Findlay Warned off for 6mths

LUKE said:
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.
Click to expand...


what you mean is you are up against someone with inside information who knows a horse is losing

yes its part of the game..not a part that will be appealing to someone outside the game though

and if you had your way..if caught out..this person would get away scot free with what is fraud..because its part of the game

when someone gets caught "at it"..we should..as punters.. be pleased..not feeling sorry for them.

I would hate to think someone just getting into racing should happen across this thread...they would be very puzzled i'm sure why experienced racing people are crying for the punishment given here.
 
LUKE said:
Thats the whole point of gambling to remove money from other peoples accounts.
Click to expand...

yes..i had grasped that idea:)...but when its done by cheating there is a price to pay..thats also ..part of the game.. for those whose intentions are not straight

and if "the game" is going to hurt someone so badly as people say it will do in this case..then maybe playing the game straight might be a good idea in future
 
So lets take this to the next step and assume all those that feel HF should be let off have their day. The rules must therefore be changed. How exactly is it going to be reworded.....and common sense cannot be a feature of the rule. It must be stated exactly what the rule should be so it can be fully enforced. I'd like to know so I can get involved in a plot and lay off before the off so I have a free bet, just in case it doesn't hose up.
 
EC1 said:
what you mean is you are up against someone with inside information who knows a horse is losing

yes its part of the game..not a part that will be appealing to someone outside the game though

and if you had your way..if caught out..this person would get away scot free with what is fraud..because its part of the game

when someone gets caught "at it"..we should..as punters.. be pleased..not feeling sorry for them.

I would hate to think someone just getting into racing should happen across this thread...they would be very puzzled i'm sure why experienced racing people are crying for the punishment given here.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with other people having inside information -most gambles are inspired by inside information -they frequently lose.
I know you have a hardon for the Curley gamble-I happened to arrive in the bookies 15 minutes before the race due to not realizing my barber doesn't open on Mondays.Anyway I heard the story about gamble and 3rd one was running in 15 minutes time and was available to lay at 1.78 0n betfair -looked at rp and the horses form wasn't great -even if Curley wanted to back him at that price I had to be against him.Big deposit and lay at 1.73 as the price had contracted -was absolutely delighted as there was serious scope for trading.When the horse went as low as 1.55 I stopped looking at betfair and decided this was my Fujiyama Crest moment and would take my medicine if he won.
I knew 100% that someone knew a lot more then me but at the same time the price was too short and he had to be laid.
 
Cantoris said:
So lets take this to the next step and assume all those that feel HF should be let off have their day. The rules must therefore be changed. How exactly is it going to be reworded.....and common sense cannot be a feature of the rule. It must be stated exactly what the rule should be so it can be fully enforced. I'd like to know so I can get involved in a plot and lay off before the off so I have a free bet, just in case it doesn't hose up.
Click to expand...
the

Common sense must be a feature of the rules -as long as you don't benefit by the horse losing I don't see the problem.The rules are trailing modern day realities -say if your horse was involved in a photo finish(for a valuable race) and enquiry and having backed if for a considerable sum and you wanted to lay an even ten grand as an insurance -should that be allowed ?.
 
LUKE said:
I have no problem with other people having inside information -most gambles are inspired by inside information -they frequently lose.
I know you have a hardon for the Curley gamble-I happened to arrive in the bookies 15 minutes before the race due to not realizing my barber doesn't open on Mondays.Anyway I heard the story about gamble and 3rd one was running in 15 minutes time and was available to lay at 1.78 0n betfair -looked at rp and the horses form wasn't great -even if Curley wanted to back him at that price I had to be against him.Big deposit and lay at 1.73 as the price had contracted -was absolutely delighted as there was serious scope for trading.When the horse went as low as 1.55 I stopped looking at betfair and decided this was my Fujiyama Crest moment and would take my medicine if he won.
I knew 100% that someone knew a lot more then me but at the same time the price was too short and he had to be laid.
Click to expand...

have a hard on for the Curley gamble :lol:

if he gets caught breaking the rules Luke I'll be first to say he should take his punishment

you know as well as i do that people laying horses they know won't win is totally different to backing a horse they think will win

the first one is fraud..the second one is taking a gamble ..and as you say many lose..most of the lays lose because they had no chance of winning..information not available to those backing said horse
 
LUKE said:
the

Common sense must be a feature of the rules -as long as you don't benefit by the horse losing I don't see the problem.The rules are trailing modern day realities -say if your horse was involved in a photo finish(for a valuable race) and enquiry and having backed if for a considerable sum and you wanted to lay an even ten grand as an insurance -should that be allowed ?.
Click to expand...

no it shouldn't - the rule is simple as it stands - there are no grey areas - even a simpleton can understand them..don't lay your own horse

there is nothing modern about over complication..nothing forward thinking

i wish they would make the disqaulification rules as simple..we might know wtf is happening then.
 
LUKE said:
the

Common sense must be a feature of the rules -as long as you don't benefit by the horse losing I don't see the problem.The rules are trailing modern day realities -say if your horse was involved in a photo finish(for a valuable race) and enquiry and having backed if for a considerable sum and you wanted to lay an even ten grand as an insurance -should that be allowed ?.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with you laying off in a photo. The race itself is over. The facts are in black and white. If some want to bet on that, so be it. But it is a completely separate event than the race itself. A lay before the race or during the race is a gamble on an event, the outcome of which is not known in black or white. You can't manipulate the photo finish....unless you nobble the judge!! but it's an interesting concept and I'm sure the rules would still be that you laid your horse (or back another) so include a clause which states that an owner cannot lay their horse before the race is finished. So what else would you include? Remember, you cannot leave it open to interpretation. Rules don't work well that way. In the valuable race scenario, the rules are there and tough fi you can't abide by them. Don't own horses if you can't stick by the rules. Don't gamble if you are an addict and beat up the wife regularly as a result.
 
LUKE said:
You admit the rules are unsatisfactory.
Click to expand...

not sure he is tbh

are you one of these people that likes to overcomplicate every issue Luke?:p

most people that break rules plead they didn't understand them...to try and get off...mainly down to over complicators like your good self making those rules.

keep them simple..so the simple can understand them :)
 
It used to be a commonplace to bemoan the increased involvement of legal people in disciplinary hearings, but here is a perfect example of what can happen if you turn up on your own. The panel receive help from Findlay to arrive at a correct view of the facts, and the correct conclusion that the rules should be enforced.

But none of it saved Findlay from an over the top penalty. I'd say they were influenced by his past reputation, in much the same way as they were by Henderson's, and Henderson's father's before him, when letting him off with a lighter penalty for a much more serious offence.

Ardross, if I was Findlay I'd hire your services for the appeal.
 
LUKE said:
The rules are out of step with modern day realities.
Click to expand...

how can they be? - they are rules relating to Betfair - so they must be pretty modern surely

what you mean is..they don't let people off like HF (working class hero type) ..but in reality ..a little bit greedy eh?

i didn't see anyone object to these rules before this came up..others who have fallen foul of gaining by laying..appear to have been dealt with without any one commenting on fairness.

personality should not be an excuse for this
 
I have given the example of a photo finish/enquiry -you can can the other horse but not lay your own.Unsatisfactory rules that will need to be changed sooner rather then later.
 
I'd be interested to read J Alfred Prufrock's views on the issue here.
Click to expand...
Somewhere deep in the recesses of the BHA's Rule Book is the following:

92. Restrictions on laying to lose
92.1 In Paragraph 92.2, Listed Person
92.1.1 means any owner of a horse (see Rule 96), and
92.1.2 additionally, includes
92.1.2.1 where the owner is a Recognised Company, any director or Registered Agent
of the company,
92.1.2.2 where the owner is a Recognised Stud Company, any director of the
company,
92.1.2.3 where the owner is a Racing Partnership, the partners of the racing
partnership who are notified to the Authority under Rule 65.1.2 and who are not
Nominated Partners,
92.1.2.4 where the horse is subject to a lease, the lessor of the horse, and
92.1.2.5 where the horse is jointly-owned, is leased for one race only or is subject to
any other lease or arrangement registered under Rule 75, any Person who, at or
around the material time, played an active part in managing the horse.
92.2 A Listed Person must not
92.2.1 lay any horse he owns with a betting organisation to lose a race,
92.2.2 instruct another Person to do so on his behalf, or
92.2.3 receive the whole or any part of any proceeds of such a lay.
92.3 Any reference to laying a horse to lose includes any single instance of doing so, whether or not the single
instance was, or was intended to be, one of a series of betting arrangements.
92.4 Nothing in this Rule prevents the laying of any horse owned by a betting organisation in the ordinary course
of that betting organisation's business.
92.5 Betting organisation means
92.5.1 any bookmaker,
92.5.2 the Tote,
92.5.3 any company offering spread betting on horseracing or person-to-person betting exchanges
on horseracing, and
92.5.4 the employees of any such organisations.

I am still trying to ascertain whether there is another section, elsewhere in the BHA's Rule Book, covering: backing another horse in a race in which you own a horse; laying a horse which you do not own in a stable in which you own a horse; laying a horse registered as owned by a close family relative, such as your Mum, rather than by you; laying a horse when you pay some of the bills but are not among the named owners of the horse; backing a horse against a horse that someone you know owns; and much more besides.

As I would hate to fall foul of the rules through ignorance, I am going through them - the hundreds of pages of them - with a fine-toothed comb.

Will get back to you asap, though not necessarily this year.
 
While - remarkably - it gets no mention in the above, I have just stumbled across the following elsewhere in the BHA's Rule Book (I draw particular attention to point 4):

SCHEDULES

Schedule 3 - Integrity codes of conduct: owners

1. This integrity code of conduct applies to any Person whose name is registered in the register of owners under Part 3.
2. Refrain from laying any horse in your ownership to lose a race.
3. Avoid imparting any information to anyone about your horse's non-participation in a race with a view to the horse being layed until such time as the non-participation has been distributed by The Racing Calendar Office.
4. Refrain from laying any horse from a yard where you have a horse in training.
5. Refrain from causing any Person who holds a licence or permit granted by the Authority and with whom you have dealings to contravene any requirement imposed on that Person by or under these Rules.
 
Last edited:
LUKE said:
I have given the example of a photo finish/enquiry -you can can the other horse but not lay your own.Unsatisfactory rules that will need to be changed sooner rather then later.
Click to expand...
The aforementioned Mr Prufrock can confirm, but I believe that you can actually lay your own horse in a photo.
 
So, as I understand it, as a 1/4 owner of a horse who does not even run in my name any longer, I am not allowed to lay any horse in the stable in which my horse resides, but - I think - I would be allowed to back another horse in a race in which a horse in the stable at which my horse resides is running, and that includes backing against my own horse.

Or is that covered somewhere else?

I am an advocate of the principle behind the rule that you should not lay your own horse. But anyone who thinks the rules are clear, unambiguous and up front is invited to try to pick their way through the BHA Rule Book to be sure they have not missed anything on this matter.

And, as stated elsewhere, I find it unsatisfactory that new owners are given no guidance on this matter other than "consult the Rule Book".
 
Last edited:
Back
Top