Findlay Warned off for 6mths

Gamla Stan said:
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!
Click to expand...

the sentence for Wigham was clearly wrong - but if this had not been Findlay but one of about five other people the attitude toward it would have been different

he's no different from Terry Ramsden..will end up same way..and racing just about managed post Ramsden didn't it?

the idea we have to let people off because they have a lot of money/horses is a bit sickening to read really..let him take his horses away..there will be another one like him along shortly
 
Last edited:
Can't help but think the BHA made its decision with an eye to the media.
I've no opinion on H Findlay, I don't think he actually laid the horse within the meaning of the rules, but to lose less.
The BHA would have seen that & didn't have the strength of character to accept it as ok - in this instance.
Whay H Findlay then said it was a slip of the finger raises a question in my mind as to his honesty at that point.
 
Whether it's Harry Findlay or me, the rules are clear. You cannot, cannot, cannot lay your own horse. Full stop. The rule was brought in for a reason. If you fancy your horse, then back it. You shouldn't need to lay it off if you were happy to back it in the first place. Keeps things simple.

Findlay was trying to be smart. He was overbacking (£60k) his horses knowing they would go front running and soon after the start would shorten in price. He would lay off some of his overbet (£20k) so that his real bet (£40k) was now at a bigger price. so he wasn't happy to have his £40k on at the price it was before the off and decided to articfically increase the price by breaking the rules. No sympathy. He was chancing his arm and he knew the rules and he got caught. There is nothing wrong with this rule. I've had many chances to lay off bets on my own horses but I haven't. The rules are the rules.
 
The reason for the rules overrides the letter of the rules, I think.
It's called 'equity', iirc.
The obvious reason for the rules is to prevent an owner from profiting from his horse losing.
That plainly does not apply in this case.

Rules are not there to replace reason - they're there as the best available framing of reasonable thinking for writing down & publishing.

Courts often ask themselves what Parliament had in mind when they passed a law -- simply, the BHA knew what it had in mind - and put that aside.

They've set themselves up as convenient interpreters of their own rules and not as respecters of reason.

Cantoris said:
Whether it's Harry Findlay or me, the rules are clear. You cannot, cannot, cannot lay your own horse. Full stop. The rule was brought in for a reason. If you fancy your horse, then back it. You shouldn't need to lay it off if you were happy to back it in the first place. Keeps things simple.

Findlay was trying to be smart. He was overbacking (£60k) his horses knowing they would go front running and soon after the start would shorten in price. He would lay off some of his overbet (£20k) so that his real bet (£40k) was now at a bigger price. so he wasn't happy to have his £40k on at the price it was before the off and decided to articfically increase the price by breaking the rules. No sympathy. He was chancing his arm and he knew the rules and he got caught. There is nothing wrong with this rule. I've had many chances to lay off bets on my own horses but I haven't. The rules are the rules.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I'm surprised, and rather disappointed at the number of people leaping to Findlay's defence. It is quite clear that rules have been broken, and that Findlay also misled (I have no view on whether this was intentional or not but the fact is he misled investigators) those investigated the incident when claiming that the lay bet was simply reducing his liabilities. This was proven to be untrue. The lay bet was placed BEFORE any back bets were placed.

I rally strongly against the view that just because an owner is shown to be a net backer of their horse they should be allowed to lay it beforehand. This is tantamount to insider dealing which the FSA have rules about. I'm not saying Findlay did this, as the BHA said, there is no evidence as to what his motives were.

Having said that, I'm surprised at the length of the suspension given the similarities between earlier cases of a similar nature.
 
he was using inside knowledge..knowing they would front run - to take money from others who didn't have that information for definate

how anyone can defend that- i don't know..because to defend it is to thank others for taking money from them in effect

but.. as he has lots of money and horses - to some people..he should be let off..strange thinking imo.
 
Last edited:
I think the rules need changing, owners should be able to gamble like Joe Public as long as they are still profiting from their horse winning.

I agree he's broke the rules but some common sense could've been applied. If there was a need to punish him (and I can just about see there is a case), then a substantial fine would've done it.

The length of suspension is staggering given the comedy bans given to others for genuinely cheating.
 
Gamla Stan said:
I think the rules need changing, owners should be able to gamble like Joe Public as long as they are still profiting from their horse winning.
Click to expand...

Well we all know that a Barney Curley horse can go from 10/1 to 1/1 in a blink of an eye. What stops Barney putting 10k on his horse at all prices down to 1/1s (and has potential winnings of £60k based on average odds). He then lays his 10k back at 1/1s. He has a free bet to win £50k.

Now, suppose an oil company chief executive buys lots of shares just before a company announcement, and the share price starts to rocket as people sniff something goods coming. He calls a press conference and ten mins before the event, sells half the shares he bought. He then announces that his company has struck oil, and a lot of it, and share price rockets and he sells the rest. Is that right? That's why company directors and executives are given specified windows to buy and sell shares. These rules cannot be broken, full stop.
 
Does it actually matter whether we can stand him or not. He surely is a big supporter of racing and it is racing's loss if he goes.
 
SteveM said:
Does it actually matter whether we can stand him or not. He surely is a big supporter of racing and it is racing's loss if he goes.
Click to expand...

It's his decision whether he wants to throw the rattle out of the pram. Plenty of others have been banned, taken it on the chin and been back a year later. Owners, trainers and jockeys.
 
SteveM said:
Does it actually matter whether we can stand him or not. He surely is a big supporter of racing and it is racing's loss if he goes.
Click to expand...

aye - let him take people's money who aren't "in the know" just because he is a "big supporter"

do you think the same when poorer people do it?

shall we have a scale of punishments based on number of horses owned?

above 20 horses owned - do wtf you like - no probs..you important you are.

below 10 horses owned - expect double punishment - one for the offence - one for having cheek to not be a big supporter of racing.

seems fair doesn't it? :)
 
Last edited:
I tend to feel a tiny bit of sympathy towards Findlay as I do believe that the BHA are using him as an easy example which has, after all, been their modus operandi for years. The rule in all fairness could probably do with some modifying. They do so hate going after the really crooked ones and throwing the book at them.

However, I think that Findlay in this case has been arrogant in the extreme and I also believe that he knew what he was doing all along in the belief that he would get away with nothing but a slap on the wrist. With that view in mind, I think that he does deserve what he has been dished up with.

Mind you, I tend to swing more into the category of "he's a dirty cheat" when on the day he is warned off, there was a hasty colour/registration switch on a horse of his running at Goodwood [which in all probability should not have been allowed to run] which was backed into 12/1 from 25/1 early doors, then hacked up :whistle:
 
Last edited:
Can anyone explain why he just doesnt use someone eles account and tell no one. How could the BHA prove anyone was acting on his behalf. Half the jockeys are at it.
 
Cantoris said:
Well we all know that a Barney Curley horse can go from 10/1 to 1/1 in a blink of an eye. What stops Barney putting 10k on his horse at all prices down to 1/1s (and has potential winnings of £60k based on average odds). He then lays his 10k back at 1/1s. He has a free bet to win £50k.

Now, suppose an oil company chief executive buys lots of shares just before a company announcement, and the share price starts to rocket as people sniff something goods coming. He calls a press conference and ten mins before the event, sells half the shares he bought. He then announces that his company has struck oil, and a lot of it, and share price rockets and he sells the rest. Is that right? That's why company directors and executives are given specified windows to buy and sell shares. These rules cannot be broken, full stop.
Click to expand...


Plenty of waffle there.John Magnier had his account with Ladbrokes closed after he had 10 grand on Secreto in the Derby as an insurance policy against El Gran Senor not winning .The rules are trailing behind a rapidly changing betting environment .HF knew the horse would try and lead -if the horse was slowly away or fell early he was in serious trouble.
 
What do people make of the correlation between this case and that of Bill Hinge? The latter also laid his own horses but got a £1,250 fine because he couldn't profit from his lay bets due to having much larger win bets.
 
I might add that plenty of owners have a bet to influence a market but that is not against the rules.
 
Last edited:
I dont know what to make of Findlay. Between the whole fiasco with Tony Bloom and using someone elses Betfair account you would wonder how much he has in lipuid cash to his name. I tend to sway to thinking he is a bit of hero and there is worse out there.
 
I believe he should be welcomed with open arms by Irish racing.if he was to transfer half his horses to Ireland it would be a great result for Irish racing.
 
I just think there are so many ways around the rules. If he ran everyone of his horses in Paul Barbers name, what would stop him taking whatever position he wanted in any race? I can understand Cantoris point about people using inside information to have a free bet but how many punters do that day in day out without ever owning a horse?
 
"But the limits of these points must be recognised. Just because he was a net backer will be no consolation for anyone who is on the other side of an improper lay bet by Mr Findlay. Though such people did not lose on this occasion, the real vice was the placing of lay bets by him."

This point seems to have been somewhat lost in all of this. As far as I can see, it is the fact that he made the lay bets on the basis of "inside information," rather than any overall consideration of his own position on the race (which, if anything, seems to have proved a factor in his favour according to the report) which is at the crux of the Chepstow race (the only race the panel has based the penalty on).

It looks a relatively fair outcome to me strictly on interpretation of the existing rules ~ that said, I can see Gearoid's point about the rules being easily broken.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top