Findlay Warned off for 6mths

Uhhhh... no, even I realise that the technology wasn't there for that, DJ. But there didn't have to be technology 10 years go to tell your local bookie you were laying your own horse, and there doesn't have to be any now to Carry On Laying. Nothing more new-fangled than a telephonic device, in fact. I still really would like to know why the rule was Okay "back then" and is not now. How come it was ever thought desirable for an owner to back his horse not to win?
 
krizon said:
. 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:
Click to expand...

That'll be as I choose not to publicise everything that myself or my horses are doing on here, Kri!!

It is very much within the rules to be able to be signed into the racecourse stables alongside your trainer [or their representative] if you have a runner on the day; has been for all the years I've been involved working in racing. Oh, and no, it doesn't mean you can wander around the yard molesting any horse at will at all! After all, most stable staff don't tend to wander around molesting random horses in racecourse stables either....
 
Last edited:
LUKE said:
Are the Irish rules identical.
Click to expand...

I'm a Council member on the Irish Owners Association and as a result of this thread, I've asked our administrator to seek clarification of the rules from the Turf Club and asked for it to be discussed at the next meeting so we can issue some explanatory notes to members of the association. I'll let you know when I know more. I presume the rules are very similar.

And on the point of owners being allowed into the stable yard, I've done that with Colm. The Irish guys are quite strict on it since the nobbling cases fifteen years ago. They will only allow you in with your trainer present. When I tried to get into Punchestown, I put Colm onto the lad at the gate but he refused and said Colm had to be present. At the time, I thought it was a pain in the arse but in hindsight I'm happy the security is there and enforced.
 
If there were conflicting rules in both jurisdictions would you be governed by where you are registered or where the horse runs.
 
I have never found a problem getting in to look at any of mine, but of course someone from the stable must sign you in ,and you have to register in the great book.
 
Well, I'm always happy to live and learn, Shadz - so that was most interesting. I know of a couple who regularly sub for the trainer of a certain yard, so I imagine that's why they can access the stable yard, but it isn't something I've ever seen other owners doing. Although I did say 'roam at will', which is still valid. Owners aren't roaming at will if they're accompanied and vouched for by their trainers. The pre-parade/saddling boxes, yes, but not the actual yard. Good luck with your horses - whoever and wherever they are.

I'm pleased to see that security wasn't breached, Cantoris - it would've been very disappointing if it had been, with no assurance that horses couldn't be got at - just something as simple, as I said earlier, as chocolate, then an anonymous tip-off to the stews that they might like XYZ to be routine tested later... it wouldn't take much to spoil a trainer's record, would it? Or have I read too much Dick Francis?

Luke's question throws up the wider argument for having global rules of racing, surely? Anybody know if, say, the Japan Turf Club or the South African Turf Club, Australia, NZ, France, Germany, the US, etc. allow owners to lay their own horses? Isn't it time that racing simplified itself internationally - or wouldn't you get agreement from the US or France on whip rules, for example?
 
Last edited:
Findlay appeal unheld as ban is overturned


By Paul Eacott 9:59AM 15 JUL 2010
GOLD CUP-winning owner Harry Findlay has had his six-month ban from the sport overturned and instead been handed a fine of £4,500.
More to follow...
 
Common sense prevails, he deserved to be punished but a six month ban was ludicrous.

The BHA still look like idiots though as a six month ban down to a £4500 fine is quite a U-turn.
 
Why do the BHA look idiots? Surely the fault lies with the initial independent panel that held the inquiry. The BHA weren't looking for Findlay to be banned.
 
GOLD CUP-winning owner Harry Findlay has had his six-month ban from the sport overturned and instead been handed a fine of £4,500.

RELATED LINKS


Findlay received the ban last month after being found guilty of two charges of laying Gullible Gordon, a horseowned in partnership by his mother Maggie and Paul Barber, on Betfair to lose in races in 2008 and 2009.


He appealed against the ban, which came into force on June 11 and originally ran through to December 10, and presented his case to the appeal board on Wednesday.
In their findings, released on Thursday morning, the appeal board stated: "We intend no comment upon the Rule in question [the laying of one's own horses] here, that is not our role, but we do feel that in principle a clear distinction needs to be drawn between a lay bet placed as part of a corrupt practice or even conspiracy and a betting strategy which has not interfered in any way with the integrity of the race and in particular the running of the horse in question."
The statement continues: "As to the appropriate penalty, our starting point would have been that the £4,500 by which Mr Findlay improved his position should be removed from him and a further fine imposed which was significant in the context of the very large stakes involved. The result could have been a substantial overall fine.
"However, we cannot undo the fact that Mr Findlay has suffered disqualification and the indignity of it for over a month now. That will remain with him and we regard it as a serious penalty in itself. He was, for example, prevented from attending Royal Ascot where he would have seen one of his horses win and generally lost every aspect of an owner’s participation in racing during the last month.
"We consider that a fine, removing the extra profit made from the Chepstow affair, namely £4,500, will suffice in the particular circumstances of this case which obviously should not be regarded as a precedent by anyone covered by the Rule, contemplating a betting strategy involving lay betting."
 
Indeed they will.

A lot of people lacked a lot of sense on this thread.

However, I do hope Findlay discontinues owning racehorses as he promised.
 
LUKE said:
A victory for common sense-the "rules is rules" element will be devastated.
Click to expand...

Gosh, you do like to over exaggerate, don't you, Luke - 'devastate' is hardly the correct description of anyone of here, I would contend.

However, as usual, money talks though I bet if the culprit had been 'Lord Someone', a few on here would have been baying for his blood and calling for a harsher penalty :whistle: !
 
Songsheet said:
Gosh, you do like to over exaggerate, don't you, Luke - 'devastate' is hardly the correct description of anyone of here, I would contend.

However, as usual, money talks though I bet if the culprit had been 'Lord Someone', a few on here would have been baying for his blood and calling for a harsher penalty :whistle: !
Click to expand...

I am merely commenting on a subject I know about -unlike you.
 
Back
Top