Findlay Warned off for 6mths
- Thread starter Aldaniti
- Start date
Shadow Leader
At the Start
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 9,884
Gary Wiltshire has always been diamond to me, never fails to say hello and pass the time of day - as Rory says, he's been known to lay me over the odds or even each way in a snide each way race in which he's betting win only! Dave Nevison ditto, though minus laying over the odds, obviously! Barry Dennis is just a constant thorn in the side.
Cheers DO.
Cheers DO.
Last edited:
In your example when you lay at 6-4 your best interests are the same as the punters you have laid the bet to.You want the horse to win,if it gets beaten you might have no loss but you have shown your hand with the gamble.
That's not correct. What I really want is not to come 2nd or 3rd as that would mean the gamble is lost and the handicapper gives him an extra 4lbs. If he is PU, then the gamble opportunity is lost but no financial impact or weights rise. The next day he will be 5/1 and we can decide again whether to have a free bet. If he comes 2nd, he'll be 3/1.
This is just going to encourage the big hitters to take advantage of the system. I don't think it will make much of a difference in a small race somewhere with the owner having €500 on his horse and the price drops from 10s to 8s. It has to be a decent plunge and for momentum to come from the public to keep pushing the price down. There are only a few that could do this.....Byrnes, Martin, Elliott in Ireland. And all you need is Pricewise to tip it up and the plunge gathers pace very quickly.
Luke, do you not see any risk to the integrity of racing from this sort of ruling? Forget about "modern realities" and take your punting hat off. Do you think that even one person is looking at this like me and plotting a scheme?
walsworth
Journeyman
Also when stuck behind a caravan!
I see it differently. Most horses that are subject to gambles are ridden vigorously if they are within ten lengths of the front horse as the money is down and the trainer has said "don't bother coming to the stables tomorrow morning if this lad loses". So the jock keeps flailing away. Now the jock will have a decision to make. He'll remember what the trainer said "if you don't think you're gonna win, dono't worry about it, we'll have laid off the full stake. You can pull him up." So the organisers of he punt and the punter whose on at 6/4 are not aigned exactly. The punter wants the jock to be using the stick vigourously. The connections would obviously prefer to win but won't be sacking the jock if he doesn't and is smart enough to pull him up to protect his mark.
Your view is dependent on goal-congruence. I dono't think there will be goal-congruence. I think there will be decisions to be made, which the punter on at 6/4 won't know about. Therein lies the problem. Infacta (as Bertie would say), if any of those types of connections are looking in on this thread......you can send the commission on....I might even bring this idea to Dragons Den!!
Last edited:
If it's a Barney Curley/Charles Byrne horse, no problem backing a grand at all rates down and then laying it off. It depends how much you want on. Obviously getting 10k on is going to be harder. If it's Joe Soap trainer then it's more difficult as to compress the price sufficiently you need to have the public backing it too. But it could easily be done. At the end of the day, you are going to have the gamble anyway, it's just whether you get to lay your stake back for a profit. The bigger the meeting, the better too as there will be plenty of liquidity. Ask yourself this, if Barney Curley decided to have a go at 10/1, how much do you think he could get on until it got to 1/1? Take that number and then ask yourself what odds he would need to lay to get the stake back. Say 2/1, or 3/1. So a net backer at 7/1 say. Not bad.
It isn't a cop out at all . HF has been warned off for over a month. That consequence has to be taken into account in respect of the appropriate penalty now .
The clear indication is that the appropriate penalty will be confiscation of the profit and then a considerable fine on top .
Krizon realised she'd spent far too much time on the subject when waking that morning from a very intense dream about serving Maggie Findlay tea and cakes at Brighton... the old soul had nae a penny on her, so Kri offered to pay the entire £1 for the cake, only to find out at the till that the real cost was a tenner. I'm going to see a dream analyst to find out the meaning of this.
I meant the piece where they said
"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"
how can it not be considered a precedent. So if someone else does the same thing tomorrow, they cannot use this Appeal Board's decision as the starting point of any defence? What a cop out. this must have been put in to keep the BHA happy. Essentially they are saying the BHA was wrong in it's punishment but that the rule is not wrong and any punishment in the future might be worse than this.
J Alfred Prufrock
At the Start
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif] Is it this one?
Paul Dixon, President of the Racehorse Owners Association, has issued the following thoughts and comments about the implications for racehorse owners that result from Harry Findlay's disciplinary hearing and appeal.
He said: "The Harry Findlay case was never about whether he was guilty of breaking the rules. It was about whether the BHA's punishment fitted the crime - was it proportionate? I am sure I am not the only person in racing who finds it strange that the appeal could have produced such a strikingly different result from the original judgement.
"Without knowing all the facts, none of us are in a position to judge whether the first sentence was proportionate or not. What I would like to know, however, is what was taken into account at the appeal to make the Appeal Board come to a decision that was so different to that of the Disciplinary Panel.
"A sceptic might say it had something to do with the huge tide of publicity surrounding the case. It is very important for owners to have a consistent message about not only what constitutes a breach - that part is clear - but also on the likely penalty that owners will receive from laying their own horses.
"Is a distinction drawn, for instance, between laying a horse to make a profit and laying a horse to protect a position? What deserves a ban and what deserves a fine?
"I have to stress this is not a comment on whether this judgement is better or worse than the first. It is a comment, however, on the need for a consistent approach to be adopted to avoid similar embarrassment for racing in future."
[/FONT]
Paul Dixon, President of the Racehorse Owners Association, has issued the following thoughts and comments about the implications for racehorse owners that result from Harry Findlay's disciplinary hearing and appeal.
He said: "The Harry Findlay case was never about whether he was guilty of breaking the rules. It was about whether the BHA's punishment fitted the crime - was it proportionate? I am sure I am not the only person in racing who finds it strange that the appeal could have produced such a strikingly different result from the original judgement.
"Without knowing all the facts, none of us are in a position to judge whether the first sentence was proportionate or not. What I would like to know, however, is what was taken into account at the appeal to make the Appeal Board come to a decision that was so different to that of the Disciplinary Panel.
"A sceptic might say it had something to do with the huge tide of publicity surrounding the case. It is very important for owners to have a consistent message about not only what constitutes a breach - that part is clear - but also on the likely penalty that owners will receive from laying their own horses.
"Is a distinction drawn, for instance, between laying a horse to make a profit and laying a horse to protect a position? What deserves a ban and what deserves a fine?
"I have to stress this is not a comment on whether this judgement is better or worse than the first. It is a comment, however, on the need for a consistent approach to be adopted to avoid similar embarrassment for racing in future."
[/FONT]
Last edited:
trackside528
At the Start
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2006
- Messages
- 5,377
I'd say that shirt he was wearing at Epsom on Racing UK last night must go down as a fairly serious flaw!
I think the most worrying point about the Findlay appeal decision is that it shows there is one set of rules for the well connected in racing - ie rules don't apply to their full extent - and another for the majority of ordinary mortals - ie the rules apply strictly.
For example: Fallon meets accompanied by expensive lawyers with Paul Roy and a plea bargain is arranged whererby charges are not proceeded with in exchange for promising to be a good boy in future. Henderson is found guilty of systematically drugging a horse and covering it up systematically and gets a slap on the wrist - check out who he trains for. Findlay is in clear breech of rules regarding laying of horses and inside information yet ends up with a flea bite of a penalty on appeal.
As an owner whose horses have always run on their merits and who has never laid one of my horses or backed against him/her I'm beginning to think I'm a mug. And I'm beginning to think by running my horses honestly and acting within the rules I'm at at a serious disadvantage. But then, like most owners I don't have the right connections to get away with it if I did break the rules - not that I would want to. But what with the economic situation and prize money declining from it's already meagre levels, as I'm obviously not competing on a level playing field with the favoured ones I'm also beginning to wonder why I'm paying out large sums of money to keep on owning horses and run them honestly and within the rules.
richard
For example: Fallon meets accompanied by expensive lawyers with Paul Roy and a plea bargain is arranged whererby charges are not proceeded with in exchange for promising to be a good boy in future. Henderson is found guilty of systematically drugging a horse and covering it up systematically and gets a slap on the wrist - check out who he trains for. Findlay is in clear breech of rules regarding laying of horses and inside information yet ends up with a flea bite of a penalty on appeal.
As an owner whose horses have always run on their merits and who has never laid one of my horses or backed against him/her I'm beginning to think I'm a mug. And I'm beginning to think by running my horses honestly and acting within the rules I'm at at a serious disadvantage. But then, like most owners I don't have the right connections to get away with it if I did break the rules - not that I would want to. But what with the economic situation and prize money declining from it's already meagre levels, as I'm obviously not competing on a level playing field with the favoured ones I'm also beginning to wonder why I'm paying out large sums of money to keep on owning horses and run them honestly and within the rules.
richard
But isn't that true in all walks of life, Richard ? Litigation costs money and we are now firmly in the same bag as the US, where, if you have the money and the ability to make an awful lot of noise, you have a much better chance of winning your case.
Surely depends on case and trial, James ? Can you honestly say that Findlay's drum-beating hasn't aided his case - admittedley not under the offical legal system. With the best will in the world, if it's a jury based case, it must be incredibly difficult not to be biased, because I simply don't buy that jurors don't read about high profile cases, although again. I'll bow to your superior knowledge.
But money does but buy better counsel, don't think you can argue against that!
But money does but buy better counsel, don't think you can argue against that!
Which is why we desperately need to defend our legal aid system - where barristers have to take the case if it is in their area of practice even though the rates are low .
I think Findlay's noise and drum beating might have played a part in the original disciplinary panel's decision and why they went over the top with the penalty . It was extremely counter productive. HF was lucky enough to have counsel and solicitors represent him for free - perhaps altruistically or perhaps as a very good " loss leader " . His decision not to be represented at the first hearing was as good an example as any that anyone who acts as his own lawyer has a fool for a client !
I think Findlay's noise and drum beating might have played a part in the original disciplinary panel's decision and why they went over the top with the penalty . It was extremely counter productive. HF was lucky enough to have counsel and solicitors represent him for free - perhaps altruistically or perhaps as a very good " loss leader " . His decision not to be represented at the first hearing was as good an example as any that anyone who acts as his own lawyer has a fool for a client !