Findlay Warned off for 6mths

Zero sympathy for Findlay on the first occasion he tried to manipulate a market to enhance his chance of winning a significant figure. Mark my words he knew what he was doing.

Many punters when they fancy something strongly and are going to invest heavily are going to knock the horse out, make it look weak and no good, thus to enhance it's price before backing it back. What you are doing is creating a false image, only for when your selections reaches the price you wish you then back the horse back significantly. As a result you are on the horse at better odds than you would have got had you tried to stake when the selection was shorter in the market.

Basically if you were a financial director in a company and you knew you were planning a big merger and you felt you wanted to benefit yourself, you could technically put up a load of shares to sell, keep the merger quiet. The share price would increase, then when you know the merger is in place, you would buy as many shares as you could. The price will contract, then once the deal is done the price collapses (a bit like the horse traded short in running). When this happens you sell off a fair few of the shares to sit on the profits. However this would breach the FSA rules and you would be in serious trouble.

Basically the BHA have set the ruling that you shall not for any reason, even if it were to see a loss or profit or minimize risk, that you shall not lay any horse in which you have an involvement in. Findlay was fully aware of this but done so to enhance his financial position, thinking if caught he would probably just get a fine and a smack on the wrist.

As for the mistakingly laid a horse for 10k, I fail to believe anyone has their clicks set at £10,000 on their betting software so I wouldn't be as gullible to believe that load of tosh.

The fact is they are just running his horses under other owners names, so warning him off means nothing as he is still going to be paying his training fee's, will still speak to trainers and gain from any prize money they earn, as he is bound to be paid by those owners whose name they run in.

The ban should have been like Henderson's in which none of his horses should be allowed to run for 6 months, unless evidence is given to suggest that the change in ownership is genuine and if the horse returned to his ownership or any financial payment is made towards Findlay in regards to prize money from the new owner that both owners should be warned off indefinitely for again breaking rules of the BHA and dealing with warned off people.

Whilst I agree that the BHA need to understand gambling more and he has lost on both counts, he did know what he was doing and until a rule is amended then he is at breach and he was fully aware of this, therefore he should serve the punishment issued like a man. I still feel his punishment is a complete farce as he will still have runners and speak to his trainers and so on, whilst if anyone else was warned off and their horses ran under someone else and made contact with the trainer and so on, the trainer would be warned off for dealing with a warned off character.

Findlay knew he was breaking the rules when laying the horses, simple. He is just trying to sulk because he thinks he is important to racing and is above people and the rules should have been bent for him. If he doesn't own again in England and goes abroad, I for one won't be gutted, he broke the rules and if he can't accept his punishment then tough.
 
Gamla Stan said:
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.
Click to expand...

Furthermore, the addendum to Rule 247 which clarified the Rule beyond doubt was published after the races in question and that the lay bets were on just one of the many horses that were owned by Mr Hinge.

The Panel therefore took the view that a financial penalty, rather than a period of disqualification, was more appropriate in the particular case and imposed a fine of £1,250.


Basically because at the time he laid the horse the rule was not published and wasn't clear he was given an easy time. However in Findlay's case at the time of the bets laid the rule was in black and white and clearly stated the horse should not be laid under any circumstance. Had this rule been clear when Hinge laid the horse, I'm sure he would have been banned like Findlay.
 
The financial director analogy is pure waffle.As a director of a quoted company you have obligations and duties to the market clearly laid down by the law.As a punter owner or trainer you are not obliged to disclose market sensetive information.
 
It's worth reiterating that most of us (I think) believe that Harry Findlay knowingly broke the rules and deserves censure for doing so. The point which is being argued is whether a 6 month ban is commensurate based on similar cases. I believe the panel's view on how exchange punters need protection in these instances are rather at odds with reality. The suggestion that Findlay should have contacted Betfair after the Exeter race to ask them to refund backers of Gullible Gordon was laughable for instance.

Regarding the notion that the Exeter lay was a deliberate spoof, if he knew exactly what he was doing - laying Gullible Gordon in order to back him back at a bigger price, then you'd imagine he'd at least have managed to be successful in doing that. The fact is that the lay bet was at a bigger price that the back bets. I'm not suggesting that it definitely wasn't an attempt to spoof the market, but it certainly wasn't a very good one.

I think the accidental lay argument isn't the strongest in the world but it's also worth remembering that the bets are processed by a third party and the truth is a little harder to find in such instances. For the record, in my capacity as "putter on" for Mr Findlay's former partner, I once managed to have a six figure bet on the wrong outcome before correcting myself (not an entirely unusual occurrence when you're betting large stakes in a rapid fire environment), so while it looks unlikely, it certainly isn't impossible.
 
But not on your own horse, Luke, which is the difference. No-one can say he didn't hit the wrong button, because only he knows the truth. Even the best typist hits the wrong key occasionally, but I assume that there's an 'undo' or 'cancel' function, as there is on a pc, if you realise you've ballsed-up? If not, surely that sort of mistake happens on a very regular basis - you only have to see the number of transposed or missing words and letters in posts on here to realise how common a mitsake that is. (Example!)
 
krizon said:
Even the best typist hits the wrong key occasionally, but I assume that there's an 'undo' or 'cancel' function, as there is on a pc, if you realise you've ballsed-up?
Click to expand...
There isn't if you're using one click functionality which plenty of regular punters do. Of course the argument is rendered "moo" (to quote Joey Tribbiani) because no sentence was passed based on the Exeter case anyway - the ban was based on the deliberate laying of Gullible Gordon in the in-running market at Chepstow.
 
LUKE said:
The financial director analogy is pure waffle.As a director of a quoted company you have obligations and duties to the market clearly laid down by the law.As a punter owner or trainer you are not obliged to disclose market sensetive information.
Click to expand...

Yes, the rule book says an FD of a quoted company has duties and obligations. He doesn't follow the rules, he gets done. It's the same for an owner. They cannot lay their own horse. Full stop. Rule broken. Would you let an FD away with it by saying "ah sure your company makes loads of money for us and the market loves you" or would there be uproar in the financial world??
 
krizon said:
But not on your own horse, Luke, which is the difference. No-one can say he didn't hit the wrong button, because only he knows the truth. Even the best typist hits the wrong key occasionally, but I assume that there's an 'undo' or 'cancel' function, as there is on a pc, if you realise you've ballsed-up? If not, surely that sort of mistake happens on a very regular basis - you only have to see the number of transposed or missing words and letters in posts on here to realise how common a mitsake that is. (Example!)
Click to expand...

If you think there is an undo button on Betfair you really shouldn't be taking part in this discussion.
 
Oh, fuck off, you pompous twerp. I can take part in this discussion because it's about breaking rules which concern the image and substance of racing. You're telling me it's impossible to correct a simple mistake after you enter it? Then there'd be hundreds of mis-bets every week, wouldn't there? Tell me the exact sequence of buttons you press to make a bet and how, having entered up £100,000 instead of £10,000, you'd correct it? You mean you can't stop over-betting by mistake? Under-betting by mistake? That's bloody laughable.

If I hand over a £50 note to the Tote, I get a slip back telling me what I've bet. I should, if I have half a brain, stand there and check my ticket, and then gasp in horror as I realise I didn't hand over the £20 I intended. I then ask the operator to re-cast the bet for me at the price I wanted. The first ticket is voided, I re-bet with the money I intended, and a new ticket's issued.

But let's not wander away from the issue at hand. The man laid his own horse, which is against rules, he got caught, he got a pretty hefty whack which he can't take like a man. All arguments to try and excuse him appear to have been robustly rebutted with facts, rather than wish lists.
 
LUKE said:
There is no undo button.People with no understanding of the exchanges judging those who do is laughable.
Click to expand...

its laughable people sticking up for him that is a fact

you use Betfair Luke - i take it you don't mind such as Findlay taking your money

he's basically having you up the back part mate..and you sticking up for him..now thats laughable :)
 
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 .
 
Last edited:
can someone just tell me how he has been penalised by this action? He can use someone else's Betfair account - he can still run his horses.

wtf is anyone feeling sorry for him for..he's had no penalty to talk of
 
EC1 said:
can someone just tell me how he has been penalised by this action? He can use someone else's Betfair account - he can still run his horses.

wtf is anyone feeling sorry for him for..he's had no penalty to talk of
Click to expand...
If you knew Mr Findlay, you'd understand EC1. He can't run the horses despite what people say and he'll end up losing them (rather than gaining from their sale). He also lives to go racing and be at the heart of the sport. This ban will hurt him immensely. I understand your mindset regarding the Findlay/Curley dichotomy and in other instances you'd be absolutely on the money, but I believe you've called this badly wrong.
 
rorydelargy said:
If you knew Mr Findlay, you'd understand EC1. He can't run the horses despite what people say and he'll end up losing them (rather than gaining from their sale). He also lives to go racing and be at the heart of the sport. This ban will hurt him immensely. I understand your mindset regarding the Findlay/Curley dichotomy and in other instances you'd be absolutely on the money, but I believe you've called this badly wrong.
Click to expand...

yes i can see what you are saying Rory..racing is his life..but its only 6 months and he will be able to come back..he has to do his time..he broke the rules.

going back to Ardross's point re fining him though

lets say you worked for a bank..and stole 10 grand from them..what penalty would you get?..you would lose your job and do a prison sentence.

so...in effect..he's a lucky man
 
EC1 said:
yes i can see what you are saying Rory..racing is his life..but its only 6 months and he will be able to come back..he has to do his time..he broke the rules.

going back to Ardross's point re fining him though

lets say you worked for a bank..and stole 10 grand from them..what penalty would you get?..you would lose your job and do a prison sentence.

so...in effect..he's a lucky man
Click to expand...

Say he battered someone to death with a rubber chicken he would get 20 years so you see he got off lightly with 6 months.
 
EC1 said:
its laughable people sticking up for him that is a fact

you use Betfair Luke - i take it you don't mind such as Findlay taking your money

he's basically having you up the back part mate..and you sticking up for him..now thats laughable :)
Click to expand...

I would have a certain level of business on my betfair account-mainly at weekends and late night American racing.Every so often you just know that you are up against someone who knows more then you-I accept it -if you cant you shouldn't really be betting on horses.
 
EC1 said:
i think the releveance in my post was removing 10 grand from someone..ie betfair backer/bank..whereas the relevance of your response is nil
Click to expand...

Thats the whole point of gambling to remove money from other peoples accounts.
 
Back
Top