ago for an owner to lay his own horse to lose? Or was it just okay for him to back on anyone else's horse losing? If it used to be the case that you could wager your own horse to not get home, then why is it now such a big deal? I know we've got exchanges, but what changed the ethics of trying to make a buck out of your horse not winning?

I'm quite confused by the point you've made now - if it were the case, then why did the exchanges cause so much anxiety? Help! :confused:
 
Last edited:
I don't think it was against the rules, because it wasn't easy to do & only a complete Phyllis would take such a bet on, if you think about it!
Incidentally what about a course bookie who is an owner, if such a hybrid exists, can he not make a book if he's got a runner?
I'm going down the pub, soon as I finish up here!
 
LUKE said:
The rules are trailing modern day realities.
Click to expand...

In your opinion and possibly the opinion of others.

I think there is an element of fatigue setting in over this. I think we are all agreed that more clarification is required on what might be allowed in the future and that the authorities could do a better job of explaining rules to owners. But we should also be clear "rules is rules" as Luke said and owners must adopt caveat emptor in this respect when they buy a horse. If you don't fancy this, then stick to non-ownership. If you want to own a horse, you need to educate yourself and not rely on others to do that and accept that you cannot break the rules.
 
Last edited:
Walsy - I can think of four bookies in this area who are currently or who have recently been owners, too. Cantoris, yes, I'm fair knackered by the discussion, but I wouldn't mind someone in the know taking a stab at answering my question - if Luke can't, then someone 'in the business' who must surely be aware why what he claims was perfectly legit to do ten years ago, has become verboten? If it made sense 10 years ago to bet your horse to lose, I don't see how it's now become an intransigence. What has changed to make it so? I know everyone says 'exchanges' - but if you're an owner, you're not an exchange, you're just in a position to know (well, possibly) if your horse has a very good chance of not quite getting home. But then, given all of the information in the hands of serious players these days, who might never have owned a tail hair in their lives, would that be any different to merely taking the same chances they're taking? The more this is discussed, the odder it becomes!
 
Back
Top