Findlay Warned off for 6mths

Rules are still rules, and I never know why those who believe in them are a 'brigade'. They're usually just people who don't think it's right to shoot your ex-partner's boyfriend, however much a diamond geezer you are otherwise, or sell your country's secrets, however loud the voices in your head were. The BHA isn't saying he didn't do something wrong, they're just saying that enough punishment - exactly as per their statement - has been visited on Findlay and that, far more than a fine which I imagine is teeth-picking money to him, should act as a future deterrent to similar lapses of digital control. The BHA isn't saying that he was part of something significantly sinister, either, so that he can walk onto a course feeling his integrity has been almost, if not completely, restored.

That he behaved liked a petulant tit earlier will, I'm sure, be entirely forgotten by those (is it a brigade?) who think he did nothing wrong anyway. :lol:
 
I'm seeing things now - not content with losing my memory bank overnight, I've now seen the word 'brigade' instead of 'element' in Luke's post! :blink: Off to Specsavers...

Okay, so why is it always an element... :lol:
 
krizon said:
That he behaved liked a petulant tit earlier will, I'm sure, be entirely forgotten by those (is it a brigade?) who think he did nothing wrong anyway. :lol:
Click to expand...


I personally think he did nothing wrong, laying back positions on Betfair is a crucial part of a lot of people's strategy on there. But I do get sick and tired of the rich and privileged throwing their toys out of the pram when they feel wronged and/or disrespected - Mark Webber over the weekend being another prime example.
 
Personally, I don't have an opinion one way or the other on Harry Findlay, although the two occasions I've had to have fairly long chats with his Mum have been very pleasant indeed, and she struck me as a good sort. I don't know enough about the ins and outs of betting, either, to know about strategies, as you do, Euro, but I think it was the post-event petulance, and the slightly daft-sounding "my finger slipped" stuff that annoyed me a bit. You're inclined to think that he should've just said yeah, I did it, so what? and got on with it from then on. As for his Mammy expecting Nicholls to stand by her man - well, that really isn't his job and, as was commented on further back, there's always a political element to issues like this. Nicholls could hardly say he thought there was nothing wrong when clearly the rule - like it or not - said it wasn't right.

So, now that the dung's been flung, would you say that the rule is intrinsically stupid/wrong, or should it stay? Or should it be modified to allow certain actions, but not all? How would/could you set about making a differential between something done as Findlay's done it, and a more sinister set-up?
 
LUKE said:
I would imagine Harry will be less visible and audible which will be a shame as he made good viewing.
Click to expand...

i'd have to disagree really - when he was with that syndicate celebrating on C4 it made me wince a bit - in fact - oh dear how embarrasing - came to mind

it wouldn't do if we were all the same though would it?
 
Last edited:
Ardross said:
The point appears to have been missed that no penalty was imposed for the 2008 Exeter incident . That is accordingly irrelevant.

The question is whether the penalty is proportionate for the second incident . I have read the review panel's findings and I take the view that it is not .

Proportionality requires a balancing exercise between what is necessary to enforce the rules and to protect the integrity of betting together with the sanction imposed being no more than is necessary to achieve that aim .

The Panel in summing up the questions on penalty on one side took into account

1. The breach was planned and was reliant to some extent on inside information
2 . It was designed to produce and did produce for HF a better outcome for HF than simply backing the horse at a lower stake when he was clearly under financial pressure at the time

On the other hand

1. The lay was in running when those betting on GG were in essence making a judgment in public themselves on GG's chance

2 He was a net backer

3 The lay bets led to a profit for those on the other side of them

4 That HF had co-operated throughout , had drawn the Exeter race himself to their attention

HF also submitted that his high profile meant a disqualification would be particularly disastrous for him and that there was no suspicion that GG was not running on his merits .

The Guidelines say a penalty of between 3 months and 10 years but can as the BHA's own lawyers pointed out can be below that level of sanction .

In my opinion, the penalty is disproportionate for the following reasons

1 The Panel say this is a real rather than a technical breach of the rules . That is true in the sense that it was a deliberate tactic to lay the horse off at lower prices that they bet so that he made a higher profit than he would have done by simply betting on the horse but the point is surely that the ban on owners laying their horses was directed at owners using Betfair in essence to make money from laying a horse that they believed on the basis of their inside information was going to lose not from taking advantage of the market on the basis of information that the horse was going to win . This does not appear to have been given sufficient weight to me . The panel says the real vice is an owner laying a horse - that is plainly a breach of the rules but the real vice was surely laying a horse to lose when you believe it is going to lose to profit from that loss .

2 The Panel stressed that it would have been scant consolation to anyone that backed GG as a result of the owner laying it had the horse been beaten , that HF was a considerable net backer of the horse and had lost money himself . That does not strike me as rational (a) they were backing the horse on their own judgment of how the horse was running - leading easily and never being in any sort of danger (b) the owner laying the horse was not seeking to take advantage of inside information that the horse would lose - which I believe is tantamount to fraud but inside information that it would win ! I think that would make a difference to anyone finding that they had backed a horse laid by the owner .

3 Whilst HF's notoriety does not mean that necessarily he should be treated any differently in his favour it strikes me that comparing the facts with Mr Hinge's case ( albeit the sums in that case were smaller) that in fact the lack of consistency with penalty in that case suggests that HF is being made an example of for that very reason - his high public profile . That cannot be right.

Whether the Appeal Board will agree might very well depend on whether the BHA opposes the appeal . I suspect they might not .

The consequences of warning off are enormous, the panel has not considered in my view in the circumstances of the case the significant stigma being " warned off " has for any owner. I think that the penalty imposed is therefore excessive and disproportionate . An appropriate penalty I would have thought would have been a fine double or so what he made net from laying the horse - i.e about £10,000 .

Perhaps the BHA should also consider whether they should have the power to warn someone off but suspend the penalty so that say so long as there were no further breaches within two years the warning off would not become operative .
Click to expand...


See told you !!!:)

I agree with K though - HF has behaved like a petulant tit since in some ways but that i think is all a part of the stigma of being warned off.
 
I think you're right, Ardross, in a sense it was probably a bit of misplaced bravado, due to the shock of the 'sentence'. It just wasn't dignified and the withdrawing of horses from Nicholls looked particularly childish. I wonder if he'll ask to put them back?
 
Last edited:
If you lay a horse you own but are still in a position where you'll win money on the race overall if the horse wins I don't see how that can be considered wrong. An example: I had £120 on Forte Dei Marmi in the John Smiths Cup on Saturday. All that money was in the ante-post market that closed on Thursday.
On the day of the race market for whatever reason I put two lays in running on the horse at 4 and 2/1. Both were matched and on that market he was a winner for me if he lost. But overall I had traded well and actually had a pretty amazing bet - £50 @ 14/1. But If I owned that horse I'd have surely been in trouble for laying it.
 
So, you think the rule is wrong (as it stands) where the owner stands to win overall if the horse wins, which seems to be okay to me. Maybe that would be a rule adaptation that could be considered, since it doesn't appear to point to any conflict in trying to obtain the best outcome? When the horse loses, though, that's the problem, and there's never a guarantee - especially with jumpers - that it won't, due to BD, for example. It's not that it loses, it's not that your its owner, it's that you've wagered against your own horse winning and it's obliged.

It's quite a conundrum. I can see round it now much better, thanks, Euro. But it's a bit of a poser, isn't it? How to solve it, without accusing owners of being bent?
 
Last edited:
The less we see of the loudmouthed tit in future the better it will be for racing.

Maybe he can take Nevison, Wiltshire, Dennis and all the other loudmouthed tits with him.

Unfortunately, he'll probably end up hailing a monstrous victory for himself.

No doubt he'll also go back on his sworn promise never again to have a horse trained in Britain.

Arsehole.
 
Where do you stop then - do you take into account the prizemoney for first if the horse wins as being part of the net loser / winner calculation?

So if they back/lay their horse to a profit of £1000 if the horses loses, but still stand to profit by £3000 if the horses wins the race (following the deductions of jockey and trainer fees of course) - is this ok too?

Better still, we should also factor in the entry fee for the race.. my this is getting complicated, maybe we had better just make it black and white instead of many shades of grey.
 
Seen Nevison off and on for years at the courses here, and he's very nice. Good sense of humour and self-deprecating. As for Wiltshire and Dennis - yes, they are loudies, but they're like panto villains - you can't possibly take them seriously, and they add a bit of character to the day. I'd hate racing to consist of worthy anoraks and number-crunchers.
 
Sadly the loud mouthed git will be on telling us how clever he is and how he has been vindicated,hope he sticks to his word and p****s off.
 
krizon said:
As for Wiltshire and Dennis - yes, they are loudies, but they're like panto villains - you can't possibly take them seriously, and they add a bit of character to the day.
Click to expand...

Barry Dennis provides nothing whatsoever to the sport bar grief. He's a loudmouth and not a pleasant one at that, who shoots his mouth off about things he knows nothing about, and tends to stretch the truth to breaking point to suit himself.
 
Harry has always come across to me as a great character,the type that racing needs. As does his Mum. The way prize money is going down there really is less and less incentive to people to breed or buy racehorses. We could be in serious trouble within a couple of years, and our beloved NH racing in particular will dissappear. We want and need to encourage more owners,not castigate them.
At least common sense at last prevailed in Harrys case.
 
So he got off then. I particularly liked this cop out from the Appeals Board

"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."

Talk about sitting on the fence.
 
Shadow Leader said:
Barry Dennis provides nothing whatsoever to the sport bar grief. He's a loudmouth and not a pleasant one at that, who shoots his mouth off about things he knows nothing about, and tends to stretch the truth to breaking point to suit himself.
Click to expand...
She's back! :) Missed you, SL!
 
Back
Top