- This topic has 196 replies, 52 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
PhD Student wrote….I READ ALL OF THIS WITH INTEREST.
BOTTOM LINE HE WAS ‘NAUGHTY’.
NO ONE IS ABOVE RACING, AT LEAST THATS THE UTOPIAN VIEW.
DO THE CRIME, NOW DO THE TIME; SIMPLE.
Ph Student, is this the kind of intellectual gobbledygook that I pay my taxes for people like you to sit on your backsides in so-called Universities to study utter nonsense?
Please explain the third sentence; which Utopian came out with this statement? Name names, please. In fact, I’ve never heard of Utopian horse racing and I didn’t have to go to University to know that. Surely you should be taking a more philosophical view of Harry’s misdemeanor. The guy’s good to his mum and that’s the only yardstick the BHA should be concerned about. I bet she’s feeling very upset about her young ‘arry in all this bother.
KConundrum… I pay for my own study, sorry that you admit a lack of intellect to understand what thats about…there is only one philosophical view that holds for Mr. Findlay, and that is AVARICE… (google it).
Do I take it that being ‘good to your mum’ is acceptable defence… perhaps the ‘Ma Barker’ family would agree..
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.
You’d also have to believe his laughable "technical error" excuse.
In any event we need to look at this from the uninitiated persons point of view and how it looks to them. What they see is a Gold Cup winning high profile owner backing his horse to get beaten for tens of thousands and for a sport that struggles with its image for fairness on an almost daily basis that’s not good enough. I wish Findlay would consider these things before he does them or at least read the rule book, if he’s so concerned about the sport.
Can you imagine the uproar if Steve Gerrard layed England to get beaten tonight with the intention on backing them at a bigger price after the match. There’d be blue murder and rightly so.
Why should racing be any different?
betfair grassed HF in the belief that it would big em selves up as the leaders in the fight against corruption.
it backfired, bigtime, "please carry on betting with us even though you are banned".
The big issue in this case for me is Betfair stating that they will continue to welcome Harry’s business, obviously they were hoping for a fine for him so they continue to collect their £70k a month commission from him and the commission from the other side of his bets but have decided to go down that path anyway.
Betfair have no place arguing with racings authorities and seem to be purely motivated by the money.
The net bet argument is a red herring, as manipulation of the odds would ensue if that was allowed and on that basis any owner with a runner in the Derby would/should be able to lay it for 2 or 3 million as the horse would be worth 20 million plus if he wins or lay it for just a few hundred thousand based on the prize money alone.
The rules are clear cut, owners cannot lay and that’s how it should be.PhD Student wrote… I pay for my own study, sorry that you admit a lack of intellect to understand what thats about…there is only one philosophical view that holds for Mr. Findlay, and that is AVARICE… (google it).
Do I take it that being ‘good to your mum’ is acceptable defence… perhaps the ‘Ma Barker’ family would agree..
PhD Student, since when has AVARICE been a philosophical school of thought? I thought it was more related to the Seven Deadly Sins.
However, I think you are confusing GREED with Harry’s desire to maintain the lifestyle that he has been accustomed to enjoying. The latter being borne out of necessity and can hardly be considered an unworthy pursuit. I imagine a percentage of his taxes goes towards maintaining those ivory towers that you sit in studying your navel.
As for being good to his mum, judge a man on what he does for others not on what he does for you.
KI would have thought that Harry was smart enough to recognise that the authorities would be looking for the slightest chink in his operations with which to make an example of him. Failure to do so falls into the category of either negligence or arrogance.
I certainly don’t condone what he’s done … and the "technical error" defence doesn’t really wash either … quite simply a schoolboy error from someone that I imagined to be rather more meticulous in their dealings given the size and scale of the operation.
Suggest you get yourself better backroom staff, Harry … and spend the the next six months tightening up your Standard Operating Procedures so that you eliminate the risk of getting caught out again.
I have always said that laying horses to lose is anathema to the very nature and spirit of the sport.
That said, the rules were introduced so that owners could not lay their own horses to lose and thereby profit from it. Harry Findlay, on this occasion, did not profit from the horse losing.
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
This sorry business strikes me as an inevitable consequence of allowing owners to BACK their horses but not allowing them to LAY them, as if these two sides of the betting equation are wholly unrelated.
Findlay appears guilty of little more than making a good business decision. As I understand it, a Back and Lay/Lay and Back transaction to reduce liabilities should the horse lose; hedging or part ‘greening up’ in other words
Now while I accept Findlay must have known he was in the wrong or at the least treading on very thin ice, so has rightfully been punished for transgressing the rules as they stand, his misdemeanour has little ‘intent to deceive’ about it and strikes as small beer compared to the spate of other – glaringly corrupt – cases in recent years.
To make it clear: I don’t have a problem with the BHA’s sentence as the only way to enforce the rule is to put the fear of God up owners. The smallest transgression results in a hefty penalty
But wouldn’t it be much simpler to ban owners from betting on their horse full stop, and in the race it’s running in? BACK, HEDGE, LAY
If you have a runner in a race keep your hands in your pocket
I think it was APRacing who once mentioned that he never backed his own horses because he couldn’t form a neutral or rational idea about its chance because he was ‘too close’ to the horse
Forgive me if that’s an errant misquote APR
Isn’t the thrill of ownership and the enjoyment of seeing your horse run sufficiently entertaining without having to add the clotted cream of a punt to an already rich, sweet and filling pudding?
There’s a million other races for the owner-punter to play in, in which he has no direct involvement, but is playing his fellow punters on a level playing field
Personally I’d find it equally tiresome if say JP announced after a race he bet £xxx on his horse than I would if he said he’d laid £xxx on his horse
BACK or LAY, an owner’s punts reek of ‘insider dealing’ regardless
It seems an odd punishment on the face of things.
The BHA have effectively "done" Findlay almost on a technicality here and the punishment doesn’t "appear" to fit the crime.
I wonder whether there is more to this than meets the eye.
PhD Student wrote… I pay for my own study, sorry that you admit a lack of intellect to understand what thats about…there is only one philosophical view that holds for Mr. Findlay, and that is AVARICE… (google it).
Do I take it that being ‘good to your mum’ is acceptable defence… perhaps the ‘Ma Barker’ family would agree..
PhD Student, since when has AVARICE been a philosophical school of thought? I thought it was more related to the Seven Deadly Sins.
However, I think you are confusing GREED with Harry’s desire to maintain the lifestyle that he has been accustomed to enjoying. The latter being borne out of necessity and can hardly be considered an unworthy pursuit. I imagine a percentage of his taxes goes towards maintaining those ivory towers that you sit in studying your navel.
As for being good to his mum, judge a man on what he does for others not on what he does for you.
KConundrum, you are wading a little out of your depth; These sins fit within theology, a noble academic pursuit – we hope. Theology then fits within academia in general, and therefore governed for example by Aristotle(Philosophy’s forefather). His Nicomachean Ethics (350BC) will offer similar guidance to these ‘philosophical views’, particularly read his work on ‘golden means’…
I am a little concerned on your grudge against those that pursue academic enlightenment and the burden (say you) to taxpayers like Harry. You need to know that all scientific advancement occurs here, including all modern technology as you make use of.. or perhaps be used to save your life someday. Dont worry though, your conceit will not be held against you if you ever need such life support. Then I imagine you would be grateful for such taxpayer money…or perhaps its just you could not cut the mustard for uni?
Go well, lets stick to racing in this forum
I am an owner: I have lumped on my horse to win a race. At some point prior to the race I get information about my horse that leads me to believe that the odds about it winning have now gone against me.
Should I be allowed to lay my horse as long as I leave a net win position (and how much should that be) ?yes/no
I am a larger than life character. Should the above rule apply to me, or should it only apply to those of a medium/ small character
yes/no
If your answer is yes to both questions you are probably writing a piece in today’s Racing Post
Drone,
I can’t claim never to have backed my own horses, although I don’t do so blindly – Salute only carried my money six times in his 50+ runs in my colours.
The comment you may be referring to was one I made on a thread about owners and exchanges, where I suggested that the only option available to an owner should be to back his own horse in any race where he has a runner.
Thus making laying his horse, or laying or backing any of it’s rivals against the rules.
AP
If it is ethical for bet fair or anyone else to lay horses to lose(as all bookmakers have from time immemorial)then surely it is ethical for all to do so.The attempt to introduce transparency into racing is a long road to travel down so to speak.AN OLD FRIEND OF MINE ONCE SAID THAT MOST HORSES WHO ARE "STOPPED"COULD NOT WIN EVEN IF THEY WERE NOT STOPPED.But that is neither here nor there.Trying to introduce ethics into gambling is not unlike trying to introduce chastity into a whore house.Would everyone ever get real and stop treating their own gambling as a virtue and others as a vice.Gambling does belong to philosophy. It comes under the part related to the "Good". Leading the "good life" as Aristotle says belongs to philosophy,the section is called ethics.We must all "do good and avoid evil".
I wonder whether there is more to this than meets the eye.
Maybe there is. The opening of the disciplinary panel’s report contains…
4. On 26 October 2009, when Mr Findlay was being interviewed by BHA investigators about a number of matters, he was initially asked about the more recent GULLIBLE GORDON (IRE) run at Chepstow.
What other matters were the BHA investigators interviewing him about?
Last October Findlay told the BHA regarding the Exeter race, the lay bet was a deliberate trade-lay based on inside information concerning riding tactics. At the hearing he had changed that story to the lay bet being placed as a "technical error".
Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive
- Total Posts 17716
I did make that point two pages ago, Cav, but it’s a certainly a question that needs answering. I wonder why the BHA appear reluctant to provide that answer?
I did make that point two pages ago, Cav, but it’s a certainly a question that needs answering.
Sorry, Armchair Jockey, didnt spot that in your post.
Its a point well made, imo.
If you are an owner:
It is o.k. to back another horse in the race (not your own). e.g JP backed Big Fella Thanks in the National.So if there is a two horse race, is it still o.k. to back the other horse? Effectively laying your own horse.
And if that is laying, then should it be counted as a lay to back against your horse in a 40 runner race? As technically you are still laying your own horse.
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.