Findlay Warned off for 6mths

He's group placed (beaten 1/2 length by a Group 1 placer) - having performed well in an open aged group race that makes him a group horse to me.
 
Last edited:
The Diomed is one of the worst Group 3's on the calender. Show me a handicapper rated 100+ that wouldn't be placed in a normal renewal. Beauchamp Xerxes wasn't that far behind and that horse is the epitomy of a handicapper going nowhere.
 
Beauchamp Xerxes had won a listed race on his previous start and was only beaten 4 lengths in another Group 3 last time out but I agree the Diomed on the whole is a poor Group 3 but then if it were traditionally a strong race there'd be calls for it to be upgraded.
 
on what I have read, I dont know what H Findlay has done wrong


about Nicholls and Barber
I dont know why they had interest in having horses with findlay and they have profit this to leave him.
 
Why should Nicholls be out banging the drum for him in public ?

His attack on the BHA - suggesting he had been given a nod and a wink to lay horses seems rather far fetched to me . It strikes me as much more likely that there has been a misunderstanding between Mr Findlay and them .

On his appeal - I have already made my views clear . The penalty strikes me as disproportionate.
 
sunybay said:
on what I have read, I dont know what H Findlay has done wrong


about Nicholls and Barber
I dont know why they had interest in having horses with findlay and they have profit this to leave him.
Click to expand...

Breaking it down -what has HF done that is wrong and how much has he benefitted.
 
This could go on ...... and on.

Whether you agree that what he did was wrong does not seem to me to be the problem , the problem is that it is against the rules of racing which all owners, esp the big ones ought to know about. You get mailed about them often enough. Maybe Harry needs a racing manager!

I still think his behavior is questionable after the 'offense', he is not rational, and has not done himself any favours spouting off at the press and claiming the BHA gave him special treatment. Talk about alienating other owners ......

It is unreasonable to expect Paul Nicholls to come out against what has happened. It's not a big betting yard, it's a winning one, and Harry is most likely much better off elsewhere.

He may win his appeal, but I doubt it very much. What is more likely is that the rules may get looked at, at some point and altered for the future.
 
You get mailed about them often enough.
Click to expand...

Could you explain?

As someone who fairly recently became an owner, I am not aware of ever having been mailed about restrictions that are now placed on my betting. Much less was this drawn to my attention, with a requirement of my acknowledgement of these new constraints, at the time I became an owner.
 
Are you registered as an owner with Weatherbys?

If so, you should have received a mailing on the subject, spelling out the rules in unequivocal terms.
 
J Alfred Prufrock said:
Could you explain?

As someone who fairly recently became an owner, I am not aware of ever having been mailed about restrictions that are now placed on my betting. Much less was this drawn to my attention, with a requirement of my acknowledgement of these new constraints, at the time I became an owner.
Click to expand...

Don't lay your horse to win loads. After that your fine.
 
In my shortish tenure as a registered owner at Weatherby's, I received a lot of post, but like Pru, I don't believe any part of the thousands of pages of it mentioned anything whatsoever about what the rules were on betting restrictions which would apply to me as a registered owner. Perhaps I would have received a telegram on the morning of my first entry warning me not to play silly buggers.

This is a good point. Aside from the fact that someone like Harry Findlay should know what the rules are, and let's look past that for the moment, there isn't actually a coherently constructed set of rules for owners regarding betting on and against horses. There are some very clear rules. There are also some fairly clear guidelines. Where an owner should find these isn't always immediately clear.
 
michael_o said:
Are you registered as an owner with Weatherbys?

If so, you should have received a mailing on the subject, spelling out the rules in unequivocal terms.
Click to expand...

Yes, I am.

While I may have received something, I am not AWARE of having received something, and I certainly was not asked to ACKNOWLEDGE that I had received something and that I understood what my obligations now are.

I find it astonishing that there is nothing comparable to terms and conditions, that need to be signed off, when you become an owner.

Without such a process, it would be possible for an owner to plead ignorance of the restrictions on their behaviour (that is seemingly not the case with Findlay, obviously).
 
Many of the points raised above are perfectly logical and acceptable about why the rule maybe wrong but it's a bit of a case of bolting the door after, etc! The rules were there. If you read them and didn't like the look of them, you either decide not to become an owner or you lobby hard to change them and/or the penalties tat can be meted out.

It's called democracy. In the meantime, the status quo holds and you have to abide by the rules.

Findlay has an appeal lodged, as is his right. Until that has been heard, he should put up and shut up - and so should his close connections.
 
When you register as an owner, you automatically sign yourself up to the Rules of Racing and all that goes with it. It is your responsibility as an owner to ensure you know the rules. It is, of course, very helpful if the authorities remind owners of this every now and again.
 
Cantoris said:
When you register as an owner, you automatically sign yourself up to the Rules of Racing and all that goes with it. It is your responsibility as an owner to ensure you know the rules. It is, of course, very helpful if the authorities remind owners of this every now and again.
Click to expand...

The BHA's policy of expecting owners to wade through their badly constructed and horrendously complicated Rule Book, without guidance and without any attempt to establish that the relevant points have been located, read and understood, is an abdication of responsibility of which they should be ashamed.

As an example, I would be justified in thinking from the link to the rule posted by Gareth Flynn that that was the end of the matter. Therefore, it should be okay for me to lay horses owned by others in a stable in which I myself own a horse, as that is not mentioned in that rule.

However, if you look (and look, and look) elsewhere in the rules there is guidance to the contrary.
 
If you search for the word "laying" you get 6 results, one of which is the one linked above, and the other of which is:

http://newrules.britishhorseracing.com/Orders-and-rules&staticID=126782&single=1&fromsearch=1

Those two results are clearly prefixed as being part of the "Horse & Owner Manual".

The other four results come from the General Manual, the Rider Manual and the Trainer Manual.

Is it that much to expect that prospective Owners read the Horse & Owner Manual?

Since when is ignorance of the rules an excuse?
 
To be honest, I'd have thought that it was just common sense, without the need to read through anything, that if you're an owner and you're backing your own horses to lose, it just looks dodgy. The Rules of Racing don't say anything about not giving your horse a Mars Bar :) before a race as a treat, either, but if it's found to have theobromine in its system, your trainer picks up a fine for it having ingested a banned substance.

None of us who have owned or currently own a horse will have read through all the RoR, I'm sure, but enough is picked up by osmosis around racing people, if nothing else. We can't visit our horses in the racecourse stables, for instance, but surely we're not so thick we'd need the RoR to say we can't? True, we should be stopped by stable security staff, but most people just understand they're not free to wander at will. With someone with a heavy lifetime commitment to gambling like Harry Findlay, it's a wee stretch of the imagination to think he'd need to read through the RoR to know if he could back his horses to lose or not. :lol:
 
Since when is ignorance of the rules an excuse?
Click to expand...

As a matter of interest, why do you think the BHA bothers with an online tutorial covering inside information but not with one about what constraints are placed on you as a result of becoming an owner?

Do you think it is because - in this instance but seemingly not in others - they regard "ignorance of the rules" as something they have a responsibility to address themselves?
 
J Alfred Prufrock said:
As a matter of interest, why do you think the BHA bothers with an online tutorial covering inside information but not with one about what constraints are placed on you as a result of becoming an owner?

Do you think it is because - in this instance but seemingly not in others - they regard "ignorance of the rules" as something they have a responsibility to address themselves?
Click to expand...

Of course they have an interest and a responsibility to ensure that people involved in the sport know the rules. But that surely doesn't unburden anyone of their own responsibility to learn the rules of the game they're playing?
 
J Alfred Prufrock said:
If you search for the word "backing" there are no returns. Therefore, I am safe to imagine that I could have £10k on a rival in a match bet with my horse. Is that correct? Or is that covered somewhere else?
Click to expand...

I can't see anything stopping you from doing that. You could always ask them for guidance first: rules@britishhorseracing.com. Might be fun to see what the response is!
 
Of course they have an interest and a responsibility to ensure that people involved in the sport know the rules. But that surely doesn't unburden anyone of their own responsibility to learn the rules of the game they're playing?
Click to expand...

I would agree with both points, but would add that I think those who run racing have been found wanting in the former.

I have sent an e-mail regarding the match-bet situation, asking them if it is against the rules, and if so, which rule.
 
Back
Top