- This topic has 48 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 12 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
- Total Posts 17716
Yet again proves one rule for lord lambourn, another for everyone else.
Another unstimulating variant on the Old Etonian chant.
What evidence do you offer to support your allegation? None, of course.
Sigh…. well, carrying on chanting, please do.
Will the Facts do as evidence? Admission by the trainer. That is a fact.Check the betting record .Did he actually place a bet? Was it before Benocular’s withdrawl or after it? Again check the records.Did he also back some of his horses to win?Check the facts. Did a crime take place? As they said about Johnson it will take some time to do the homework if they are serious.However if they are not then a quick summary dismissal is in order.
- Total Posts 17716
Andyod
, if you
bother
to read the BHA report you will find the answer to
all
your questions, and the reasons why Henderson was not punished.
Quote Silvoir:
"… 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."
Are you clearer now?
Henderson broke no rule
. Apart of course from daring to go to Eton.
Pinza, before a rule was written banning trainers/connections from laying their own horses, did you consider it acceptable for a trainer to lay his own horse?
As regards not breaking any rule per se, there is no reason why Henderson cannot be charged under the "bringing racing into disrepute" which is a catch-all to cover just such an occasion
- Total Posts 17716
Apart from going to Eton, how exactly has Henderson
brought racing into disrepute
by making this insignificant, superstitious bet? How pompous!
This is a incredible story. Nicky Henderson
lays all of his horses to lose
(at the festival)is basically what has happened here.
I be asking Paul Struters will the BHA issue a full apology to Harry Findlay since it seems that Owners are banned yet trainers are not for laying their own horses
Firstly, what has going to Eton to do with anything?
Secondly I fail to see where I am being pompous. In fact there is a fairly strong argument to suggest that the only pompous posts on this thread come from your own keyboard.
Nonetheless …
If Nicky Henderson had laid every single horse in his yard that ran at Cheltenham one after the other then he would have broken the rule in every single race.
As it was he laid them all collectively which is NOT against any rule as such but is dubious conduct no matter what way you look at it.
If A P O’Brien backed himself to win NO races at Royal Ascot you can be fairly sure that the relevant authorities would not come down so lightly on him.
- Total Posts 17716
Pomposity has nothing to do with it, Pinza, although I suspect you’re something of an expert in that particular field.
To any outsider, or even a semi-interested novice, Nicky Henderson has been seen to back against every single horse he sent to Cheltenham. Whether the rules specify collective laying or not, he has sought to profit in the event that all of his runners lost.
If such an act isn’t considered to be against the rules as they currently exist, it almost certainly brings the sport in to disrepute considering the publicity Harry Findlay’s (rightful) public execution received.
The BHA have now conspired with a proven drugs cheat to delay the announcement of the likely withdrawal of the Champion Hurdle favourite and let him off on an interpretive technicality when it’s clear that action could, and should, have been taken (Paul Struthers’s admission that "it was wrong" confirms that).
Nick Luck’s Twitter-born suggestion that someone’s criticism of Nicky Henderson in this case somehow undermines the credibility of their stance against his apparent darker practices, borders on laughable.
- Total Posts 17716
There is likely to be a fair amount of difference in the prices without the insiders.
One day there was a napped forecast and I asked my local agent this:
"Tell me how much you ‘d pay for this if you were to pay on the basis of the receipts in this shop only, after deducting all dues". He did some quick arithmetic and he told me 17 to 2.
The forecast came true and the exact S.P. announced was 7/2.The huge differences were when the tricast was introduced for the first time.
There were some sort of ad hoc made computer terminals, while the good ones were being awaited for, and you had to stand in a queue. The pro gamblers did n’t bother.
I remember a combination thus one of those days:1st horse – super nap of the day (1/10)
2nd horse – good chance, champion jockey’s choice
3d horse – good chance
field of 10The price was 100:1
Today it could n’t go beyond 10 to 1. If it was 15 to 1 I ‘d call it miraculous.
- Total Posts 17716
Firstly, what has going to Eton to do with anything?
My point exactly. So why do people keep referring to Henderson’s schooling, calling him "Lord Lambourn"
et. al.
?
Secondly I fail to see where I am being pompous. In fact there is a fairly strong argument to suggest that the only pompous posts on this thread come from your own keyboard.
Apologies. I wasn’t meaning to be personal – I meant that the phrase
"bringing racing into disrepute"
was pompous when applied to a trivial bet which was a kind of lucky charm, not an attempt to delude the public, make a killing
etc. etc.
Nonetheless …
If Nicky Henderson had laid every single horse in his yard that ran at Cheltenham one after the other then he would have broken the rule in every single race.
As it was he laid them all collectively which is NOT against any rule as such but is dubious conduct no matter what way you look at it.
Exactly stated. He did not break any rule. Why is
not
breaking a rule "dubious"? His action was the equivalent of buying a lucky rabbit’s foot, and cost him about as much. So trivial, indeed, that I’m surprised anyone’s bothering to hike their blood pressure over it – except for for the fact that it offers a brilliant chance to give another ducking to the Witch of the Month.
If A P O’Brien backed himself to win NO races at Royal Ascot you can be fairly sure that the relevant authorities would not come down so lightly on him.
"Fairly sure" or "fairly unsure", this is a hypothetical stab in the dark, and irrelevant.
I agree totally with Master Luck, that this teacup storm only weakens the BHA’s ability to deal fairly with Henderson over the more significant issue of the pre-Binocular positive race sample. How can justice be done with all this howling going on?
I’d add, with respect, that the only people
bringing racing into disrepute
in this matter are the witch hunters and camp followers who look for every opportunity to tear the man to shreds.
Pinza can you affirm that the bet was made before Benocular was withdrawn?Since he was surely a winner in waiting for Henderson.Just establishing the facts that is all.If Henderson and nobody else knew that Benocular would be withdrawn then that fact would be very relevant.Right Pinza? Did McManus know about that bet before the horse was withdrawn,since his horse was now part of the bet?Again just enquiring as to the facts which you so casually hung your hat on.I read the waffle and the moral judgements of the BHA. Since when was it their mission to determine what is "ill judged and inappropriate bets"? I have many such bets in my life.Who cares if it is not illegal? Will Henderson check with the BHA next time he has a bet? The whole thing is a cop out by the BHA who are again shirking their duty when a big man is the bad guy. Can hardly wait until after the National to see what happens with Howard.Suppose he took "ill judged and inappropriate" actions with his sick horses.But that is OK we(BHA) will go back and make new rules to preveny him doing that again.
I don’t think you can accuse the BHA of shirking their duty at all. Quite the opposite in fact. They could have (and in the past probably, in fact almost certainly, would have) let it pass without investigation, inquiry or public communication so fair play to them.
It seems pretty clear that this was no grand get-rich-quick scheme hatched by Henderson to fleece punters. In fact it is pretty evident that it was innocuous, even if he did have the bet (which seems in question) it was hardly likely, even in the wildest of imaginary scenarios, to have resulted in him telling Sam Waley Cohen to take it easy on Long Run, etc.
But, what is also equally clear is that N.Henderson keeps getting himself into these scrapes. Paul Struthers must dread it every time he hears the word ‘Henderson’. We had Binocular last year, the infamous veterinary debacle, Binocular again this year and now this minor episode, along with a few other escapades along the way.
It may be transparent to hardened racing punters and men in-the-know that this one was a minor storm-in-a-teacup but to the uninitiated it must have seemed surprising to hear a leading trainer claim that he’d backed his horses not to win at the season’s top meeting, particularly when he had a host of horses who were highly fancied.
Enquiry – right to have it but right result too.
OK Cormack lets then face the question. Did he or did he not bring racing into disrepute? Did he not send the wrong horses to the wrong meeting? Did he run horses under the influence? Was his vet cleaned out from racing? Were his stable staff held responsible for his horses instead of himself?Did he lay his horses to lose? On all those occasions he used the poor me excuse.I could not tell one horse from another in the dark.I didn’t know the drug was illegal.The vet was responsible, not me etc etc etc. What in the name … is he doing with a license to train horses? If he was a regular trainer would he be so favorably looked on by the powers that be.Look at how harshly they treated Kienen Fallon and he was not even the object of their enquiry.Why Kieren was not allowed to ride while the enquiry took place. That was not what they told H.Johnson when he was being investigated;he was allowed to continue training.Sorry Cormac but the pieces don’t fit.
They could not have let it pass without an enquity since they hauled Murtagh in about a statement he made to the press about talking to the other jockeys.When it enters the public arena they are obliged to act one way or another or they become irrelevant.
What is transparent to hardened punters is that there is a double standard and that the goldenboys are a different kettle of fish fron the Ballydoyle lads,like Aidan O’Brien, who were bringing racing into disrepute.
Hardened punters are not what the BHA is appealing to.They know how to butter their bread. What about the small guy who backs Henderson and then hears he backed against them? It is not a matter of how much or how little he cheated.Whether he gave the horse enough dope to get it out of his system by race day or whether he did not. Whether he is responsible for his yard or whether the headlad is responsible for it.Whether his horse is running with dope in her system or not.Whether his vet was following instructions or not.Whether he sends the right horse to the right track or not there is a cloud hanging over racing and until he is gone the cloud will remain.
Cormack there are none so blind as those who will not see. The BHA refuses to see.This guy is turning racing and the BHA into a joke.Why would the Queen have horses in such a yard? He is bringing her majesty down with him.As for the bet I would still like to know when was the bet placed, and was it a small bet at long odds, placed before or after Benoculars was scratched? I ask you following the recent enquiry about the Queens horse in his yard would you believe anything this guy said? Have you forgotten his testamony so soon?The past forgotten will soon be repeated.Simple questions no clear answers.As they might say on another forum… WALOFS!
Anyway, I’ve been dying to ask, who is this Ben Ocular chap?
A short while ago it has been reported in the press that Henderson has had ANOTHER drug test returned positive, presumably around the time of the Binocular incident.
IF the "B" sample returns positive it will be a second time Henderson has been caught for this.
It will be interesting if this produces a similar outcome to last time. In a month or so will probably be the right time for a 3 month suspension I suppose.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.