- This topic has 196 replies, 52 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
This has all the makings of a Guy Ritchie movie. Double-crossing, confusion, revenge attacks, failed gambling coups and dodgy geezers. I’m half expecting a final shootout, where after much confusion as to who is on whose side, the top echelons of British racing/gambling have gone, replaced by a pile of corpses.
Cast:
Mohammed Al Fayed as Harry Findlay
Neil Hamilton as Paul Roy
Fred Goodwin as Nic Coward
Big Ron as Paul Dixon
Brian Wilde as Paul Scotney
Kevin Costner as Sean Boyce
Arsene Wenger as Tony Calvin
Comical Ali as Bruce Millington
Judith Chalmers as Paul Struthers- Total Posts 17716
Judith Chalmers as Paul Struthers
Pure class.
Wonder if Harry will go back to the dogs !!!. he was a very good judge in that sphere
The fall out on this saga , cant be too good for racing , what sort of message will this send to the followers of Razzle and his entourage
Ricky
This has all the makings of a Guy Ritchie movie. Double-crossing, confusion, revenge attacks, failed gambling coups and dodgy geezers.
Cast:
Mohammed Al Fayed as Harry Findlay
Neil Hamilton as Paul Roy
Fred Goodwin as Nic Coward
Big Ron as Paul Dixon
Brian Wilde as Paul Scotney
Kevin Costner as Sean Boyce
Arsene Wenger as Tony Calvin
Comical Ali as Bruce Millington
Judith Chalmers as Paul Struthers
VG…and Brian Rix as Gullible Gordon
It’s all descending rapidly into a farce after all
Extremely interesting and enlightening announcement from Paul Roy which I’ve copied in full below –
A STATEMENT FROM PAUL ROY, CHAIRMAN OF THE BRITISH HORSERACING AUTHORITY
“There has been a considerable amount of comment following the penalty imposed by the Authority’s Disciplinary Panel relating to charges admitted by Mr Harry Findlay. We would not ordinarily comment on cases, and certainly not while there remains the potential for Mr Findlay to appeal the penalty. However a great deal of misinformed comment has been made and, having discussed this with my Chief Executive and Board, I intend to clarify the facts of the case in the wider interests of British Horseracing.
“The case relates to the rule on owners laying, which is quite clear. It states that an owner must not:
· lay any horse he owns with a betting organisation to lose a race;
· instruct another Person to do so on his behalf; or
· receive the whole or any part of any proceeds of such a lay.
‘Any reference to laying a horse to lose includes any single instance of doing so, whether or not the single instance was, or was intended to be, one of a series of betting arrangements.’
“This rule is in place for good reason. It prevents the owner of a horse profiting from negative information relating to the horse’s prospects in a race which would be known to them by virtue of their ownership. This must include a net back position otherwise it would open the rules to manipulation. This view is the outcome of extensive analysis and consultation over a considerable period of time. We have no intention of amending the rule.
“The Guide to Procedures and Penalties was updated in March 2010, a process that began in September 2009 and took place with full consultation across the sport. At its conclusion, a number of ‘integrity’ penalty ranges and entry points were significantly increased, with much public comment at the time.
“The BHA never gave permission to Harry Findlay to lay horses in yards where he has horses in training. At a meeting on 24th November 2008, Mr Findlay was reminded that it was a breach of the Rules of Racing to place lay bets on horses owned by him, including those registered in the name of his mother. He was also reminded of the Code of Conduct for racehorse owners, which states that they should ‘Refrain from laying any horse from a yard where you have a horse in training’. Mr Findlay accepted the warning and gave assurances that he would neither lay his own horses nor those trained in the same yard.
“Subsequently Betfair drew Mr Findlay’s lay betting to our attention, as the company is compelled to do under the terms of its Gambling Commission licence. Mr Findlay admitted the breaches to the Disciplinary Panel and gave several different explanations for the bets.
“The Disciplinary Panel acts independently of the Authority. The Authority’s interaction with the Panel is through representations we make during the course of a hearing. The Disciplinary Panel is chaired by an independent lawyer of considerable experience in these cases and detailed reasons are published online. The case concerning Mr Findlay was no different. It is for the Panel to decide what penalty to apply, and proportionality is a factor which the Panel will always apply its mind to. This includes how one case sits with another. The penalty imposed by the Panel went significantly below the 18 month entry point for the offence. The Panel was clear in its view that this was more than a ‘technical’ breach.
“The Authority strongly advised Mr Findlay to be legally represented at the hearing, particularly bearing in mind the published range of penalty and “entry point”. Mr Findlay chose not to be legally represented. The Authority’s case was presented by the Head of Compliance and Licensing, Oliver Codrington. However he also gave some assistance to Mr Findlay as a matter of good practice, drawing numerous mitigating factors to the attention of the Panel which the Authority considered that a representative for Mr. Findlay might make. Mr Findlay has until the end of this week to lodge his appeal and an Appeal Board hearing will be convened as a matter of expedition as is the norm.
“Mr. Findlay suggests there to have been a personal dimension to the outcome of this case. This suggestion is entirely wrong. The Rules of Racing apply equally to all. No one person is bigger than the sport as a whole, and it is the role of the Authority to carry out our regulatory responsibility on behalf of the whole sport. This includes setting out clear rules, clear processes, and making sure they are published and open.”
I was very interested to read the comments regarding the BHA never having given Mr Findlay permission to lay horses trained at the yards where he was an owner. Isn’t that a completely different version to that recounted by Mr Findlay?
I look forward to Mr Findlay’s response.
Thanks Corm , this is clearly at variance with the explanations and theories offered so far, and to those wise posters on this outpost who observed that there was more to this than meets the eye , I for one salute you
I think Mr Roy is to be congratulated for putting the record straight , I am not his biggest fan , but in this instance , credit must be given where it is due
Well done Sir
Ricky
……The Authority strongly advised Mr Findlay to be legally represented at the hearing, particularly bearing in mind the published range of penalty and “entry point”. Mr Findlay chose not to be legally represented. The Authority’s case was presented by the Head of Compliance and Licensing, Oliver Codrington. However he also gave some assistance to Mr Findlay as a matter of good practice, drawing numerous mitigating factors to the attention of the Panel which the Authority considered that a representative for Mr. Findlay might make.
I find the above statement most peculiar. The Authority prosecuting the allegations advises Findlay to be legally represented. Findlay, for whatever reason, be it an arrogant attitude to the proceedings or a lack of resources to be able to fund a lawyer, chooses not to be represented. Consequently the BHA’s prosecutor speaks on Findlay’s behalf and pleads in mitigation. A ridiculous state of affairs. I cannot imagine any other organisation adopting such a stance. If Findlay chose to bat on his own then that was his decision. To suggest Codrington acted as a matter of good practice is totally misleading and an attempt by the BHA to manipulate the course of natural justice. Any mitigating factors should have been proffered by Findlay with perhaps assistance in presenting his defence by the Panel’s Chairman. That’s how it would work in any other tribunal that I can think of.
This case has a very murky aspect to it and I have no doubt that the bad practices evident throughout this farce will result in his Appeal being upheld.
Who gave Codrington permission to ‘look after’ Findlay’?
And why?
KInteresting read that corm, it begs the question why was he let off so lightly after the relevant rules and code of practice had been explained to him years ago.
They should have given him the full 18 month whack or more for taking the piss.
- Total Posts 17716
"This rule is in place for good reason. It prevents the owner of a horse profiting from negative information relating to the horse’s prospects in a race which would be known to them by virtue of their ownership".
Amazing stuff!
It’s fine to run non-triers – whichever way you dress it up,negative information
means just that – as long as you don’t profit from it personally.
And they dare to call it integrity?if harry wants to challenge what’s happened, his best course is immediately to stop talking to anyone but his brief.
there are ways back even from guilty pleas but he needs to get and listen to one of the BHA-savvy briefs.
there will be reasons he approached things as he did, and those reasons need to be examined to see if they give grounds to appeal the way the process worked in his case
its not impossible that the timing and content of mr roy’s statement (as quoted above by corm) could even be turned to harry’s advantage as additional ammo.
if he can score a hit on the process, that would re-open the door to re-examination of whether in fact technically relevant rules were breached.
from the panel’s report – understandably due to the (perhaps in fact ill-conceived / legally equivocal) admissions before them – that aspect doesn’t seem to have been much tested so far.
gave some assistance….drawing numerous mitigating factors to the attention of the Panel
Sounds more like wholesale assistance if you consider the word ‘numerous mitigating factors’
Presumably Codrington wasn’t just talking off the top of his head and had a dossier of pre-prepared mitigating statements at his disposal. Why did the BHA enter this process with, as the facts seem to suggest, every intent that Findlay should be let off the hook? Does the "strong advice" to be legally represented actually exist on paper or was there a nod and a wink to Findlay that, rather than risk a bungling lawyer incurring the wrath of the Panel, his best hope of getting off the hook was to be unrepresented and the BHA’s ‘bodyguard’ would cover his back?
Racing for Change? The term Flim Flam men springs to mind.
Wild, unfounded speculation Conundrum.
And this matter surely has little or nothing to do with Racing For Change.
Wit as always classic stuff , I hope Mr Findlay reads your advice
the plot thickens though
excellent post Corm
Ricky
Cormack wrote…this matter surely has little or nothing to do with Racing For Change.
On the contrary Cormack,I would have thought that with your vast knowledge of the ins and outs of racing, even you would have realised that this not insignificant case strikes at the heart of matters insofar as there is a festering wound within the industry as a whole and no amount of marketing drives are going to impact on dealing with the fundamental issues as to why the ship is sailing in rough seas without the proper people at the helm. Not only Findlay should be walking the plank but countless others with him.
Cormack wrote….Wild, unfounded speculation Conundrum
I hardly think so Cormack. Give me one example from anywhere you like where the Prosecutor also acts as the defence attorney. You could just as well suggest that every TRF members selection in the tipping competitions is wild, unfounded speculation but the fact is that it’s just opinions. And in my opinion, the BHA should not on the one hand strongly advise Findlay to be legally represented and then when he decides to ignore this advice the BHA go out of their way to speak on his behalf. If that isn’t a conundrum I don’t know what is?
KIf I was up before the BHA beaks, I’s be sure to have someone on my side who did law at one of the great universities – Oxford, Cambridge, Hull………
Ken,
Another case of ignoring the facts.
Disciplinary panels are independent of the BHA.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.