Findlay Warned off for 6mths

I think Ardross is right, HF made life more difficult for himself by not being professionally represented at the first hearing. And the noise he made after it could easily have antagonised the establishment types that conducted the appeal hearing into upholding the original sentence.
 
I honestly don't know who does make up the appeal hearing - does anyone on here ? Let alone how they vote, what their status and income is.. There are many, many people now who own horses, are on a few committess etc who aren't 'establishment' types - shocking news though that is.

What exactly are 'establishment' types anyway ? Privately educated ? University educated ? Incomes of £100K plus ? Aristos ? Talk with a certain type of accent ?

Unless you actually know those on the appeal committee personally, it's really quite a judgement to say they may or may not have been 'antagonised' by Mr Findlay and Mrs Findlay's comments. I'm not saying they were or weren't but it could equally be argued the other way too.

I certainly agree with the legal representation issue, which again supports the premise that money will always talk for you, if you can't do it properly yourself!
 
Establishment types are keen to support the institution and are at their most comfortable when they have a set of rules that can be applied with some consistency. They mostly prefer factual arguments to emotive pleas and dislike seeing their peers being dragged unnecessarily into the limelight by anyone hoping to bolster a case. They are generally prepared to see mistakes rectified, provided it can be done without dragging down the institution in the process and provided it can be done with as little disturbance as possible.
 
Cantoris said:
I meant the piece where they said

"the particular circumstances of this case which obviously should not be regarded as a precedent by anyone covered by the Rule, contemplating a betting strategy involving lay betting"

how can it not be considered a precedent. So if someone else does the same thing tomorrow, they cannot use this Appeal Board's decision as the starting point of any defence? What a cop out. this must have been put in to keep the BHA happy. Essentially they are saying the BHA was wrong in it's punishment but that the rule is not wrong and any punishment in the future might be worse than this.
Click to expand...

The Appeals Board are making it very clear . HF's fine is not a precedent as it has been substantially reduced to take account of the fact he had been warned off for a month . It is not for the AB to comment on the rule and whether it is wrong or right .
 
The BHA is an establishment, as was the Jockey Club before it. It draws up the Rules of Racing and oversees the integrity of racing. In matters of ruling, why not have on board retired judges, ex-captains of industry (with or without accents) - people who know how to objectively consider issues and arrive at balanced and legal conclusions? What else would you want to have?
 
Ardross said:
It is not for the AB to comment on the rule and whether it is wrong or right .
Click to expand...

Agree with you that they cannot change the rule, but the penalty paremeters are clearly set now by them. Just as the Supreme Court rulings outweigh High Court rulings and create precedents, the Appeals Board decision has huge implications for the future. Anyone who receives more than a months ban and a fine in excess of what they won will be able to, rightly in my view, successfully appeal. There would be no way the Appeals Board could suddenly turn around and endorse a six month ban given the HF case.
 
Cantoris said:
Agree with you that they cannot change the rule, but the penalty paremeters are clearly set now by them. Just as the Supreme Court rulings outweigh High Court rulings and create precedents, the Appeals Board decision has huge implications for the future. Anyone who receives more than a months ban and a fine in excess of what they won will be able to, rightly in my view, successfully appeal. There would be no way the Appeals Board could suddenly turn around and endorse a six month ban given the HF case.
Click to expand...

The task for the Appeals Board or Disciplinary Panel will be to determine a proportionate sentence .

If a case was similar to that of HF I agree you would be unlikely to see a 6 month ban because it is disproportionate not because of precedent

The likely punishment would be a hefty fine on top of the confiscation of the profit which is what the AB suggested ought to have been the penalty in HF's case
 
For what it's worth, I've asked the Irish Owners Association to get a clear and detailed position from the Turf Club on what exactly Irish owners are allowed to do. The HF case is one, but also bookies who own horses and a few other cases that have been highlighted here.
 
J Alfred Prufrock said:
It is VERY tempting to put this to the test, and to ask a few stewards, trainers and BHA security staff whether, for instance, I can back against my horse, whether my partner can lay my horse, whether I can lay a horse in my stable, back against a horse in my stable (of which I have been occasionally "guilty", through inattention more than malice) or whatever. I would be astonished if I got correct answers from everyone.

Instead, I have written to the ROA asking whether they feel any imperative to assist new owners on this matter.

Incidentally, while I joined the ROA voluntarily, I do not like the cut of their jib in many respects. Refusal to join the ROA should not make you a second-rate owner or cut you off from advice that is needed by you as an owner.
Click to expand...

An update on this. I got a quick and constructive response from the ROA saying that they thought I had a point and that they would be taking up with Paul Scotney at the BHA the possible need for better instruction of new and existing owners as to constraints on their gambling.

Meanwhile, my query directly to the BHA, through the rules section of their site, as to whether I would be allowed to back the other runner in a match bet against a horse I owned has been met with total silence.
 
You've stunned them, JAP! But it's very good that, out of this debacle, the ROA and the BHA might get their acts together and ensure that rulings are understandable to all, and that the little subtleties are also covered. Well done to you, Cantoris and JAP, for raising useful questions.
 
I read now Paul Nicholls is not doing his column in the Racing Post anymore - as a result of the RP misquoting him in regard to the Findlay matter I presume?
 
Galileo said:
as a result of the RP misquoting him in regard to the Findlay matter I presume?
Click to expand...

Journalists misquoting a trainer......never :lol:

I know Colm has been through something similar and he's livid when they blatantly misquote him. He just tells them what they want to hear now. The old O'Brien line "he's ready to start again". Say nothing more than that. Can't be misquoted.
 
I don't blame Paul at all, he can't win, if he says nothing people are suspicious, if he says lots people think he is lying and whatever he says everyone has their own take on it, not least those who print half of it only! I would guess he is just fed up with trying to please too many people, and that would include owners, the press, punters and readers.

It may be profitable to be at the top, but it's probably also quite a lot of work and stress.
 
Couldn't agree more EC - all you had to do was back those he said can't win, and lay his 'bankers' and you were up a fortune ... :D
 
i never read it but heard people say he was pretty good - refreshing to read such honesty etc - must have heard wrong- sounds like it won't be any loss then.
 
The column was excellent. I didnt follow it slavishly but he certainly gave some good pointers which may not have been considered otherwise.

Its the nature of those involved in what im increasingly finding a charmless "sport", that attention will always be focused on his predictions that didnt come out the way some expected

The alternative is the fck you PR of Dick Hern
 
Last edited:
Mark Johnston also had a column which he found after a while to be a lot more trouble than it was worth.
 
Last edited:
Nicholls is writing for Betfair now - and getting paid plenty for it by all accounts. Can't see how Betfair will be recouping that money through increased activity - seems like they are just paying for the pleasure of pi**ing on the RP's parade...
 
It would be interesting if Betfair were ever to go down the print route ... their writers are many, many levels above what the RP offer, and lets hope some of them write more regularly, or even daily in the very near future..
 
Some of the blogs on Betfair are indeed very good (if you can find them), but the layout, linking and promotion of the whole betting.betfair site has been appalling imo - I genuinely feel sorry for the contributors.

Betfair will be completely wasting their time and money on Nicholls unless they get considerably up their game in this respect.
 
Back
Top