- This topic has 48 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 12 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
From the BHA following inquiry into the eye-widening comments by N.Henderson over a bet he placed that his yard wouldn’t have any winners at Cheltenham.
NO ACTION TO BE TAKEN AGAINST NICKY HENDERSON IN RELATION TO CHELTENHAM BET COMMENT
Authority views bet as ill-judged and inappropriate
Rule amendments to be draftedThe British Horseracing Authority has reviewed the comments made by trainer Nicky Henderson following the victory of Bob’s Worth at the Cheltenham Festival, in which the trainer mentioned a bet placed by himself to train no winners at the Cheltenham Festival.
Rule (C)64 of the Rules of Racing states that ‘A trainer must not lay with a Betting Organisation any horse under his care or control to lose a race…instruct another Person to do so, or…receive the whole or any part of any proceeds of such a lay.’
Having reviewed his comments and taken advice, the Authority today confirms that it will not be bringing charges against Nicky Henderson.
Explaining the decision, Paul Struthers, Head of Communications for the Authority, said:
“Whilst no one has suggested that Nicky Henderson would have wanted to train no winners at the Cheltenham Festival, it is the Authority’s view that, if the bet was placed, it was ill-judged and inappropriate.
“Having sought advice, the decision has been taken not to pursue the matter because, as the Rule is currently worded, there is unlikely to have been a breach as there was not any separate lay of each runner.
“That said, we believe that a trainer placing such a bet, however intentioned, is wrong and we will be looking to amend the relevant rules to reflect this.”
NOTE –
Rule (C)64 in full is:
64. Restrictions on laying a horse to lose
64.1 A trainer must not64.1.1 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.64.2 A Person whose name is or has been entered on the Register of Stable Employee Names must not
64.2.1 lay with a Betting Organisation any horse under the care or control of the trainer for whom he is employed to lose a race,
64.2.2 instruct another Person to do so on his behalf, or
64.2.3 receive the whole or any part of any proceeds of such a lay.64.3 Paragraph 64.2 applies for the whole of the period of employment and for the period of 21 days afterwards.
64.4 Any reference to a Person 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.
64.5 Nothing in this Rule prevents the laying of any horse owned by a Betting Organisation in the ordinary course of that Betting Organisation’s business.- Total Posts 17716
Some rules.
You can’t lay one but you can lay all.
You can back but not lay.
So if Matty races against Hatty I can back Hatty but cannot lay Matty.Lay this race if you dare:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLl8mcTp-lw
Glad to see that common sense has prevailed.
If there’s any common sense around, someone should ship some to Henderson.
Unless it’s a prohibited substance.It’s not common sense. At the very best it’s accidental convenience.
Maybe Betfair should re-name laying ‘backing the alternative’ and we could find out how the current rules would hold up then? After all, it can’t be considered laying, it is ‘backing the alternative.’
The old query about the two horse race and backing against your own looks very interesting now.
To think this mob charged Findlay, initially banned him courtesy of their (and I know Paul likes this one) independent disciplinary panel, for laying, or more like trading/hedging, yet Henderson has done it in another way and got off without even being charged.
It’s not like NH had plotted to not have a winner at the festival, is it? Like I said on another thread… Hen Knight used to always have a few quid on the runners that opposed Best Mate. This is the same as laying her own charge, is it not? But did she do wrong? I think not.
The rules may need to be clarified a little, but what NH did was no big deal, IMO.
- Total Posts 17716
The bet Nicky Henderson struck was for all of his horses to lose; whether it constituted a collective or individual interest, it conforms to the very definition of ‘laying’.
The act, and his subsequent couldn’t-give-a-toss admission, were certainly inappropriate, ill-judged and misguided, but you can’t justify holding Harry Findlay to account when allowing him (Henderson) to effectively do as he likes. Then again, the BHA have already conspired with a proven drugs cheat to conceal the likely non-participation of a Champion Hurdle favouite; did anyone really expect a different outcome in this case?
In the grand scheme of things – Henderson has much less trivial matters to worry about – it’s not that big a deal, but when did the seriousness of one questionable act devalue the seriousness of another?
The contravention of the rules of racing isn’t relative and nor should it be.
A simple question, did Mr.Henderson strike the bet before or after Benocular was ruled out of Cheltenham? If before then they are all a party to fraud.If after was he using inside information and did the bookmakers know that Benocular was scratched? So you win if you can but if you lose you still win. Very interesting. Not only did they excuse Mr.Henderson they even said it was their fault for not writing the rules clearly.If only others were treated with the same kindness shown to this rogue.The whole company should be sent packing. By the way did they pursue the matter to determine if Henderson paid up? My advise to all trainers get a Queen’s horse into your yard as quicklky as possible.Now I understand Mr. Findlay’s attitude towards this bunch of showers.
Who did the BHA take advice from on this matter and why was the word "separate" inserted into the press release? There’s no mention of the word "separate" in the rulebook (Rule (C)64).
In the grand scheme of things nothing "terribly wrong" as the man himself might say, has been done, but once again the impression given is of the BHA looking after its man.
How would it have looked if the bet have been successful?
Interviewer to Nicky – "How does it feel to have so many near misses at the biggest meeting of the year?"
Nicky to Interviewer – "Not good but thankfully I’ve got a bit of compensation with 16 grand I’ve won from my bet I wouldn’t have any winners".
Wouldn’t have looked good would it?
I assume this is the end of the "bringing racing into disrepute" charge, and it will never be used again?
When unfashionable trainers say things but actually don’t do anything, no rule is broken; except they still get done for "bringing racing into disrepute"
Obviously this rule doesn’t apply to Henderson.
If the acid test for a disrepute charge was the reaction of the legendary man on the street I think that anyone outside of Racing’s elite would regard this as dodgy to say the least, a fact I think the BHA acknowledge with their "ill judged and inappropriate" comment
Where’s Paul Struthers now he has to defend this even more blatant favouritism??
Henderson clearly knew his planned bet was dubious, as by his own admission, he discussed it in advance with Edward Gillespie. Only after Gillespie had told him the racecourse had no objections did he go ahead and bet.
On that basis, he presumably checked on the legality of tranexamic acid with his farrier and only used it after getting his blessing!
BHA have got this one right imo, as any charge could only have resulted in a caution or a small fine at worst. And in effect, their statement is as good as a caution anyway.
AP
- Total Posts 17716
What trainers know for sure is when they have readied one and also the overhyped favourite.
If "for sure" is an overstatement, certainly with considerably higher accuracy than the rest of us.
And that is not against the rules of racing in any sense. Tame effort is against the rules as also if they give directions to the jockey to infringe others.A typical trainer may well be useless when it comes to analyze a race card, but we talk of the horses in his own yard.
He has great advantage and if he decides to either back or lay he can’t lose imho.
Archimedes said "dos moi pa sto kai tan gan kinato". (n.b. that sounds very funny in Erasmic pronounciation of Greek – we should all speak Erasmic).So therefore there should be a rule "no gambling by trainers".
Trainers are known to relate hard luck stories to us, about how they lost the Empire State Building in one race.
So therefore there should be a rule "no gambling by trainers".
Great idea in theory but unworkable in practice, in the same way the rule banning jockeys from betting is ultimately unenforceable.
All that will happen, should such a ban be introduced, is bets would be placed through third parties.
The only ones who would end up being caught would be, to put it bluntly, the thick ones without the wherewithal to cover their tracks properly.
Undoubtedly the majority of trainers and jockeys would not break such a rule but those who wanted to flout the rule could do so relatively easily.
Where there is betting involved there will always be those who wish to gain an unfair advantage and whilst doing so can be made difficult, it would be delusional to think it could ever be eradicated.
Dare I also say with such poor prize money in the sport the temptation, dare I say pressure, to bet outside the rules must be even greater.
I find it difficult to believe a day does not go by, even with the current rules, where some connections are not, indirectly, laying their own horses.
- Total Posts 17716
A ban on trainers betting would n’t work by 100% but could work by 70%-80%.
Also those who wish to break the rule will have to search for accomplishes all of the time, because with the internet you have to give your name and address when placing a bet.An argument against the ban is that trainers and co are the real big time customers (the "heavy paper" to use stock exchaange jargon).
An argument in favour of the ban is that prices will become more attractive.
There is more to this debate of course.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.