- This topic has 76 replies, 36 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
Guardian is reporting that Harry’s ban has been quashed, instead he has been fined £4,500.
To me this a total come down from the BHB and it begs the question why they even bothered to impose a ban on Findlay in the first place. The £4,500 fine amounts to no more than a smack on the wrist and suggests they’d rather he didn’t run off with his ball.
What price he continues to lay his own horses, and will he send his horses back to Paul Nicholls ?
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
‘We intend no comment on the rule in question… (the laying of one’s own horses)’
However, in the rest of the sentence the appeal board do offer significant comment on the rule in question asking for a distinction to be made between those trading and those up to no good.
Whatever your view of the rule, the sentencing and appeal process looks amateurish and dim-witted.
Embarrassing for all concerned.
The BHA don’t seem to know whether they are coming or going on the issue of integrity at the moment.
Embarrassing to say the least.
From a six month ban – and the threat from Findlay to never own horses in Britain again – to a miserly £4,500 fine for a man who has won over £20m gambling.
Well done BHA, you’ll put horseracing in the headlines for all the wrong reasons once again.
Laughable, fining him the amount he profited by.
Without a blanket ban on owners laying it will be impossible to police, for instance if an owner backs a horse with his local bookmaker then lays it back on Betfair how will this information be obtained by the BHA?Plainly its a shambles !!!. heads should roll
Sir I believe your Bat phone is calling …..
Ricky
Not one to gloat in my amazingly sound and reliable sources…..taken from my When Harry Met…Tuesday thread:
No doubt many of you will be there at tomorrow’s Appeal Hearing, standing in the pouring rain, holding up your placards…’Harry is Innocent’ ‘Justice for Harry’ …. but I can save you all a lot of time and effort by now revealing to you an edited version of a leaked copy of the script that each of the participants will be reading from…………………
Sir Roger (known in betting circles as The Dodger): "Good Morning ‘Arry, how are you me old cock sparrow? Got yourself into a right fair mess here haven’t you? Let’s just see if we can pull a few strings and get you back in business. What do you say Christopher to us giving ‘Arry a bit of a leg-up and overturning this ban?
Christopher: Personally, I’ve always liked ‘Arry and he’s given me the nod a few times when his horses are going to get beat. I reckon a small fine of say twenty guineas should suffice. Do you agree Jane?
Jane: I’m sorry, I missed all that. I’ve been trying to get through to my hairdresser. Just do what’s best for ‘Arry. He’s a right character on the telly ain’t he?
Ken
A sensible decision – at last.
Rather a pity that they couldn’t have got it right first time round.
Should the BHA pay Harry substantial compensation for the indignity and the inconvenience caused to him?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.