- This topic has 9 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Latest BHA news here –
Owner DQ’d for 18 months for laying horses
Series of trainers late with returns and fined £200 each (does that sort of thing really have to go into the public domain?)
Then, the inriguing one, John O’Callaghan, trainer, fined £1,000 for adminstering ‘Instant Magic’ to one of his horses on the racecourse.
Instant Magic?
Perhaps similar to the EPO style substance I saw advertised on HERE the other day!!!????!!!!!
https://theracingforum.co.uk/horse-racing-forum/post383700.html
Regarding Paul Terry I quote A BHA statement read: "Having considered the evidence, the panel was satisfied that Mr Terry had, on the stated occasions, placed lay bets on his Betfair account on horses in his ownership.
"The panel noted that Mr Terry did not make a profit from placing lay bets on horses that he owned.
"The panel was satisfied that Mr Terry’s intentions were not to manipulate the betting market and alter the price of the horses prior to the races in a bid to gain extra profits.
"The panel accepted an admission from Mr Terry that he was in breach of Rule 247 and Rule (E)92.2 and disqualified him for 18 months from Friday, May 20 2011 until November 19, 2012 inclusive."
My question is how does that differ from the Henderson case where he laid his whole yard ?
I am lost with these now you see it now you don’t decisions.Some people admit their error and get punished, others admit their errors and just walk.I think the rule is flawed . I understand it is there in it’s most basic form and it is clear cut – black and white – you can’t lay your own horse. However if you are just greening up , simply arbing a trade , as long as you remain a net backer , you are not profiting outright from your horse losing. I think the rules should allow for trading and arbitrating then each case can be tried on it’s merits.
Agreed WT. Unless someone stands to actually profit from their horse losing then it seems wrong that they are so harshly punished.
Instant Magic is a magnesium clamer which should be administered about an hour or so before the event the rider requires the horse to be "chilled" for. It can be very effective as it doesn’t take away the competitive edge just the nerves. It is widely used in other equine disciplines such as eventing. In this case a booster syringe was probably used and the trainer/lad seen in the racecourse stables. Nothing other than feed/water is supposed to be given on a raceday.
It is thought that many horses have a problem with a magnesium imbalance hence the need for these calmers – the lack of it causes the muscles to tighten and the horse can literally get stage fright. However, you do need to "load" the substance (in powder form)into the horses system over a peroid of about 10 days rather than just hit it on the dayo of the race. A fractious filly who won the 1,000 Guineas a few years ago was on a Magnesium clamer called Nutrafeed. These calmers are not illegal if tested i.e. if the trainer gives the horse a calmer and isn’t seen, thenit won’t show up as a banned substance.
However, they aren’t a cure-all for all nervy horses – some don’t have a magnesium imbalance and an amino-acid calmer may suit instead. These stimulate the production of serotonin (the happy hormone!). I don’t see anything wrong with using these or any other herbal product. They have no side-effects and are beneficial to the animal. And before anyone screams and shouts and says horses should be able to run regardless – well yes, but we do throw alot at young horses and many once they have got over this early bout of stage fright will settle and learn the job well. I can think of loads of horses who have never reached their full potential due to nerves.
I think the rule is flawed . I understand it is there in it’s most basic form and it is clear cut – black and white – you can’t lay your own horse. However if you are just greening up , simply arbing a trade , as long as you remain a net backer , you are not profiting outright from your horse losing. I think the rules should allow for trading and arbitrating then each case can be tried on it’s merits.
There’s no doubt if that was allowed there would be considerable manipulation of the odds to the benefit of the owner and to the detriment of other punters.
The rules are fine as they are.Whether trainers should be allowed to bet at all when jockeys aren’t is another matter altogether.
I can’t see any way out of the quandary of removing the ability to lay from insiders.
Desirable but un-achievable, imo.Maybe the Ts&Cs of exchanges ought to include a right of the exchange to reclaim any profits from disallowed* lays.
The threat of loss of profit could help; at least it would show exchanges as taking a more active part.* i.e. ‘disallowed’ as by the BHA.
The rules are not really ok as they are , some of this guys lay backs were a fiver and he’s been warned off for 18 months ? Talk about a machine gun to kill a rabbit . As for laying your own horse manipulating the Market to the disadvantage of punters ; I assume you mean afew early lay bets at ever increasing odds to create a drift which , after gaining momentum , enables some much later bigger back bets at bigger prices. That is not manipulating the Market , it’s manipulating the thousands of people who form the Market , if they’re prepared to lay a bigger price because they think the horse is drifting and unfancied , so what ? If they want to be a layer they should lay their own opinions , form their own tissue price and lay it , if they’re just laying drifters and backing movers , that’s their own fault and their own responsibility . If you’re a net backer of your horse and don’t stand to profit outright if it loses , any trading should be allowed.
I don’t see an overwhelming clamour from owners to lay their own horses nor should there be, if any don’t want to lose so much when backing their own runners maybe they shouldn’t back them in the first place or put less on.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.