- This topic has 196 replies, 52 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
- Total Posts 17716
As a big fan of horse racing, I really do hope that Findlay does no longer own horses in the UK, and I also hope he does not now decide to take up ownership in Ireland or France. In fact I hope he leaves horse racing for good.
How can an owner that treatens to leave the game because he was punished for breaking the rules be good for a sport??????
I would of preferred a 6 year ban for the man rather than 6 months…
If the details of the BHA’s transcript are a fair reflection of this case, then the demonisation of Harry Findlay as the honest punter’s bete noir is utterly laughable. He certainly deserves to be punished and he hasn’t necessarily covered himself in glory with his defence, but he’s got a 6 month ban for laying a winner at long odds on in running. It’s not Brinks Mat is it? I’d compare it to the case of Bill Hinge for interests sake.
doesnt matter whether it was 100/1 or 1/1, hes broken rules, rules of which im sure he was aware of. what a tosser, wonder if the ban will cover denman running over the christmas period.
There are many other owners who have laid their horses for small amounts to cover expenses, what about them can we see all of them banned please?
Like you say it doesn’t matter if its 10p laid or 10k lets not have one rule for one and one for others what a load of old tosh being slinged on here unbelievable.its basically fraud, hes running something that he knows wont win, and is backing it, basically buying money from the bookies, thats like phil taylor playing a world championship against barneveld at darts, and betting himself on betfair to loose, purposely loosing.
If the details of the BHA’s transcript are a fair reflection of this case, then the demonisation of Harry Findlay as the honest punter’s bete noir is utterly laughable. He certainly deserves to be punished and he hasn’t necessarily covered himself in glory with his defence, but he’s got a 6 month ban for laying a winner at long odds on in running. It’s not Brinks Mat is it? I’d compare it to the case of Bill Hinge for interests sake.
Thanks Rory, a bit of common sense at last.
While I accept the ‘rules are the rules’ and a punishment is due a six month warning off is ridiculous given the circumstances.
its basically fraud, hes running something that he knows wont win, and is backing it, basically buying money from the bookies, thats like phil taylor playing a world championship against barneveld at darts, and betting himself on betfair to loose, purposely loosing.
Jesus wept.
its basically fraud, hes running something that he knows wont win, and is backing it, basically buying money from the bookies, thats like phil taylor playing a world championship against barneveld at darts, and betting himself on betfair to loose, purposely loosing.
Lol so Phil Taylor would put a substantial back bet on himself much higher than the lay bet if he was purposely trying to lose?
its basically fraud, hes running something that he knows wont win, and is backing it, basically buying money from the bookies, thats like phil taylor playing a world championship against barneveld at darts, and betting himself on betfair to loose, purposely loosing.
The horse WON. WON. WON. WON. WON. WON. WON. WON. WON. WON.
Rules are rules:
Lets have every owner who has laid a horse they own no matter how small the amount banned please?
No wonder hes pissed off.- Total Posts 17716
You haven’t really got a clue what’s going on, have you del_boy? Do you think Phil Taylor would roll over against van Barneveld if defeat stood to cost him in excess of £60,000?
This isn’t an integrity issue, merely the strict application of very clear rules regarding the laying of a horse by its owner.
I’m not what you might call a fan of Harry Findlay, but my opinion of him as a person should not be used as a stick with which to beat him in a case such as this. Facts are very much the order of the day, with personal preference neither here nor there.
Unfortunately, I still don’t believe we’re privy to all of the pertinent information – the first line of paragraph four of the panel’s findings suggests that the two incidents involving Gullible Gordon weren’t the only reasons the BHA wanted to talk to Findlay – and as such some of the comments made on this thread are hideously misguided/unfair.
Thank you for bringing a little balance to the barrage of Fort Findlay, rory.
I’m gutted for Mr Findlay
He didn’t know the rules you seeSo what he now needs to learn
Is what he should have learned as a bairnThe difference between a back and a lay
Is clear as night and dayAs an owner you can only back
And laying should be done in the sackSo next time Harry wants a lay
Take a girl for a roll in the hayThe big man himself will soon be back
But it won’t be at a race trackNo more stable fees for him to carry
It’s football and dogs, you know what I mean Harrywonder if the ban will cover denman running over the christmas period.
This month is June, Christmas is December
Six months from now you should rememberDenman might run, but then he might not
But it won’t be because of the ban Harry’s gotThe Tank will be back to defend his crown
The Hennessy of course, and don’t you dare frownRory wrote……Jesus wept
Talk about bizarre posts, Rory! Now you’re telling us that the little baby Jesus is crying over Harry’s predicament? Surely you’re just having a laugh? I can’t believe that for one minute because if it really was true then don’t you think some divine intervention would have avoided Harry getting into this mess in the first place? I appreciate that you’re a decent guy Rory but don’t try and kid us that you have inside info. from Heaven. You ought to be ashamed of yourself trying to pull the wool over our eyes. Pray for forgiveness, Rory.
K
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.