J Alfred Prufrock
At the Start
Sorry, but I have no idea, and I am fast losing the will to live.
Findlay Warned off for 6mths
- Thread starter Aldaniti
- Start date
Sorry, but I have no idea, and I am fast losing the will to live.
My recollection is the owner refused to object meaning no enquiry.
rorydelargy
At the Start
It's a common misconception that the stewards need an objection to hold an enquiry but that's not true. There was a lengthy enquiry that day but Sally Smart was delighted to let Rose Ravine keep the race for obvious reasons so wouldn't allow Shilston to play ball. She should have been warned off, of course.
Luke, where do I admit the rules are unsatisfactory? I admit I don't know the rules and thanks Prufrock for putting them up. But you seem insistent on finding every scenario where you can challenge the rule. Have you given up on arguing the point of laying in running?
Rule 92.2.1 could lead you to think that laying your horse in a photo or stewards is still against the rules. But it also specifically refers to losing "a race". When the race is over and your horse is in the photo, it has won or lost the race already. I would say that the forbidden event has finished. Now you are betting on a new event, a photo finish or a stewards enquiry. I presume HF got caught on 92.3 as it was a series of betting arrangement which he hoped would get him out of it but hasn't.
I'm all for clarification in the rulebook on this and maybe explanatory notes should be included. Certainly, when I'm working on legal agreements we are careful to include a worked example in order to remove ambiguity on certain calculations.
I think Findlay admitted that although the horse raced in his mother's name it was in effect his - they also found him to be caught by
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.
92.1.2.5 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.
Incorrect.
J Alfred Prufrock
At the Start
If Findlay had not admitted that horses running in his mother's name were effectively his - something which he did in a spirit of openness and may now be regretting - would he have fallen foul of the ruling?
Why were the BHA happy for Findlay to continue to run his horses under someone else's name?
I am not aftertiming about this, as I asked the BHA directly about this matter a couple of years ago and they said they would be "tightening procedures".
Why were the BHA happy for Findlay to continue to run his horses under someone else's name?
I am not aftertiming about this, as I asked the BHA directly about this matter a couple of years ago and they said they would be "tightening procedures".
You cannot lay your horse to lose a race. That's my view. You're right there. You then asked the forum's opinion on photos and enquiries and IMO these are not races. They are events that happen after the race, albeit related to the race. I can see the ambiguity here and I have no doubt that's why you raised them but I'd be quite happy if it was clarified that you cannot lay your horse in either. Alternatively, I don't see a problem with you having a saver in a photo or enquiry. The race is over. You cannot influence the outcome unless you nobble the judge. It's not as if you can tell the horse to get a little closer so you can get better odds on the other horse in the photo. just to be sure you maximise your return.
No, rules are clear.....the interpretation of those rules can be ambiguous. Hence, worked examples would be useful but then again, this backs people into a corner when they actually like ambiguity!! If ya know what I mean!!
Shadow Leader
At the Start
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 9,884
A lot of the BHA rules concerning owners/inside information etc have holes in them that you could drive a bus through. As my last trainer was always gleeful to point out, under the latest inside information rules, he was forbidden to tell me or discuss with me (as an owner in the yard) how the horse of another owner had worked that morning. However seeing as it was me working said owner's horse......:blink:
Last edited:
Here is article. It was actually all horses of trainers he had horses with.
BHA (or at least the BHA under Roy and Coward) is an absolute joke.
Findlay: BHA cleared me to lay my trainers' horses
By Lee Motterhsead 11:50AM 14 JUN 2010
HARRY FINDLAY has alleged that the BHA had given him special dispensation to lay horses in the care of his own trainers, as he singled out the organisation's headsPaul Roy and Nic Coward as the reasons behind his intention not to return to ownership in Britain.
Findlay made his comments in a letter to the Racing Post, in which he reacted to the six-month warning-off handed to him by the BHA on Friday.
The panel's verdict came following an investigation into the owner-gambler's laying of one of his own horses, Gullible Gordon, on two occasions.
Findlay, whose horses run in the name of his mother Maggie, has declared his intention to appeal against the penalty, which would prevent him visiting racecourses or running any of his horses.
In the letter, Findlay alleges BHA rules should have prevented him from laying stablemates of his own horses, but that the sport's regulator, confident in his integrity, allowed him to do so.
Findlay writes: "When I first bought horses for my mum, I went to the BHA and explained that, for betting integrity purposes, they should consider the horses to be my own. I gave them my Betfair account details and phone numbers, and explained that all my betting on horses was conducted on Betfair.
"By the time this inquiry started, the rules regarding the laying of horses by owners whose own horses are trained from within the same yard had changed. No longer could I lay the likes of Kauto Star, Big Buck's or any horse trained by, for example, Nicholls or Moore.
"However, because of my exemplary relationship with the BHA and Betfair authorities, it was agreed that I could carry on laying such horses. To this day, I am still allowed to do so. (Perhaps the fact that I was over £700,000 down on my Paul Nicholls lay bets had something to do with that decision.)"
Singling out BHA chairman Roy and chief executive Coward for criticism, Findlay adds: "For as long as Paul Roy and Nic Coward are at the top table in racing, we have absolutely no desire for any of our horses to run as a protest at the lack of respect they both have afforded me over the last couple of years regarding this case."
BHA (or at least the BHA under Roy and Coward) is an absolute joke.
Findlay: BHA cleared me to lay my trainers' horses
By Lee Motterhsead 11:50AM 14 JUN 2010
HARRY FINDLAY has alleged that the BHA had given him special dispensation to lay horses in the care of his own trainers, as he singled out the organisation's headsPaul Roy and Nic Coward as the reasons behind his intention not to return to ownership in Britain.
Findlay made his comments in a letter to the Racing Post, in which he reacted to the six-month warning-off handed to him by the BHA on Friday.
The panel's verdict came following an investigation into the owner-gambler's laying of one of his own horses, Gullible Gordon, on two occasions.
Findlay, whose horses run in the name of his mother Maggie, has declared his intention to appeal against the penalty, which would prevent him visiting racecourses or running any of his horses.
In the letter, Findlay alleges BHA rules should have prevented him from laying stablemates of his own horses, but that the sport's regulator, confident in his integrity, allowed him to do so.
Findlay writes: "When I first bought horses for my mum, I went to the BHA and explained that, for betting integrity purposes, they should consider the horses to be my own. I gave them my Betfair account details and phone numbers, and explained that all my betting on horses was conducted on Betfair.
"By the time this inquiry started, the rules regarding the laying of horses by owners whose own horses are trained from within the same yard had changed. No longer could I lay the likes of Kauto Star, Big Buck's or any horse trained by, for example, Nicholls or Moore.
"However, because of my exemplary relationship with the BHA and Betfair authorities, it was agreed that I could carry on laying such horses. To this day, I am still allowed to do so. (Perhaps the fact that I was over £700,000 down on my Paul Nicholls lay bets had something to do with that decision.)"
Singling out BHA chairman Roy and chief executive Coward for criticism, Findlay adds: "For as long as Paul Roy and Nic Coward are at the top table in racing, we have absolutely no desire for any of our horses to run as a protest at the lack of respect they both have afforded me over the last couple of years regarding this case."
EC1
On a break
you make me laugh Luke..rules is rules brigade..what are you then?..have none at all brigade?..have only those that suit my heroes [drool] brigade
EC1
On a break
that last few sentences shows what an arrogant person he is..and we have folk fawning over him here:blink:
what a hero you got yourself Luke :lol:
EC1
On a break
lighten up a bit - i'm only joshing with him..its banter for goodness sake
EC1
On a break
they may be long winded - but the basic premis is you don't lay your own horse
don't forget..if you had your way...they would be even more long winded than they are..allowance for this ..allowance for that etc
reading that piece it seems to blows out of the water his suggestion he accidentally laid a horse..he seems to accidentaly lay quite a lot by the looks of it
If the BHA gave him dispensation against a rule, then they need to be held accountable for that decision and explain why. Everyone should play by the same rules. I didn't realise that the rules caught laying other peoples horses in the yard. Clearly it didn't help HF!!
If he claims the BHA gave him dispensation against a rule he'll have to prove it, otherwise he's being at best very naive, and at worst malicious.
If he can prove his claims - a very big if - the implications are very serious for the credibility of the BHA.
If he can prove his claims - a very big if - the implications are very serious for the credibility of the BHA.
Irish Stamp
Forum Moderator
Given the events of recent months with the RFC debacle, pratting around the flat "narrative", the various intances of corruption and now this I'd have to ask "what credibility?"
G-G
Senior Jockey
Someone at the BHA recently told me I could one thing with no come back at all as I had absolute right to do it: they have told another party that I was in the wrong and had no right to do what I did. It is now in the hands of lawyers. When I told my lawyer what the person at the BHA had said it was met with the response, 'as if they would know'.