- This topic has 17 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
I would be interested to know any opinions regarding her three month ban for betting.
Before I hear anyone elses opinions I would like to just say okay technically she has broken the rules but having not placed a bet while she was was actually riding surely stands for something and a ban seems superfluous to me but then again I am sure there are people on here that believe she should be banned for longer…
I await replies with interest
Ridiculous decision
She placed bets whilst having her license. But she only had that license for the charity race she was originally in.
When she started racing properly again, she was no longer continuing to bets, which were averaging £10.
As always, logic has gone out the window.
Yeah, tend to agree. Bureaucrats rigidly sticking to the letter of the law without taking a moment to think about the context.
A three month ban utterly disproportionate to the ‘offence’ Turner committed here.
She only had a tenner on most of the times. I don’t think she backed other horses against oods-on shots that were beaten. So maybe they went just by the rules. It’s easier to convict her than a non-trier, but not for that small amount of money.
Surprised she got 3 months to be honest – strictly under the rules of racing she made bets whilst holding a valid licence although I understand said bets were made prior to her returning to actual full race riding.
It would be interesting to know whether 3 months is an entry point on the punishment scale for the rule she has broken or whether they have taken into account the unusual circumstances of her case and been a bit more lenient in applying this sentence.
I know in the past some very well known jockeys had a man so to speak to put their bets on (and they were a damned sight more than tenners!!) but does it happen nowadays?
Anyway I digress it is good to see that the majority think the same or similar to me!
Personally I don’t think the establishment have done themselves any favours here!!
Rules are rules, but three months was very steep. Just watched sky news and they interviewed her about it, then two minutes later it was on about a 100/1 winner today. Last sentence was ” and did the trainer back it ? …. yes he did ”
Strange that a licensed jockey cannot bet and a licensed trainer can. In Football for example, even a manager is not allowed to bet on any football match anywhere in the world.
http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/policies/betting/betting-rules
Ridiculously harsh. She was backing horses, not laying them, at a time when she wasn’t riding but held a license
She gets 3 months on the day the trainer of a 100-1 winner admits to backing the horse.
There’s no consistency, no oversight. The BHA somehow manages to make the FA look good.
Ridiculously harsh. She was backing horses, not laying them, at a time when she wasn’t riding but held a license
She gets 3 months on the day the trainer of a 100-1 winner admits to backing the horse.
There’s no consistency, no oversight. The BHA somehow manages to make the FA look good.
Just think of Sir Mark or MCP and tell me how many hundreds of own horses they have backed. And how many gambles they have landed. Numerous, right?
You don’t have to come up with the 100-1 winner today. Cause if do so, then you should take a look at things that have happened further in the past and no one cared about. Anyway the ban is ridiculous and should be somehow overturned.Bit OTT, but then again this time of year – how many rides/wins will Hayley actually miss?
It is after all up to a jockey to know the rules and she’ll be back in action before the Flat Season gets going.
Value Is EverythingRidiculously harsh. She was backing horses, not laying them, at a time when she wasn’t riding but held a license
She gets 3 months on the day the trainer of a 100-1 winner admits to backing the horse.
There’s no consistency, no oversight. The BHA somehow manages to make the FA look good.
Just think of Sir Mark or MCP and tell me how many hundreds of own horses they have backed. And how many gambles they have landed. Numerous, right?
You don’t have to come up with the 100-1 winner today. Cause if do so, then you should take a look at things that have happened further in the past and no one cared about. Anyway the ban is ridiculous and should be somehow overturned.I chose the 100-1 winner because it was today, like the ban.
Type of case that the BHA can’t win with in my opinion.
Hayley’s high profile and if they give her a slap across the wrist they would be accused in some corners of “one rule for the rich” so to speak, yet given there is clearly no skull-duggery here a ban then starts to look disproportionate especially when you consider the issue of non-triers.
I did smile at the comment of “Three months is a quarter of a year of not earning any money”. Given she’d quit and has built up a nice media career I’d be surprised if she’ll be suffering severe financial hardship until March.
I read the guideline entry point is 18 months so the ban handed out does appear to take (some) consideration of the circumstances.
Strange that a licensed jockey cannot bet and a licensed trainer can. In Football for example, even a manager is not allowed to bet on any football match anywhere in the world.
http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/policies/betting/betting-rules
Racing should follow football’s example for jockeys, trainers and probably owners. It would arguably be slightly draconian, as is the rule in football, but it removes any ambiguity. You can’t then defend yourself with ‘I didn’t realise I couldn’t bet on that particular race/match, honest guv’.
Of course they’d get round it betting by proxy but at least it might look a bit better to the outside world.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.