Findlay Warned off for 6mths

If you read the whole script of his trial you will see that he made no attempt to tell Betfair he had pressed the wrong button, nor at any time did he mention it. Until he was caught. ;)
 
He was a net backer of both horses. If the horses won he won, if he lost they lost.

It may be against the rules, but the rules are ridiculous.
 
Hamm said:
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.
Click to expand...

I do not have a chip on my shoulder about Findlay. I just do not see any reason to hero worship him either, I do not think anything he has done is all that clever, and I have my own opinions about him, and what he has been involved in. I do not see, in this instance why his behavior should be excused when he has clearly broken the rules. More than once.

I'm not saying he is a villian - but I would not miss him if he were gone. He's like Keith Moon, amusing perhaps, but a bit of a liability.

I think if anything it is you who has a chip about him!
 
So say an owner had the ante-post favourite for the Guineas, and has had £20,000 on to win at nice prices. He's then watching as the horse pulls up injured on the gallops the following April. With the knowledge that the horse probably won't be running, should he be able to go straight on to Betfair and lay it back so that his liability is down to something nominal (say, £1)?
 
What I want to know is why he's given such enormous airtime? There are plenty of other owners whose horses have brought much joy (or pain) to punters, such as Andy Stewart, who I can't think are feted and fawned over by so many in the racing media. So Findlay is a large, adopted-Essex boy, a geezer, a loudmouf, a gambler. He co-owns a jumps superstar. So what? Does that mean he's supposed to be exempt from the basics of betting rules? No, it doesn't, otherwise you may as well not have any, and then see how much those of you on the exchanges like the result. The likes of Findlay would have filletted in five seconds flat, day in and day out. Don't make excuses for any of them when they're bending the rules - it doesn't matter if they've trousered 35p or £35,000 or £3.5m out of the result, it's just wrong. Anyone who thinks it's okay for one here, not for another there, is just talking hypocritical tosh.
 
Isinglass said:
I do not have a chip on my shoulder about Findlay. I just do not see any reason to hero worship him either, I do not think anything he has done is all that clever, and I have my own opinions about him, and what he has been involved in. I do not see, in this instance why his behavior should be excused when he has clearly broken the rules. More than once.

I'm not saying he is a villian - but I would not miss him if he were gone. He's like Keith Moon, amusing perhaps, but a bit of a liability.

I think if anything it is you who has a chip about him!
Click to expand...

That last line typifies what you've posted on this thread - I have no chip, nor no hero worship - it is clear from your posts you have some sort of negative opinion of Findlay; fine, but do not then tell me and others we hero worship him just because we point out the rules make no sense.

You are adding 1 and 1 and getting 7.
 
Last edited:
Gareth Flynn said:
So say an owner had the ante-post favourite for the Guineas, and has had £20,000 on to win at nice prices. He's then watching as the horse pulls up injured on the gallops the following April. With the knowledge that the horse probably won't be running, should he be able to go straight on to Betfair and lay it back so that his liability is down to something nominal (say, £1)?
Click to expand...

Part of me knows that your right and the only way to solve it is a complete ban.
Part of me says, he got his lazy arse up to the gallops...
Part of me says, that's fair, he is still not laying a horse to lose and the backers are limited in their liability to only what he has already staked.
 
Last edited:
You need to read the FULL VERDICT kindly put up by DJ on here again, if you didn't read it the first time. You can't lay your own horse, and you can't lay a horse to which you have a connection. Findlay also appears to have, er, misrepresented himself to the BHA (keep reading) re his Betfair transactions and then, finally, oops! He loses the Fastest Finger First competition, opting for the Distracted Digit option to try and squirm off a hook of his own making. I'd rather he'd just brazened it out with a straight acceptance of getting nicked, apologised, and not sounded like a little boy telling porkies so he doesn't get his pocket money stopped.

It isn't about him laying any amount of other people's nags, is it? No.
 
Hamm, Okay let's leave Findlay out of this for a minute. I do not see that the rules against an owner laying their own horses makes no sense, it may be frustrating I know, I was an owner. But surely you can see why the rule exists?

Can't you?

Or shall we just open up all gambling on horses so that owners can tell the punters they have laid their horses out for a race, knowing full well they have not, and then lay them like mad to us crazed gamblers ? :lol:
 
Plain laying, of course, yes - he did not do this, he adjusted his position, and still would make a profit if he won, and a loss if he lost.
 
Isinglass - I think the point being made is that owners who have already backed their horses should be allowed to lay them in the same market as long as, overall, they don't make a profit from the horse losing. In theory that seems fair, but I do think that there are some cases where this would be a minefield, particularly in ante-post markets.
 
krizon said:
You need to read the FULL VERDICT kindly put up by DJ on here again, if you didn't read it the first time. You can't lay your own horse, and you can't lay a horse to which you have a connection. Findlay also appears to have, er, misrepresented himself to the BHA (keep reading) re his Betfair transactions and then, finally, oops! He loses the Fastest Finger First competition, opting for the Distracted Digit option to try and squirm off a hook of his own making. I'd rather he'd just brazened it out with a straight acceptance of getting nicked, apologised, and not sounded like a little boy telling porkies so he doesn't get his pocket money stopped.

It isn't about him laying any amount of other people's nags, is it? No.
Click to expand...

Ah, so you are presuming you're the only person who read it.

I have no idea what your last sentence refers to.
 
Gareth Flynn said:
Isinglass - I think the point being made is that owners who have already backed their horses should be allowed to lay them in the same market as long as, overall, they don't make a profit from the horse losing. In theory that seems fair, but I do think that there are some cases where this would be a minefield, particularly in ante-post markets.
Click to expand...

Okay, does make sense, but as you say, could cause even more trouble.
 
Hamm said:
Plain laying, of course, yes - he did not do this, he adjusted his position, and still would make a profit if he won, and a loss if he lost.
Click to expand...

But that's not what he did - he improved his position due to the knowledge he had that the horse would front run and would very likely contract in price fairly quickly during running.

If he had laid the horse before the race, then that would fall under what you are saying - and I pretty much agree with you then. But where do you draw the line - is what Gareth referred to above ok as well (laying back a horse you own because you know it's injured?).
 
Whatever the outcome it's racing's loss as another independent owner (and a pretty significant one at that) bites the dust.

If you shoot yourself in the foot enough times you fall over. We'll soon have the Arabs vs Ballydoyle in all races in which the Queen or the Aga Khan doesn't have a runner. And when they finally lose interest, no industry at all.
 
Flagship uberalles said:
But that's not what he did - he improved his position due to the knowledge he had that the horse would front run and would very likely contract in price fairly quickly during running.

If he had laid the horse before the race, then that would fall under what you are saying - and I pretty much agree with you then. But where do you draw the line - is what Gareth referred to above ok as well (laying back a horse you own because you know it's injured?).
Click to expand...

It was still in his best interests for the horse to win.
 
this thread is a classic

Curley didn't break any rules - crucified

a good old boy actually breaks the rules..ooooh we should alter the rules to suit out heroes..oooh must look after heroes..fkin unreal...its just like the Henderson thread

so much bias its unreal
 
I can't stand him, I think he's an obnoxious loudmouth who actually is probably a negative to the game. He represents the betting shop boy done good and tells series of lies about his gambling.

However, this is absurd. He's broken the rules but he's not bought the game into disrepute. As others have said, he's not just laid the horse as he knew it wasn't off but he's secured a position in a market.

The lack of common sense from the BHA is staggering. Horses double in price on Betfair and finish tailed off after tender handling and nothing is said, a man wisely trades a gambling position and gets banned from six months.

I hope he does pull all his horses out of the UK frankly.
 
EC1 said:
this thread is a classic

Curley didn't break any rules - crucified

a good old boy actually breaks the rules..ooooh we should alter the rules to suit out heroes..oooh must look after heroes..fkin unreal...its just like the Henderson thread

so much bias its unreal
Click to expand...

I'm not sure whether you think any of my posts fall into this category, but I can't stand the bloke.
 
Gamla Stan said:
I can't stand him, I think he's an obnoxious loudmouth who actually is probably a negative to the game. He represents the betting shop boy done good and tells series of lies about his gambling.

However, this is absurd. He's broken the rules but he's not bought the game into disrepute. As others have said, he's not just laid the horse as he knew it wasn't off but he's secured a position in a market.

The lack of common sense from the BHA is staggering. Horses double in price on Betfair and finish tailed off after tender handling and nothing is said, a man wisely trades a gambling position and gets banned from six months.

I hope he does pull all his horses out of the UK frankly.
Click to expand...

are you the one that told me you condemn all rule breakers Stan?..no matter who they are..well he broke em..nevermind the excuses he makes

his reaction is that of a child..i'll take my ball home..boo hoo..why not take it on the chin..like a man?
 
Last edited:
I condemn cheats and those who have misled others.

Findlay has done what anyone with half a brain would do when punting to the levels he plays in.

I'm more astonished by the sentence, Michael Wigham got just a 35 day suspension for non-trying yet they give Findlay 6 months in a case where he profited if the horse won!
 
Back
Top