- This topic has 25 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 16 years ago by
.
- Posts
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.
What about an owner backing and laying his own horse for large amounts, manipulating the odds to his own ends and to the detriment and disadvantage of other punters in that race? Would have thought intent was at least just as important as result.
I think this is a rule that has to be black and white, as there is far too much potential to bend things otherwise.
The only complaint I believe Findlay is justified in having is in the laggardly nature of the BHA’s bringing this to a resolution, which regrettably seems to be par for the course.
Justice needs to be both fair and timely.
Insider market manipulation on financial markets comes with a jail term and its rampant (spoofing) on the exchanges. Although very difficult to police, offenders should be punished heavily when found guilty, Findlay no exception.
I don’t why anyone’s particularly bothered by it. Findlay apparently has the ability to manipulate markets anyhow. It won’t make a difference if it’s a horse owned by his mother or not. He can still do it. The BHA no doubt will administer their pathetic punishment, which will be a complete waste of time, and that will be a £1,000 fine or less. Yippee. That helps solve corruption in Racing. And if they choose to "disqualify" him I’ll laugh even more.
Would be interested to know the forum’s view on "laying" horses in general … I know there are many on here that dabble in the "play & lay" markets … personally, since I view punting as a hobby rather than a serious money making exercise, I’ve never felt comfortable about betting on something to lose even though I recognise it’s a valid skill in assessing the merits of a horse’s chances … $64,000 dollar question of course is, do the forumites think there are more examples and more opportunity for corruption since the increased availability of "laying to lose" for the general public ? … or is it that the info is more easily available and hence more widely reported ?
It’s low margins that raise the possibility of making significant cash out of betting horses to lose, rather than the ability to lay per se. Especially so when you wouldn’t even be breaking any rules in backing all your opponents.
That said, a low margin tote would make it that much harder, as you’d have to weight your bets without knowing the final odds. It would be sweet justice if one insider backing everything else to take out 50k found himself looking at a loss after another insider smashed in the price of his job horse late!
I can’t help thinking that the future should be low margin tote exotics over multiple races, which would make it harder still. Bit like the minimum treble rule they used to have in football.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.