- This topic has 76 replies, 36 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
…..lay bets in running were less serious than if placed before a race
What a load of rubbish. Surely that depends on what you know about how the horse is to be ridden and what might prove detrimental to a successful outcome. These people obviously haven’t a clue about race-fixing.
He was warned about his conduct yet failed to heed the warning and put up two fingers to the authorities treating them with contempt. The fact that the lilly livered have now backed down must be incomprehensible to many both inside and outside racing. Including Me.
I am quite surprised at the outcome, as I fully expected him to get a ban instead of a fine
read more
……..
Mark
He was warned about his conduct yet failed to heed the warning and put up two fingers to the authorities treating them with contempt. The fact that the lilly livered have now backed down must be incomprehensible to many both inside and outside racing. Including Me.
This time we’re in agreement.
No one can be surprised the ban was overturned surely?
Saddened yes, surprised no
As far as I’m aware, for reasons best known to themselves the BHA didn’t reveal the minutiae of Findlay’s laying history until after the ban was implemented. Conflicting accounts on both sides, apparent confusion evident at the BHA whether owner-trading to reduce liability constitutes laying at all, and to cap it all Roy’s alleged bizarre admission that he turned a blind eye to some of Findlay’s laying activity
In essence, the guidelines for owner laying activity seem to be as clear as mud, open to interpretation and ill-understood by the very people responsible for drafting and implementing it.
Wishy-washy ‘guidelines’ serve no purpose other than to confuse and be ignored. A hard-and-fast rule is required designed to forbid with no equivocal, grey, interpretative words
You either ban all laying be that the likely corrupt ‘laying a horse to lose’ or the Findlay-type hedge/trade, or you ban none of it
One draconian penalty to cover all be it corrupt, dubious or innocent
Owners: don’t lay your horses under any circumstances for whatever reason. End of. Full Stop. That should have been the BHA ‘rule’
As a result of this botched banning it would seem likely that other owners will now believe they too can undertake at-best-dubious laying practices with impunity. Well done BHA, one step forwards, three back
And what’s worse I fear Findlay will become a ‘folk hero’
Australia really is a lovely country Harry, you lucky lucky man. Off you go, good lad
… Owners: don’t lay your horses under any circumstances for whatever reason. End of. Full Stop. That should have been the BHA ‘rule’
As a result of this botched banning it would seem likely that other owners will now believe they too can undertake at-best-dubious laying practices with impunity. Well done BHA, one step forwards, three back
Drone
The Rule is as follows (and as you say it should be:
An owner must not:
92.2.1 lay any horse he owns with a betting organisation to lose a race,
92.2.2 instruct another Person to do so on his behalf, or
92.2.3 receive the whole or any part of any proceeds of such a lay.92.3 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.
With regards the other point, the Appeal Board say two things of relevance (my bolding):
As a result of the clarification of the Rule which makes plain that any lay betting by those covered by it is outlawed and also this case which has attracted so much publicity,
it is hard to envisage any valid excuses for its breach in future
.
Depending on the particular circumstances of any similar future case, should one arise, a Panel may well feel obliged to use the ultimate penalty of disqualification
.
The result could have been a substantial overall fine.
However, we cannot undo the fact that Mr Findlay has suffered disqualification and the indignity of it for over a month now. That will remain with him and we regard it as a serious penalty in itself. He was, for example, prevented from attending Royal Ascot where he would have seen one of his horses win and generally lost every aspect of an owner’s participation in racing during the last month.
We consider that a fine, removing the extra profit made from the Chepstow affair, namely £4,500, will suffice in the particular circumstances of this case which obviously should not be regarded as a precedent by anyone covered by the Rule, contemplating a betting strategy involving lay betting
I’ll respond to Glenn’s question, which is also in your post, at some point this evening as soon as I get chance.
Interesting race coming up here Paul. Diamond Racing going in mob-handed now that the free-for-all has been announced.
Interesting race coming up here Paul. Diamond Racing going in mob-handed now that the free-for-all has been announced.
Opps –
Thanks
An owner must not:
92.2.1 lay any horse he owns with a betting organisation to lose a race,
92.2.2 instruct another Person to do so on his behalf, or
92.2.3 receive the whole or any part of any proceeds of such a lay.92.3 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.
With regards the other point, the Appeal Board say two things of relevance (my bolding):
As a result of the clarification of the Rule which makes plain that any lay betting by those covered by it is outlawed
When did these rules undergo "clarification", before or after the Findlay banning?
Do they replace the following weak BHA ‘guidelines’ ? (underlining mine)
Schedule 3 – Integrity codes of conduct: owners
1. This integrity code of conduct applies to any Person whose name is registered in the register of owners under Part 3.
2. Refrain from laying any horse in your ownership to lose a race.
3. Avoid imparting any information to anyone about your horse’s non-participation in a race with a view to the horse being layed until such time as the non-participation has been distributed by The Racing Calendar Office.
4. Refrain from laying any horse from a yard where you have a horse in training.
5. Refrain from causing any Person who holds a licence or permit granted by the Authority and with whom you have dealings to contravene any requirement imposed on that Person by or under these Rules.Refrain and avoid are a splendidly non-commital, ambiguous choice of words – ‘we’d prefer it if you didn’t lay your horses but if you must…’
Which is presumably akin to what Mr Roy whispered in Harry’s ear
Drone – I know the laying rule as worded was in place in September 2009, but came in earlier (probably April that year but can’t check right now).
As for the Owners Integrity Code of Conduct, it is just that – a Code of Conduct. Hence, the Code says ‘refrain from laying your own horse’ whilst a seperate rule confirms it’s an offence (admittedly, the code shouldn’t therefore say refrain when a Rule already prohibits it).
There is no rule which states you cannot lay horses other than your own in yards where you have a horse in training, so by doing so isn’t automatically an offence itself. However, if it was done with the benefit of inside information then it would be an offence regardless of who layed it.
You are welcome to feedback your views at the following link or PM me, or email me, and I’ll pass them on to the integrity team.
So the BHA actually waste time putting together and printing a code of conduct that means absolutely nothing? It’s just pointless if that’s how it works.
Yes Silvoir is Paul Struthers – whilst I don’t always agree with what he has to say it’s good to have someone who’s familiar with how the rules work in practice and I’m glad he’s a member on here.
Regarding the various rules I’ve seen a copy of the BHA’s "Inside Information" leaflet and it looked rather basic – like something you’d pick up from the Doctor’s concerning headaches or MRSA etc.
Hope the topics dealt with in the leaflet are available in much greater detail on the BHA’s site or in a pack available/sent to owners when they register.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.