- This topic has 26 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
Did anyone else hear Monsieur Henderson interviewed on Radio Five after the Gold Cup?
I’m pretty sure he said that a couple of weeks ago, he’d had a ‘huge bet’ on his stable to have no winners at Cheltenham…
Is it just me, or was that a pretty dangerous thing to admit to?!?
This topic has seen a huge response on other forums, but not a sausage on here, after 3 days…
Don’t get it
He said when interviewed that he has never done it in previous years so why do it now.
An insurance policy, cant see anything wrong with it if its there to be taken.
Extremely unwise move, particularly in present circumstances, imo.
Have to wonder about the man’s judgement.
In fairness the bet was only for 1k apparently!That would be a big bet for someone like myself earning 60k a year not for Nicky Henderson i’d safely say he just did it to lessen the blow if none of his horses did win!
The rules are clear, owners and trainers are not allowed to lay their own horses to lose. Why should you want to profit for failure? Can you imagine the stink that would have been kicked up if his run of placed horses had continued throughout Cheltenham and he had won 16 grand through that.
This topic has seen a huge response on other forums, but not a sausage on here, after 3 days…
Don’t get it
maybe because people here are more rational and reasonable….
The rules are clear, owners and trainers are not allowed to lay their own horses to lose. Why should you want to profit for failure? Can you imagine the stink that would have been kicked up if his run of placed horses had continued throughout Cheltenham and he had won 16 grand through that.
As I don’t bet much and avoid exchanges like the plague, did he actually lay his horses or did he avail himself of one of the many bookmaker specials?
And lets face it. 16k? Peanuts compared to winning races, potentially picking up the trainers championship and passing his guvnor’s record at the festival all of which I’ve no doubt he’d rather do.
I was at Cheltenham and heard the interview which I thought was on the local radio transmission from the course.
That aside I got the impression that he only had the bet afyer having a run of seconds on the first day because he was pig sick at his luck.
He sounded quite chirpy about it and I got the impression from the interviewer that it was just a bet for a laugh and to lessen the blow if he continued to have a bad week through to the end.
I suppose a grand to NH is very little.I doubt there was any mal intent in this bet , however it is absolutely against the rules , of that there can be no question . It is the equivalent of a 42 horse lay accumulator and it matters not whether they were laid on an exchange or backed to lose with a bookmaker it’s ( yet another ) clear breach of the rules by the old Etonian. I have no doubt that Henderson did not want any of his horses beat , let alone all of them but it was a stupid bet to place PR wise and one he was not allowed to make .
Under the rules of racing what he did is not allowed.
64. Restrictions on laying a horse to lose
64.1 A trainer must not
64.1.1 lay with a
Betting Organisation
any horse under his care or control to lose a race,
64.1.2 instruct another Person to do so, or
64.1.3 receive the whole or any part of any proceeds of such a lay.Betting Organisation
means
74.2.3 any bookmaker,
74.2.4 the Tote,
74.2.5 any company offering spread betting on horseracing or person-to-person betting exchanges on horseracing, and
74.2.6 the employees of any such organisation;An insurance policy, cant see anything wrong with it if its there to be taken.
That’s my opinion too, people are wanting to plot against the man for the whole Binocular debacle, but this seems rather innocent.
Is there any proof he actually did have the bet?
Or could it be Mr Henderson was possibly extracting the urine?
Not passing judgment, just looking at alternative explanations.
Kim Bailey mentions it in his blog in a factual sort of way. I do find it a bit insensitive considering how many people lost money on all his horses that came second. He also points out that the medication given to Binocular is widely used and everyone was of the opinion/belief that it only stayed in the system for 7 days max.
If the bet has been placed, it was more than just an insurance policy. Henderson’s ‘insurance policy’ had the potential to be worth around his share of a race as prestigious as the Ryanair Chase. That’s not just covering the ‘cost’ of failing to win any one race run at the festival.
Anyway, why £16k, for what I’d presume is a wealthy man, can compensate for failing to win at Cheltenham is beyond me.
Of course, we’ve still got to find out if the BHA think of this as laying. Instinctively, backing zero is actually laying; backing the largest option is backing. Establishing the in-between is just as interesting.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.