- This topic has 196 replies, 52 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Yes, Findlay should be punished.
But in this case there was no effort to decieve. I believe if the horse would’ve won, he would’ve won on the race. If the horse lost, he would’ve lost (overall) on the race. Therefore, (at least in Findlay’s mind) it’s possible to think of the two bets as backs and not lays (I include each race as a bet, not each individual wager).I often have 3 wagers in the same race. If one wins, I don’t think of it as 1 win and 2 losers, It’s just one win.
In the derby, I backed Jan Vermeer 7/1 and Workforce 12/1, then laid them back at 9/4 and 6/1. In my mind (and I believe most people’s minds) those bets were backs, not lays.Although I do realise there has to be a rule to stop owners laying at any time. e.g. After a horse has been backed, other evidence comes to light that the original bet was not a good one. So laying it back. That is and should be against the rules. Although that is not what I believe happened in Harry’s case, it is the reason Findlay should get a penalty. The rules need to be SEEN to be working, and needs to be a deterrent for others. To do nothing would be seen (by some) as a licence to lay, therefore not an option.
There was no intent as far as I can see. 6 months ban is too much, two or three months may be justified. Harry should be treated the same as anyone else, not better or worse.
Value Is EverythingIf 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.
I don’t know why people keep trying to put obstacles in the way of the sport being policed, how many 2 horse races in the last 5 years has there been where an owner has wanted to back the other horse?
There is no problem with other owners backing other horses in the same race, if it’s so simple no one would get caught laying their own horse.
The rule is simple, back all the horses you want to but don’t lay your own.
If the rules need adjusting in the future they will be.Although I do realise there has to be a rule to stop owners laying at any time. e.g. After a horse has been backed, other evidence comes to light that the original bet was not a good one. So laying it back. That is and should be against the rules. Although that is not what I believe happened in Harry’s case, it is the reason Findlay should get a penalty. The rules need to be SEEN to be working, and needs to be a deterrent for others. To do nothing would be seen (by some) as a licence to lay, therefore not an option.
There was no intent as far as I can see. 6 months ban is too much, two or three months may be justified. Harry should be treated the same as anyone else, not better or worse.
If the rules need to be seen to be working, would two or three months be a sufficient deterrent?
Harry Findlay hasn’t been treated the same as anyone else. It would appear that six months is a lenient sentence, considering he could have been given eighteen months, no?
As I’ve said already the BHA had no choice but to impose a ban under their rules or be accused of favouring a high profile individual over the average Joe. Bruce Millington’s editorial today in the Post where he decries the ban and calls for owners to be allowed trade as long as they have a net win bet on their horse is fantastically naiive and misguided- if you have more information than the majority it would be child’s play to manipulate the market on your own horse for your advantage- knock it our early then back it late, Imagine how much fun Barney could have with this situation!
No Cavs, the (Independent) Disciplinary Panel did have a choice as is evident in their choice not to ban Bill Hinge.
Bill Hinge Disciplinary Panel Findings HERE
In my view, given the similarities between the Findlay and Hinge cases a six month warning off for the former is wholly disproportionate and was imposed in part because ‘he is who he is’, this is not justice.
Just a question , was any of this topic discussed on the morning line ??
cheers
Ricky
Clearly been made an example of, but I disagree with the ban, I don’t think there was any real meaning to deceive the public and fellow punters.
PhD Student wrote…..or perhaps its just you could not cut the mustard for uni?
Okay Mr. Smarty Pants if you know so much about Theology and Philosophy tell me this….what happened before anything happened and what or who made it happen? See, you can’t answer that can you? Which is the point I’ve been making…that we spend so much money on maintaining Universities and yet when I ask a simple question to you it seems that you can’t give me a simple answer. It’s all very well reading books and learning what theologians and philosophers have written but when you’re confronted with a real fundamental issue you don’t have a clue, do you?
As for my academic experience, you only need to verify this with Nathan Hughes but I recently acquired a 2:1 in massage techniques having been tutored by Professor Natalie in Grimethorpe University of Relaxation where Grimes (of TRF infamy) is the Dean in Waiting.
Now stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
KConundrum… sorry but you asked for this… ‘massage techniques’… is that the same as w** king… hey gotta go, dont get stressed
See what I mean? Typical layabout student reducing everything to the lowest common denominator. But, whereas you couldn’t answer my question my answer to your question is….you’d obviously know more about that than me, the big difference being that in your case it’s more likely to be called a head massage because part of your anatomy is where your brain should be.
K
p.s. Did your intellect not tell you that all of my posts on this thread have been tongue in cheek and not a true representation of my real feelings on Findlay’s crime and punishment?
K
By the way…University of LiverpoolConundrum….
ahead of you on this one old boy..
…all of mine have been tongue in cheek…
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.
I don’t know why people keep trying to put obstacles in the way of the sport being policed, how many 2 horse races in the last 5 years has there been where an owner has wanted to back the other horse?
There is no problem with other owners backing other horses in the same race
, if it’s so simple no one would get caught laying their own horse.
The rule is simple, back all the horses you want to but don’t lay your own.
If the rules need adjusting in the future they will be.
The two horse race was only a hypothetical example.
The point I am trying to make EC is: If you back every other horse in the race (not your own); then youARE
LAYING YOUR OWN HORSE.
Another example:
Say your horse is the Evens fav. There are three others at 3/1, 11/2 and 7/1, and three outsiders at 50/1, 66/1, and 100/1. (A 107.4% book). Is it right that an owner might know there was something wrong with his fav, and back the 11/2 and 7/1 shots, with a saver on the 3/1? Risking it if one of the three outsiders won (taking bookies mark ups out probably a 2 to 3% chance at most).Value Is Everything…all of mine have been tongue in cheek…
Bit of after-timing there PhD but I think a draw is a fair result. Now for the important stuff, England 4 USA 1
KThe two horse race was only a hypothetical example.
The point I am trying to make EC is: If you back every other horse in the race (not your own); then youARE
LAYING YOUR OWN HORSE.
I know the point you are trying to make gingertipster and in theory you are correct, a lot more difficult to carry out in practise though.
Take Harrys case, he laid back his horse in running, it would have been a lot more difficult to back the other runners in running for large amounts at the right prices wouldn’t it, if they pressed the wrong button just betting one horse how would they get on in a big field betting most of the runners?There’s beeen a lot of naivety written regards this case by the likes of Bruce Millington & Dave Yates and spoken by Simon Holt, maybe they should do a bit of research first.
May be Findlay should also have done more research.
I will deviate and touch on Barry’s point about
Betfair grassing him up. Betfair is not immune to risk.
Australia, America,the bookamking industry, the premium charge, all carry or carried large slices. As far as them wanting to improve their reputation in this affair, I think it was more a rearguard action and rather a case of an insurance action to save it. Findlay is high profile and as such high risk. Their heavy slap on the wrists by the gambling commission a couple of years back, tore into the company’s fairness and credibility and this changed their whole attitude to risk.Lord Apinall’s definition of what made a good gambler lacked the word discipline, which said a lot about the man. Courage was a necessary quality and I cannot remember if generosity of spirit was in his definition or mine, but I have always considered it more important.
Findlay shows huge courage betting in such volumes, however the huge scale carries more responsibility
for looking into all possible losses including the unexpected.The two horse race was only a hypothetical example.
The point I am trying to make EC is: If you back every other horse in the race (not your own); then youARE
LAYING YOUR OWN HORSE.
There’s beeen a lot of naivety written regards this case by the likes of Bruce Millington & Dave Yates and spoken by Simon Holt, maybe they should do a bit of research first.
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.