- This topic has 76 replies, 36 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Entirely the right decision (imo).
The 6 months ban was too strong for a back / smaller lay concept.
The anti-BHA stance by a lot of trfers seems OTT.
Harry findlay has to take some responsibility for going in without a representitive at the earlier hearing.
HF deserved some punishment for what he did, and this new ruling takes the ban he’s already served in to account.
Does anyone know what the earlier "warnings" to Harry were all about? Was it exactly the same type of thing (major back / minor lay bet)?
Value Is EverythingIts a very interesting turn of events.
Is he selling all his horses still?……
and will he regret moving from Nicholls.
Interesting times
Silvoir, regarding the laying rules, do they prevent an owner from doing.
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.
1) Backing all horses in a race other than those owned by the owner/s. In effect – a net lay.
2) An owner/s backing an opposing horse in a 2 horse race. In effect again – a net lay.
Silvoir, regarding the laying rules, do they prevent an owner from doing.
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.
1) Backing all horses in a race other than those owned by the owner/s. In effect – a net lay.
2) An owner/s backing an opposing horse in a 2 horse race. In effect again – a net lay.
Jose
I believe Pru has written about that very subject in his BF betting site column and is speaking directly to our integrity department on the matter.
As far as I’m concerned the position on both of those scenarios is that, as the net effect would be equal to laying your horse to lose, then yes, they are both offences. That would just be common sense (and yes, we do have some).
Inerestingly, we have never had an intelligence or evidence (from Betfair or any other betting company) that either has happened in practice.
As I’m sure you will have picked up from our statement, the laying rule will not change ‘materially’, but this does not rule out clarifying it further, and the above two examples should perhaps be included in any further clarification.
Pru also made a very valid point regarding the lack of information provided to new owners on registration, which I believe should be addressed, in the same way that trainers and jockeys are supplied with the relevant guidance and rules when they are licensed.
Not that it matters I’m sure, but I am on holiday for a week from tomorrow without access to a computer so apologies in advance if I’m unable to reply to further questions on this thread.
As an aside, we are looking at establishing a more formal tie-up with TRF rather than the ad-hoc (and increasingly rare due to time) approach to responding on here currently adopted, and on which I owe Cormack a long overdue email.
Paul
I must say well done to Mr Struthers.
Great to give his insight.
I never knew the Racing Forum has so reach
This thread has been a test of character for Paul Struthers and yet again he passes convincingly,if ever there was an occassion for Silvoir to avoid this forum and bury his head in the sand this was it,a very embarrassing day for the BHA and yet Paul comes on and stands up to be counted! Respect!
As far as I’m concerned the position on both of those scenarios is that, as the net effect would be equal to laying your horse to lose, then yes, they are both offences. That would just be common sense (and yes, we do have some).
Inerestingly, we have never had an intelligence or evidence (from Betfair or any other betting company) that either has happened in practice.
That’s a distinct u-turn from what I have read previously. No wonder nobody reports these things when the general belief is that no rules have been broken in such circumstances.
As you’re lacking in intelligence on this subject I’m only to happy to furnish you with some. Here’s some top secret intelligence for you from some obscure media organistaion called the BBC. I beleive it was also reported on the front page of the racing press and, for the hard of hearing, was possibly even shouted from a megaphone from the top of a double decker bus circling Parliament Square!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_s … 565313.stm
Reports have suggested Findlay was prepared to bet on Kauto Star against his own star.
"It’s no big secret I like a hot favourite and I’ve made a living out of backing champions. Kauto Star does come into that bracket," he conceded.
Don’t be fooled, PS is more that able to hide behind the wallpaper if needed – just like the others….
But, to be fair I’ve always said he’s too good for the BHA.
Btw, Silvoir, while you’re on here can I ask you to pass on congrats to your assitant for completing her bike ride and raising more than her target for Racing Welfare – really well done.
Silvoir, regarding the laying rules, do they prevent an owner from doing.
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.
1) Backing all horses in a race other than those owned by the owner/s. In effect – a net lay.
2) An owner/s backing an opposing horse in a 2 horse race. In effect again – a net lay.
Jose
I believe Pru has written about that very subject in his BF betting site column and is speaking directly to our integrity department on the matter.
As far as I’m concerned the position on both of those scenarios is that, as the net effect would be equal to laying your horse to lose, then yes, they are both offences. That would just be common sense (and yes, we do have some).
Inerestingly, we have never had an intelligence or evidence (from Betfair or any other betting company) that either has happened in practice.
As I’m sure you will have picked up from our statement, the laying rule will not change ‘materially’, but this does not rule out clarifying it further, and the above two examples should perhaps be included in any further clarification.
Pru also made a very valid point regarding the lack of information provided to new owners on registration, which I believe should be addressed, in the same way that trainers and jockeys are supplied with the relevant guidance and rules when they are licensed.
Not that it matters I’m sure, but I am on holiday for a week from tomorrow without access to a computer so apologies in advance if I’m unable to reply to further questions on this thread.
As an aside, we are looking at establishing a more formal tie-up with TRF rather than the ad-hoc (and increasingly rare due to time) approach to responding on here currently adopted, and on which I owe Cormack a long overdue email.
Paul
So as it stands currently it might not be possible legally to charge an owner if they were found to have done either. Fair enough, I’ll just leave Prufrock to continue dealing with yourselves over this issue.
And although this is something that is just not going to happen, and probably can’t for about 3 million reasons, personally speaking, I would be in favour of the rules preventing an owner/s backing any other horse in a race they have a runner in just to be as clear as possible.
If gamblers want to gamble as owners they should be limited in races where they are responsible, at least financially, for the main participant. Roger Federer can’t place bets on himself to win Tennis matches, and the fact owners can back their own horses is as far as it should be able to go imo.
However, if it was done with the benefit of inside information then it would be an offence regardless of who layed it.
Findlay layed Gullible Gordon at Chepstow on the basis of inside information (riding instructions) from the horses trainer.
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.
Eeek! Well for your (BHA) sakes, if for no elses, there should be a rule that forbids it, as otherwise how on earth would you prove – to the satisfaction of an appeal tribunal – that an owner has laid a horse in his stable utilising inside information rather than good ‘ol honest nose to the formbook
Your word against theirs?
No one would deny that your policing of owners’ laying activity is a task fraught with difficulties but such a ‘splitting of hairs’ as the above can only make the task that much more onerous
Personally I’d favour a sweeping rule that forbade owners from laying or betting their horses or any other within their trainer’s or trainers’ stable. Severe may be and perhaps unfair on the honest owner who enjoys a bet on his horse, but surely much easier to police. Furthermore I’m as weary of hearing about the bets owners/connections have as I am about those who lay their beasts; it’s all down to ‘inside information’ to a greater or lesser extent isn’t it?
Any chance you could address Glenn’s question regarding Paul Roy before you head for the hills?
Glenn
Maybe I’m being thick, maybe we’re talking at cross purposes, maybe it’s late and I’m just tired. I don’t see how there’s been a u-turn – Paul Roy’s statement said:
“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’”.
Jose
You said: “So as it stands currently it might not be possible legally to charge an owner if they were found to have done either.”
No. It is a breach of the rules to lay your own horse, that is abundantly clear from the rule, which is over and above the code of conduct (which is more of a guide to behaviour). With regards to laying horses from yards where you have a horse in training, it’s not a breach of the rules as such because there isn’t a rule that prevents it. My personal view is that there should be, simply for clarity.
You also said “And although this is something that is just not going to happen, and probably can’t for about 3 million reasons, personally speaking, I would be in favour of the rules preventing an owner/s backing any other horse in a race they have a runner in just to be as clear as possible.” I can see arguements for and against this, although there certainly could be more clarity on certain issues as I said earlier.
Cav
You said “Findlay layed Gullible Gordon at Chepstow on the basis of inside information (riding instructions) from the horses trainer.”
That is exactly why the independent Disciplinary Panel found Harry Findlay in breach and it is clearly referenced in their reasons (https://www.britishhorseracing.presscentre.com/Press-Releases/OWNER-HARRY-FINDLAY-DISQUALIFIED-FOLLOWING-DISCIPLINARY-PANEL-ENQUIRY-12f.aspx)
Pomp – I will pass your congratulations on to Turia.
I was only referring to the part about "backing all the others" or "backing the only other runner in a match race," Silvoir.
I did read the part where you said about common sense (apart from Paul Roy and Nic Coward though
– they’re hardly popular on here as you must know) and as you’re already looking at clarity on the issue, there must be a reason why you’re discussing clarity on the issue.Hi Paul,
Maybe we are talking at cross purposes. The way I read your answer, concerning your common sense approach, was that you are now saying that backing an opponent against your own horses violates the rules of racing both in spirit and in practical application. This is a definate sea change from previous pronouncements from racing’s rulers on this loophole, where it was left as just that – a loophole.
Whatever the case, happy hols – you really do get all the best gigs: holiday programmes, hosting Miss World………
Glenn – what I hope or said, or what I meant to say is:
1 – Laying your own horse is a clear offence
2 – It is my understanding that if you backed another horse against your in a two horse race, or backed every other horse in a race apart from yours (laying by proxy) that it would be no different to laying your horse. As I said, perhaps this is something that could and/or should be made explicit.Think Judith wouldn’t have even got out of bed for my gigs/domestic holidays…
If only…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.