Nicky Henderson Found Guilty

There is an innocence about it-I'd say it
never occured to him that he was doing anything contrary to the rules.I know ignorance of the law can never be an excuse and it will be interesting to see how this one plays out.
 
I don't think there's so much innocence about it, Luke, although I understand what you mean - to me, it's a return to the old boys' school attitude which is so beloved of National Hunt types. If it were 'Arry, 'e'd a' been done mate, yeah, knowoddimean? But because we've got three public school types (and Waley-Cohen is the son of a Baronet, I believe) all chuckling richly into their tweeds over the Courvoisier, yok-yok, it's all just a jolly wheeze.

Poor old Racing for Change: why not just call it Le Plus C'a Change and be done with it?
 
Last edited:
According to the Daily Mail the bet was rather chunky, at £1,000. Surely it is a breach of the rules.
 
Grey said:
According to the Daily Mail the bet was rather chunky, at £1,000. Surely it is a breach of the rules.
Click to expand...

I think I heard the interview where he called it an insurance policy - i am no huge fan and I think he probably placed the bet in all innocence but he is sure to get in hot water over this. Is it quite the same as laying your own horses though? If you were to back the field against RTB in the bumper Grey, could that be construed as laying your own horse or just insuring yourself against something going wrong? That's the crux of this.
 
John Magnier had ten grand on Secreto at 16s when he beat El Gran Senor in Derby as an insurance policy.Like Henderson his best interests were in losing the bet.
 
The offence for which Harry Findlay was warned off was laying one of his horses. The amount for which he laid it was a lot less than the amount he stood to gain if it won. Nevertheless he was punished, and although the punishment was reduced the verdict did not change.

The principle laid down in this recent and high profile case is that persons connected to a horse must not back against it. Laying your own horse, or backing others to beat it, amount to the same thing and presumably, therefore, neither are permitted.
 
Last edited:
To have a bet on no winners is in effect laying your horse surely. I have a share in 2 horses with him and to say i think he is a plank is an understatement.
 
Ardross said:
It is rather foolish but from readinghis copy Charles Sale comes across a complete arse .
Click to expand...

I agree with you there, but the regular racing media are leaving the field open to him.

What was Binocular doing in Ireland anyway? Was there a special deal on Ryanair?
 
I haven't seen any other source that suggested Binocular went back to Ireland again . Indeed I am sure I read in one of those accounts of the Cheltenham previews that he had not been back there .

All the evidence points to cock up rather than conspiracy as far as I can see .
 
Now that you mention it, I haven't seen any other source suggesting a trip by Binocular to Ireland either. What Sale says on the subject is that the BHA is investigating claims that Henderson "sent the horse to Ireland for treatment last week as he is also reported to have done the previous year in the build-up to his Champion Hurdle win", so it's right to be cautious.

All the evidence points to cock up rather than conspiracy as far as I can see
Click to expand...

Perhaps Henderson's carry-on is not conspiracy, but I don't think it's as harmless as the term cock-up might imply.

Injecting a horse on the day of a race to prevent bleeding goes against one of the more important principles of European racing, that there should be no use of artificial aids to performance for the sake of the breed in the long term. The vet involved has been struck off for the time being by his professional body. Chaotic record keeping conveniently helped to conceal serious breaches of the rules.
 
Ardross, if you look at some of Sale's other stuff, there's no doubt he enjoys pot-stirring, but, at the same time, he seems to have produced facts along with his (probably faked) indignance.

I'd have thought bunging a grand on to not come up with a winner from your runners was the same as laying them, too. But nothing will come of it, as it was just a gentleman's little joke with his chums, wasn't it? An utterly harmless public school jape. One of our contributors has suggested elsewhere that since his wife departed, having been the business head of the outfit, NH has been far from businesslike, and all of these bizarre actions would seem to support that notion.
 
Last edited:
Charles Sale is a top columnist, and has been recognised as such with numerous awards he has won. Proper investigative journalist who is always worth reading.
 
Well, Kauto and plenty of others on here would know NH better than me - I've not spoken to him for years but used to have a bit to do with him when I worked for my old boss as they were pretty good muckers. He always gave me the impression he wasn't too bright back then - amiable, full of charm etc but bright ? No. It was me that suggested maybe the brains behind running the place was his ex wife, as most of the controversy surrounding him seems to have started with her disappearance but that's only a guess.

But to publicly state you'd had a bet against losing every race is just plain stupid and why Edward Gillespie is suddenly an authority on what is and is not acceptable under the Rules of Racing beggars belief - there's another one who's head is so far up his backside you'd think he'd have trouble getting to work.
 
Bobbyjo said:
Charles Sale is a top columnist, and has been recognised as such with numerous awards he has won. Proper investigative journalist who is always worth reading.
Click to expand...

His writing strikes me as faux indignant as K points out - his reference to the Keys/Gray sex discrimination issues at Sky as " political correctness " says it all .
 
it's completely different to stopping & laying a horse. the prize money on offer, is far greater than that he stood to win from the bet. The way i see it is an insurance bet. If they have a poor Cheltenham, hes 16k up. Silver lining and all that...
 
jft2005 said:
it's completely different to stopping & laying a horse. the prize money on offer, is far greater than that he stood to win from the bet. The way i see it is an insurance bet. If they have a poor Cheltenham, hes 16k up. Silver lining and all that...
Click to expand...
Indeed but the BHA set a precedent with Harry Findlay who also stood to win a lot more had the horses won.

I'm not certain what the trainers percentage is in the Grand Annual but what would have happened if it'd been less than £16,000 - then he'd stand to win more if his runners got beat than if any of them had won.

As for OTB's comment about backing all the other runners in a race I believe that would be the same as laying your horse - in both cases your staking a certain amount and win money if your horse gets beat and lose money if he/she wins.
 
CP, I don't think it's an act, he's always reminded me of that Harry Enfield character.

Henderson is a classic example of what can be "achieved" in racing by someone without any noticeable brains or talent, but who's got the right Mummy and Daddy.

He's clearly as dozy as they come, but he seems amiable enough with his typical public school patina of charm, has all the right connections, has been able to hire good head lads (lasses) and feed men (women) over the years, and has more than enough money to maintain the yard and gallops.

There have always been plenty like him knocking around in the sport.
 
The simple difference is surely that Henderson did not lay any of his horses .

Do the rules prohibit an owner or trainer making any form of positive bet even if it is a bet that you will not have any winners?
 
Back
Top