- This topic has 25 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
- Total Posts 17716
Oops it seems Harry may have layed one of his horses more than once. Charges pending. Did he also back the horse in question and try to eek a free margin? Let’s see how long this case takes to work out.
Yes, laid it, but bet a lot more. Read about this a couple of weeks ago. I think it is the one where he gave instructions to one of his people to back it. He used his own initiative, and bet it for a bit more, and then laid some of it back . . .
What do people reckon is the best defence?
Plead guilty, in the expectation that it is a slap on the wrist.
Plead not guilty, as he isn’t down as the owner. (Haven’t checked whether this horse(s) is registered to him or his mum.)
Plead not guilty, as he bet it for more than he laid?
http://www.sportinglife.com/racing/news … ndlay.html
Seems a bit ridiculous to me given that he stood to win a substantially bigger sum if the horse won.
Why not have less on the horse in the first place if you don’t want too lose too much?
The rules are clear you are not allowed to lay your own horses, Harry knows this and has admitted his guilt and hopefully he will be treated the same as any other culprit.There’s a bit of a difference in laying off some of your original stake and laying your horse when you know it is going to lose.
This is just making an example of someone instead of going after the real insider layers out there.
- Total Posts 17716
That’s an easy one. You have 10K on at an average of 5.75 and lay 5K back at 3.85. Your price on the remaining 5K is then greatly enhanced from the original quote.
Agree re harry being made an example of. But the rule is there, it’s plain to see and Harry can’t play dumb.
- Total Posts 17716
bit obvious aint it, whys all his horses in his mothers name? duh!
- Total Posts 17716
Come off it Mr.W it’s not like Harry is trying to fool anyone there. Give me another 10 million and I’ll put a few in my mothers name ( and the wife ) too so she can have a thrill or three.
- Total Posts 17716
That’s neither here nor there, Mr Wilson. Perhaps you should read the Sporting Life article, or indeed familiarise yourself with the rule Findlay is charged with breaching, before making such ridiculous comments.
I tend to agree that he’s being made an example of – I dare say the BHA have been waiting for such a high-profile figure to come under scrutiny for a long, long time, if only to act as a ‘look at us, look at what we’re doing to combat illegal laying’ smokescreen – but whether or not he stood to profit more had the horse won is immaterial; the rules are extremely clear.
- Total Posts 17716
That’s neither here nor there, Mr Wilson. Perhaps you should read the Sporting Life article, or indeed familiarise yourself with the rule Findlay is charged with breaching, before making such ridiculous comments.
I tend to agree that he’s being made an example of – I dare say the BHA have been waiting for such a high-profile figure to come under scrutiny for a long, long time, if only to act as a ‘look at us, look at what we’re doing to combat illegal laying’ smokescreen – but whether or not he stood to profit more had the horse won is immaterial; the rules are extremely clear.
How are my comments ridiculous, Harry "The Dog" Findlay is one of the most famous punters out there and he isn’t stupid, the rules say you can’t lay horse in your own name so why not put all horses in your mothers name? no one is saying he’s laying for the wrong reasons its just a way of getting around the rule, he’s a punter by heart and he shouldn’t be restricted to just being able to back a horse as trading is one of the more important aspects in this era.
The famous Mrs M Findlay colours and those worn by Gullible Gordon.
http://images.racingpost.com/silks/3/9/0/62093.gif
- Total Posts 17716
Again, I point you toward the article on the Sporting Life website:
"…Findlay has been charged in breach of Rule 247, in that he placed lay bets against the horse of around £17,638, and/or instructed another person on his behalf to do so and/or received the whole or part of the proceedings of such an act,
at a time when he was the owner of, and/or a person who played an active part in the management of, and/or a service provider to an owner of the horse
…"
Whether or not Harry Findlay is the registered owner makes no difference whatsoever.
Anyone looking at this case may be interested to read about this one.
- Total Posts 17716
So we can expect pretty much the same outcome in this situation then. Fair enough.
Do we know at what prices the ‘to win’ bets on Mickmacmagoole were matched? Would liabilities of a few hundred pounds in each case have been enough to artificially inflate the price (to a significant degree) of the horse?
I like Harry, seen lots of his interviews, says it how it is, a great punter
and most importantly, a Chelsea fan
Tricky one this –
You could argue that so long as the net result is not a profit if the horse loses then its not really a breach of the spirit of the rule. Perhaps the rule needs amending to reflect the net effect of an owner’s trades.
Corm
Are you advocating that the BHA should allow owners to spoof the prices of their horses out in the morning on betfair for small money and then charge in when its out to a price they deem to be acceptable?
Okay some might say anyone foolish enough to follow a horses price blindly deserves all they get, but there’s already enough cloak and dagger stuff involving certain yards without the BHA giving them carte blanche to do what they like.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.