davidjohnson
At the Start
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2007
- Messages
- 3,434
Good point. Irish maiden hurdles hurdles would suit his modus operandi down to the ground. £30,000-£90,000 on the only trier.
Findlay Warned off for 6mths
- Thread starter Aldaniti
- Start date
Good point. Irish maiden hurdles hurdles would suit his modus operandi down to the ground. £30,000-£90,000 on the only trier.
davidjohnson
At the Start
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2007
- Messages
- 3,434
Wasn't aware of the Bill Hinge case, but given also the Mickmacmagoole/Ramsden case, I was also expecting a fine to be the punishment.
rorydelargy
At the Start
Hinge was, ironically enough, the owner of a horse called Spoof Master who he laid for small amounts on a number of occasions before placing large bets with his bookmaker on the horse. He got a fine of £1,250 on the basis that he couldn't profit from the lays.
EC1
On a break
he was always going to profit though wasn't he?..if you know for sure a horse will lead then the price will shorten..you have a guaranteed profit..gained purely from knowledge others have not got - its insider trading..which is gaining money unfairly.
you can dress it up how you want..he has a green screen gained through nothing but insider info..its cheating full stop
why anyone thinks otherwise is beyond me.
you can dress it up how you want..he has a green screen gained through nothing but insider info..its cheating full stop
why anyone thinks otherwise is beyond me.
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?
I don't see too much deceit in Findlay. He is a professional gambler, but one who can't help telling everyone what he is about to do and whether his own horses represent value or not.
If a bookmaker is a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing, he at least aspires to the opposite.
EC1
On a break
thats a lot wooliness there Steve - you are supporting letting people off who "we don't see much deceit in".
How are you going to implement it?..if its Curley next time ..we ban him for life because he is disliked and perceived to be deceitful?
you can't work like that..a parallel penalty system based on how someone is perceived?
EC1
On a break
yes its ridiculous having rules to stop people with inside knowledge using no skill whatsover to fleece money from those without that knowledge..how unreasonable
knowing the tactics within a race for definate = inside knowledge.
knowing a horse is not going to be running on its merits - = inside knowledge
etc etc
i'm surprised you don't know all this Luke.
if it isn't inside knowledge knowing these things ..then why are we not told them before the race
Last edited:
EC1
On a break
definition
Illegal Insider Trading is the trading in a security (buying or selling a stock) based on material information that is not available to the general public.
buying or selling stock = buying a price and selling on Betfair
Illegal Insider Trading is the trading in a security (buying or selling a stock) based on material information that is not available to the general public.
buying or selling stock = buying a price and selling on Betfair
Gamla Stan
At the Start
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2005
- Messages
- 4,337
Here's the Bill Hinge case...
http://www.britishhorseracing.com/r...sciplinary/disciplinaryDetail.asp?item=090552
Would someone like to point out how this carries a £1250 fine and what Findlay did carries a six month ban?
I'm not keen on either of them as people but the punishments are miles from each other.
http://www.britishhorseracing.com/r...sciplinary/disciplinaryDetail.asp?item=090552
Would someone like to point out how this carries a £1250 fine and what Findlay did carries a six month ban?
I'm not keen on either of them as people but the punishments are miles from each other.
Magnier wasn't breaking the rules. Take the case of Kevin Manning a few years back. As a jock, you cannot ride against a horse you own. Una Manning owned a runner in one of the big sales races and Kevin wanted to ride a hotpot of Bolgers. So the owners of the hotpot gave Manning 5% ownership and he rode the hotpot. Bolger was very clear of the rules and made the appropriate changes. Manning was then able to ride against a horse he owned and get away with it. Magnier did the same.
You see it as waffle as you are trying to justify it from a punters perspective. It's the same as the time betfair was introduce. Plenty said it would create issues where owners could lay their horses more easily, or stable lads, vets, farriers etc. The hard core punter said "but isn't it great though, I can get bigger prices on the back side and lay something I don't fancy". Same thing here, there is going to be a clear expectations gap between those punters who love betfair and those that loathe it. The former think anything can go, and the latter believe the rules are there to portect the system.
I'll ask one simple question, would the owners on this forum consider laying their horses if their back bet shortened. The I'd like to compare that to the answers from non-owners. I'd be happy to bet that you'd get a muich higher yes response from non-owners.
but plenty of gambles have been stopped in the parade ring when the owner has turned to the trainer and said "you were supposed to keep this quiet and now the price has dropped from 20s to 2s and I'm not on. You know what to do boss". Ultimately the fate of the punters stake is based on what happens right up to the off, including tactics. So they can never be sure to be sure. an owner/trainer/jockey know at the off what tactics are going to be used. Sure it doesn't always work out but they may have information that is not available to the public. Take Cannon Fire.......did he have a wind op?? Wasn't in the paper but he's won three races in six days having no form for ages before the race.
davidjohnson
At the Start
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2007
- Messages
- 3,434
There are no rules against backing your opponents, so yes.
EC1
On a break
if the rules allow it so be it.
are you sure you don't see how the game is full of insider trading?..really
think you are being a bit naive Luke tbh
this game will never appeal as a serious betting medium to the general public as the whole game is viewed as bent by outsiders and most who play the odds..part of the fun for us as punters is trying to spot the fiddles etc...but that fun isn't fun to people who have turned to poker etc..hence why racing will face decline even further over the next 10 years. This is already being seen with the need to put other entertainment on to bring people in.
i don't care who does what to be honest..be it Curley or Findlay..if they get caught breaking the rules..they get penalised and take it like a man..not like a whingey baby as Findlay has done..the mans a disgrace to himself with how he has acted...he needs to get some dignity ffs.
how anyone can stick up for such a baby with the soft arguments as on this thread fook knows...oooh i just feel he isn't devious..lmfao...the mans a fool for getting caught out for a start..and a mardy arse for not taking the punishment he knew was coming.
if others have got off lighter then lobby to have the rules changed..give everyone caught fiddling/defrauding.. automatic 5 year bans..minimum..nowt to cry about when caught then.
the problem with racing people is they only want bad stuff to happen to the "out" crowd..when its the "in" crowd gets caught out we see nonsense wheeled out like on this thread..every excuse under the sun..ooh he's a good egg bollocks.
Last edited:
Totally agree with you, EC1, as you'll have inferred earlier, anyway. I'm disappointed by the pro-rule bending attitude of some people on here. Presumably they'd tweak them to breaking point if they had the chance, thus confirming the popular perception of racing as bent as a butcher's hook. On the one hand, in tones of outraged piety, let's clean up the naughty trainers we don't like. On the other, let's see how we can squeeze this to our advantage (and hope no-oned notices). Yuk.
It's not a question of morality......it's a question of rules.
The RP seems to have gone on the offensive and supporting HF by saying he did not gain financially. But I cannot have that. He clearly overbet and laid back in order to increase the odds he had on the remainder of his bet. So he did gain financially from the manouver. Is everyone forgetting that he went out with a plan to artificially increase the price of his horse. Is it any different from a Chief Executive cooking his books to up his share price. Enron here we come!! And it all comes back to the same thing.....greed!!
Last edited:
davidjohnson
At the Start
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2007
- Messages
- 3,434
The Racing Post's coverage of the incident is embarassing. Particularly Peter Thomas' fawning piece.
And it's a pity tha Bruce Millington didn't make himself fully aware of the facts. Millington states 'the BHA decided the rule breaches...were grave enough to make a six-month disqualification a rightful punishment'. Bruce, if you dragged yourself away from your falling ABC figures, and read the BHA ruling thoroughly, article 14 states that BHA were suggesting to the independent panel that something other than a disqualification might be an appropriate punishment.
Still, why let the facts get in the way of your defence of a 'fearless, larger than life' punter. Peter Thomas' words, not mine.
And it's a pity tha Bruce Millington didn't make himself fully aware of the facts. Millington states 'the BHA decided the rule breaches...were grave enough to make a six-month disqualification a rightful punishment'. Bruce, if you dragged yourself away from your falling ABC figures, and read the BHA ruling thoroughly, article 14 states that BHA were suggesting to the independent panel that something other than a disqualification might be an appropriate punishment.
Still, why let the facts get in the way of your defence of a 'fearless, larger than life' punter. Peter Thomas' words, not mine.
Last edited:
Yep, same way that the Chief Executive who is just about to announce the big oil find cannot predict that a volcano is going to blow up half of America and stock markets will free fall. Unlikely.
All the horse has to do is jump off in front to fall in price, jump the first to drop again, lead to the second to drop again. It's not much of a risk is it if you think nothing else is going to go on. In your own words "you're beginning to waffle"
I still think that owners and non-owners will have very different views on this. I know the rules, I don't lay my horses. I've had many, many chances when on at a bigger prices. If you do not enforce the rules, whose to say when it stops. Look at the Cybersnow case, they thought that becasue they leased the horse and were no longer listed as owners that they could get away with it. No way jose. They are legal owners of the horse and they got disqualified for a year.