Findlay Warned off for 6mths

I think Paul's silence on this matter shows class and a brain. He is very loyal to his friends, owners, jockeys, and always tries to do the best for everyone, which is a massive juggling act, of course. Harry is behaving like a spoilt brat.

Reminds me of the Ferguson/Coolmore Rock mess.

It is sad for racing and nothing changes .....
 
EC1 said:
what an arrogant mardy c**k

i can't believe people were sticking up for him tbh

Nichols is well rid - he's better of without the Terry Ramsden alike.
Click to expand...

To be fair, I think most people were sticking up for the principles of justice, especially in terms of the sentence awarded, rather than for the arrogant, mardy c**k himself.
 
This from this month's edition of TB Owner & Breeder, by Andrew Black (owner and co-founder of Betfair):

"Betfair has always shared betting information with the regulator (the BHA). I am no longer involved in the day-to-day running of Betfair, although there was a time when I dealt with all the integrity issues personally. In the recent case involving Harry Findlay... Betfair provided the BHA with certain details of Harry's betting, as it is required to do under its Gambling Commission licence. Following Harry's 6-month ban, Betfair made critical comments stating that it considered the punishment "disproportionate", a statement which in itself attracted a certain amount of criticism.

On a personal level, I have a little "previous" in stirring up integrity issues - I once took a stand on my Blog against Ballydoyle, concerning their use of pacemakers. There was an eventual inquiry and a guilty verdict was reached. The punishment (a £5,000 fine) was immaterial and it was accompanied by a statement that could be described only as an apology.

Racing opinion was split when Nicky Henderson faced an enquiry on an equine drugs charge - he received a £40,000 fine and a 3-month summer ban. These serve as interesting comparables.

In Harry's case, he appears to have done nothing to alter the course of the race and, in the significant instance, he had a hefty win position at all times. He reduced his liability a little during the race, but since his horse ran out an easy winner it cost him money. It is noteworthy that he could have achieved the same position entirely legally by backing the remaining horses in the race. One has to question a rule which holds a position illegal that can be re-represented in a way that is entirely legal.

I've never liked the rule. I was on the original committee that drafted it and I didn't like it then. Like my comrades at Betfair, I find the punishment disproportionate. What we should all do is aim to create a rule that is fair and workable in an evolving world.

The BHA desperately wants to broaden the appeal of racing and the Racing for Change initiative is here to show us the way. In my early days at Betfair, I had a motto that I used a lot: 'look after the customer and the rest will come'. In recent times, Betfair has invested large and increasing amounts of money and resources in customer relationship management - understanding your customer and keeping him happy. (Is it just me - or is this an unfettered plug for his business?)

I'm not sure who the BHA believes is its primary customer, but I suggest it should be punters and racegoers - the consumers of racing's product. Look after them and the rest will come. I don't see Bens and Brians as RFC does. They're all Harrys to me. Rich Harrys, poor Harrys, young and old Harrys, male and female Harrys, and the BHA needs to help racing to engage with all of them. They need empathy and, when required, humility - not perhaps qualities one would look for in a regulator, but all these different hats make for a confusing picture.

Harry Findlay isn't perfect but he matters to racing and I believe he should have been looked after better an earlier stage. The relationship was not being managed as it should have been. If we can't look after this Harry, then I don't hold out much hope for the rest of them."

-------------------

Apart from copping a large free advertisement for Betfair - and as I'm not a customer, I've no idea how wonderful its relationship is with them - any thoughts on this? It looks like a bit of white-man-speaks-with-forked-tongue to me. Black's on the committee which made the rule, but he claims not to have liked it. Why, then, be on a committee which passes rules you think are unfair and misleading? As for all those Harrys - I'm not sure I see an old, poor Harry being a customer of Betfair or racing in general, and as for 'looking after' Harry Findlay - he's got a Mummy, and a very staunchly supportive one at that. I don't think that the BHA's role is to play Nanny to racing's owners - he was shown the rules at the end of 2008, remember, and treated like a fairly sensible and sentient human being. If he's decided to behave like a very naughty boy, I don't see it's up to the BHA to just stick him on the naughty step in the hope that he'll be good afterwards. I also don't care for Black's squirming round the fact that Betfair is a major player in squealing on dodgy-looking patterns in betting - the organisation is behind most of the warned-off dodgepots currently on the 'Do Not Admit' lists at racecourses, so if he doesn't like some of the rules, and finds himself compromised by Betfair's policing tactics, maybe he'd be better off with a chain of florists' shops.
 
Last edited:
Isinglass said:
I think Paul's silence on this matter shows class and a brain. He is very loyal to his friends, owners, jockeys, and always tries to do the best for everyone, which is a massive juggling act, of course. Harry is behaving like a spoilt brat.

QUOTE]

Apart from anything else, Nicholls can afford to keep quiet.
Click to expand...
 
Isinglass said:
I think Paul's silence on this matter shows class and a brain. He is very loyal to his friends, owners, jockeys, and always tries to do the best for everyone, which is a massive juggling act, of course. Harry is behaving like a spoilt brat.

Reminds me of the Ferguson/Coolmore Rock mess.

It is sad for racing and nothing changes .....
Click to expand...

Would the silence have anything to do with Andy Stewart being a bigger fish in the yard and his close relationship with Paul Roy.
 
For sure there are 'gambling yards', but that wouldn't mean they'd be up to breaking rules, if that's what's implied. I think we need to be a bit careful of making slurs against the yards. And why should Paul Nicholls have had to have pronounced on one of his owner's activities, right/wrong/misunderstood? He's there to train their horses, not to nanny what they do in the betting world. If Mary Findlay thinks he should've publicly supported her son, she's confusing him with an agent or spin doctor. That's not his job, and it wouldn't have endeared him to the BHA to have done anything other than keep a low profile, out of the policies and politics.

Paul Roy is Andy Stewart's CEO at Cenkos Securities, which sponsors a nice race at Plumpton, for one thing or two. The connection is straightforward and public enough if one looks at Cenkos's website. Nicholls would, I imagine, prefer to keep onside as a very wealthy patron with a good financial track record, and I also imagine (since I've no proof!) that Stewart might've advised him to keep his head down, regardless of any loyalties otherwise to Findlay.

Roy - head of BHA, CEO of Cenkos, retained by Stewart. Nicholls - trainer to Stewart, abides by BHA rules. It's a no-brainer when you look at it. (And for those who have trouble with their Pauls - Roy/BHA, Dixon/Chairman of the ROA, aka Racehorse Owners' Association and a fair owner/breeder.) Roy - strait-faced, bookish-looking; Dixon - man mountain, hospitable, laughs a lot when not railing at poxy prize money.
 
Last edited:
Luke - look at the markets for the two trainers in question and look at HF's various recent convictions it's a very slippery slope.
 
Last edited:
I follow Betfair markets very closely and a lot of HF's horses are seriously overbet.
If you have something to say-say it-don't be making snide comments.
 
Andrew Black is trying to lead the army ("my comrades") to glorious victory. If HF is successful in his appeal and it results in a change in the rule to allow Findlay to lay his horses, surely that just helps Betfair as it means more transactions and more profit. Furthermore, it muddies the waters which is what Betfair wants. Can someone please find Andrew Black's public comment that he was against the rule from the outset? I'd say a public comment doesn't exist as Betfair wanted to be seen as the good boys. IMO they are happy to find the big stories (Findlay, Fallon etc) so that people think they are doing a 100% job on integrity. Whether they are, I'm not convinced. But it suits Betfair to carry on the way they are.
 
You will no doubt be familiar with the market moves on Tim Vaughan and Ferdy Murphy's horses then too Luke and how it looks to have a big gambler with close connections to the yard.
 
I am just pointing out the facts Luke - a high profile owner convicted of laying his own horses has moved two of his horses to yards which are associated with large drifts and subsequent poor performances from the horses who drift.

Quite what Paul Nicholls was expected to do as Champion Trainer when one of his owners is convicted of wrong doing under the rules of racing is anyone's guess - he can hardly be expected to say that there was nothing in it and HF should be allowed to continue laying PN's horses. I wouldn't be surprised if Nicholls asked HF to remove his horses from the yard.

Another question that needs asking is did PN know that Harry Findlay was laying his horses?

I'm sure if he didn't he wouldn't be overly pleased with the bad publicity.
 
J Alfred Prufrock said:
It is in the quote posted by krizon above, which appeared in this month's Thoroughbred Owner & Breeder. Paragraph starting "I've never liked the rule..."
Click to expand...

I was wondering if Black ever made a public statement at the time the original rule was made or is he just after-timing now because it suits him.
 
Christ why didnt he put them with Pipe?
At least the gambles would have been very high profile and he would have been the punters pal....and they probably would have won
 
Irish Stamp said:
I am just pointing out the facts Luke - a high profile owner convicted of laying his own horses has moved two of his horses to yards which are associated with large drifts and subsequent poor performances from the horses who drift.

Quite what Paul Nicholls was expected to do as Champion Trainer when one of his owners is convicted of wrong doing under the rules of racing is anyone's guess - he can hardly be expected to say that there was nothing in it and HF should be allowed to continue laying PN's horses. I wouldn't be surprised if Nicholls asked HF to remove his horses from the yard.

Another question that needs asking is did PN know that Harry Findlay was laying his horses?

I'm sure if he didn't he wouldn't be overly pleased with the bad publicity.
Click to expand...

While HF may not come out of the affair smelling of roses, I'm surprised by your innuendo Martin (it certainly isn't stating facts as Luke has pointed out). His crimes have nothing to do with laying suspicious drifters or generally orchestrating gambles on previous non-triers, and he made it clear when first getting involved with the yard that he was doing it for the information that he could get from the trainer. Nicholls has been well aware that his horses have been laid openly by HF for some time, and has happily passed on information about horses he thinks won't win. Unfortunately for Mr Findlay, PN turns out to be a much worse judge of the betting market than he is a trainer.
 
Except that Nicholls - open about all his horses publicly, it's said again and again - isn't going to agree openly and publicly that he'd known all along that HF was laying his own horses, is he? That would start to whiff a bit, wouldn't it?
 
I agree Rory he wasn't convicted of laying his horses for profit were they to lose (that's a fact) but the two stables he has moved his horses too aren't exactly squeaky clean in my experience of the betting markets - particularly around the off and as someone who appears to the public at least to have a somewhat iffy record (for whatever reason).

HF stated previously that he'd layed horses from the PN yard in the past (I believe it's quoted from a newspaper article earlier in this thread) and as far as I know I've yet to see a truly suspicious drift (one that could not at least be put down to something such as poor form, ground, jockey booking etc) whilst there have been a number from the Murphy yard.

I'm not saying HF would lay them but the stables he's moving his horses to are both stables were the Betfair graph will provide a very good guide of what to expect from the horse. HF is a big player on Betfair we're led to believe and as per the reports from the inquiry had some financial difficulties around this time, due in part to the way that he bets I presume (large bets on odds-on favourites). Given HF's track record and seeming belief that it was ok to lay horses from his yard in breach of the BHA regulations as someone told him it was (allegedly) I'm yet to be convinced he wouldn't do so again.

This story all comes in light of one of some funny goings on at Newton Abbott yesterday - racing is certainly cleaning its act up.
 
Back
Top