Nicky Henderson Found Guilty

Bar the Bull said:
But he did lay all his horses. For a grand as well; not like the fiver than Hen used to do.
Click to expand...

Yes but technically it did not amount to a lay i.e acting as a bookmaker and offering a price . That is why I asked the question as to whether bets which in essence could be regarded as the equivalent of a lay are prohibited ?
 
I like Nicky. However, I think he could be in trouble here.

Those who say he is clueless haven't a clue themselves. He is clearly, despite this and other recent faux pas's, a very VERY talented trainer.
 
Henderson's incessant whinging this year about the handicapper and re-scheduling of races has frankly done my head in and i've gone from liking him to disliking him.

Any claims of ignorance are bollocks - He thinks he was getting round the "laying" issue but I hope he gets done. The recent spate of skullduggery with the vets (He dodged that successfully) has been a bit of a joke and this has got to be the final straw. He's taking the p!ss out of the punters and the authorities and should get it in the neck.

While they are at it can they also get rid of channel 4's racing team? Last week's coverage was absolutely dire I thought.... Whilst I like to watch races back and a review is a valuable thing to be doing 2 minutes looking at the parade and some eyecatchers is barely passable as analysis...
 
Hamm said:
I like Nicky. However, I think he could be in trouble here.

Those who say he is clueless haven't a clue themselves. He is clearly, despite this and other recent faux pas's, a very VERY talented trainer.
Click to expand...

That's not what we're saying though, Hamm. Sorry but you really, really don't have to be a member of Mensa to be a racehorse trainer! It's not a job that actually requires the super intelligent. Which is in its favour, of course, because it's been a very nice option for plenty of folk who may not have been able to excel elsewhere. I am NOT saying only dim people train either - obviously there are some extremely clever trainers outt here who would probably have been successful whatever career path they choose but on the evidence so far, it's in fact the kindest hing you can say about the bloke that he's not super bright. Because if he is, that actually makes him corrupt and culpable.

I also happen to think he's a very good racehorse trainer - particularly with fillies and mares which often sorts the competent from the truly talented - but that doesn't preclude him from being on the intellectually challenged side.
 
Seems clear enough here, he backed against his horse, therefore he has broken the rules. Whether its down to a poor lack of judgement, savy, organisation, or being niave in admitting his actions is irrelevent really, he broke the rules, he should be punished.
 
Does anyone know the answer to whether backing another horse or that you will have no winners prohibited ? It is not the same as laying it !!! . As you are the punter and not the bookmaker for that purpose !
 
Ardross said:
Does anyone know the answer to whether backing another horse or that you will have no winners prohibited ? It is not the same as laying it !!! . As you are the punter and not the bookmaker for that purpose !
Click to expand...

What if its a two horse race, instead of backing your horse you back the other one, are you not in fact laying your own then?? Its the same result.
 
"There are a few pretty strong rumours going around that Binocular was indeed in Ireland a couple of weeks ago."

Wouldn't be that much of a surprise, didn't they send Binocular to Lourdes for his miracle cure last year?:whistle:
 
The BHA have confirmed that no action will be taken against Nicky Henderson following the trainer's revelation that he'd placed a bet on himself saddling no winners at Cheltenham.
Rule (C) 64 of the Rules of Racing states that 'A trainer must not lay with a Betting Organisation any horse under his care or control to lose a race...instruct another Person to do so, or...receive the whole or any part of any proceeds of such a lay.'
Explaining the decision not to punish the trainer, Paul Struthers, Head of Communications for the Authority, said: "Whilst no one has suggested that Nicky Henderson would have wanted to train no winners at the Cheltenham Festival, it is the Authority's view that, if the bet was placed, it was ill-judged and inappropriate.
"Having sought advice, the decision has been taken not to pursue the matter because, as the Rule is currently worded, there is unlikely to have been a breach as there was not any separate lay of each runner.
"That said, we believe that a trainer placing such a bet, however intentioned, is wrong and we will be looking to amend the relevant rules to reflect this."
 
How much would he have won from the bet in comparison to his winnings from Long Run and Bob's Worth?
 
Simon said:
How much would he have won from the bet in comparison to his winnings from Long Run and Bob's Worth?
Click to expand...
or on the flipside how much would he have won on the bet in relation to his small cut of the Grand Annual winnings?

He was £16,000 up if he hadn't trained a winner and had that been the case going into the Grand Annual I can't imagine the trainers percentage is more than £16,000.

Incentive to stop one there surely?
 
Irish Stamp said:
or on the flipside how much would he have won on the bet in relation to his small cut of the Grand Annual winnings?

He was £16,000 up if he hadn't trained a winner and had that been the case going into the Grand Annual I can't imagine the trainers percentage is more than £16,000.

Incentive to stop one there surely?
Click to expand...

IS - do you really think he would sacrifice a Festival winner for £16,000? I can’t see it.

Just playing devil’s advocate – I’m no Henderson fan (the opposite in fact). I just think this whole thing is a storm in a teacup, and certainly no worse than Hen Knight backing Best Mate’s rivals whenever he ran.

To bring class into it (Findlay vs Henderson cases) is also not correct in my opinion – a touch of inverted snobbery perhaps? As Rory points out, Findlay broke a rule whereas tricky Nicky didn’t.
 
BennyB said:
IS - do you really think he would sacrifice a Festival winner for £16,000? I can’t see it.

Just playing devil’s advocate – I’m no Henderson fan (the opposite in fact). I just think this whole thing is a storm in a teacup, and certainly no worse than Hen Knight backing Best Mate’s rivals whenever he ran.

To bring class into it (Findlay vs Henderson cases) is also not correct in my opinion – a touch of inverted snobbery perhaps? As Rory points out, Findlay broke a rule whereas tricky Nicky didn’t.
Click to expand...
It's not a matter of whether he would it's whether anyone would.

If you don't change the rule or make it clear then I'm sure there are trainers out there who would rather take the £16,000 than the £4,000 or so (thinking 10% of the winning prize money) that it would be worth to the trainer - particularly in the current climate.

Martin
 
Glad to hear it - can't believe they didn't look into this when drafting up the laying rules, it just shows how out of touch the powers that be can be.
 
Irish Stamp said:
Glad to hear it - can't believe they didn't look into this when drafting up the laying rules, it just shows how out of touch the powers that be can be.
Click to expand...
Think that's a tad harsh Martin - it's a betting market which rarely exists, and there isn't, in reality, any loophole for the unscrupulous to latch onto.
 
Possibly Rory - but I don't think it would be hard to add a stipulation regarding backing other horses against yours or backing other outcomes against a horse that you own/train.
 
Irish Stamp said:
Possibly Rory - but I don't think it would be hard to add a stipulation regarding backing other horses against yours or backing other outcomes against a horse that you own/train.
Click to expand...
True, but even if the rule was written to specifically disallow that type of bet, Henderson's bet in a speciality market wouldn't have been covered, and the problem with an all-encompassing rule is that it's easy for your clever lawyer-types to find loopholes after the fact.
 
Back
Top