- This topic has 39 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
Here’s an extract from the Code Of Conduct for registered owners :
Part 5: Specific Standards to be observed by Owners
Refrain from laying any horse in their ownership to lose a race.
Refrain from laying any horse from a yard where they have a horse in training.
So given that I have Salute in training with Pat Murphy, I’m not allowed to lay any other horse that he runs.
So it was interesting to read Harry Findlays contributions to the Guardian racing pages last week, in which he freely admitted to laying horses trained by Paul Nicholls on a regular basis.
Are the rules not enforced, or does the device of making the ‘official’ owner his mother mean that they don’t apply.
I should add that I’ve nothing against Harry, and I’m not suggesting he’s guilty of any corrupt behaviour – indeed he claims to have lost foretunes laying Nicholls runners. But it does indicate what a tangled mess these rules produce in certain circumstances.
The problem is with the word "refrain", Alan.
It does not expressly forbid the activity – it merely requests that the owner abstains from such conduct. Choice is implicit.
Are the rules not enforced, or does the device of making the ‘official’ owner his mother mean that they don’t apply.
Both (nap).
I’m led to believe that in some of the best known ‘laying coups’ of the last few years, the guy paying the bills was actually doing the laying in his own name. It’s just that his name wasn’t the one registered as the official owner.
Even when this ruse is rumbled, as in the Mickmacpaddywhackgiveadogabone case, the perpetrators are not punished for laying horses they pay the bills for.
The trouble is even if the rule was set in stone it would not be at all enforceable, such a rule is more for window dressing than anything else.
All an owner would need to do is have someone place the bet on their behalf.
After all the rules say jockeys are not allowed to bet – does anyone seriously believe there are not jockeys out there who find a way to bet if they so wish?
Not read the specific article but if true it’s scandalous the BHA have not had him in and/or the matter has not been picked up by the racing media as they are constantly referring to him as the "owner" of Denman and others.
He was even nominated for owner of the year on here and went close
Is there nothing in the rules that covers close family members? For example is it quite okay to own a horse and your missus to lay it?Are the rules not enforced, or does the device of making the ‘official’ owner his mother mean that they don’t apply.
Would that mean that Findlay would have been allowed to lay Denman at Kempton, for example?
I know the BHA guys post on here, so maybe they could answer this question for us?
- Total Posts 17716
I don’t mind owners laying horses if they genuinly feel it dosen’t have a chance and nothing sinister is going on, lets be fair its not cheap to own a horse and they have every right to be in more of an advantage than the betting public imo.
I don’t mind owners laying horses if they genuinly feel it dosen’t have a chance and nothing sinister is going on, lets be fair its not cheap to own a horse and they have every right to be in more of an advantage than the betting public imo.
You’re having a laugh, right?
Picking up on the point raised by Grasshopper, I checked the rules of racing as opposed to code of conduct.
An owner laying his own horse is prohibited by rule 247, penalty ranging from 6 months disqualification up to 10 years.
But laying other horses from the stable isn’t specifically against the rules.
Which makes the code of conduct either a toothless exercise or a cynical piece of public relations.
- Total Posts 17716
I don’t mind owners laying horses if they genuinly feel it dosen’t have a chance and nothing sinister is going on, lets be fair its not cheap to own a horse and they have every right to be in more of an advantage than the betting public imo.
You’re having a laugh, right?
Nope, my nan owns a car and has her own disabled parking on a busy street, should she put out a sign on the nearest tree saying when she’s going to be using her space and when it will be availble for the public to use?
Yes but Mr Wilson you forget, their reasons for believing it genuinely doesn’t have a chance are far more informed than the persons whom they are laying money against. In NO way possible is it fair against the backer that an owner is allowed to lay his or hers own horses, in my opinion of course.
Harry the Dog said after the race that his in-running man was "sacked if he hadn’t won fortunes". Does backing another horse in a race where your horse is running not equate to laying your own horse? How does that sit in the context of the rules AP?
Yes but Mr Wilson you forget, their reasons for believing it genuinely doesn’t have a chance are far more informed than the persons whom they are laying money against.
Bookmakers have worked for years on the basis of having "inside" information not in the public domain.
The example being discussed here is no different.
The only difference nowadays is the bookmakers have lost their monopoly when it comes to laying and that is why they whinge about exchanges.
In NO way possible is it fair against the backer that an owner is allowed to lay his or hers own horses, in my opinion of course.
life isn’t fair – never has been – never will be
- Total Posts 17716
Its a very heated debate and I wish to not fall out with anyone but I will respect both side of the argument.
Paul, are you seriously suggesting that owners
should
be allowed to lay their horses on the exchanges??
Do you think Darren Mercer, for example, was hard done by, when he was pinched for…..allegedly…..laying a horse in his ownership that he knew would take no part in a big race?
Do you consider such a move fair game, and that it’s
caveat emptor
for those not on the "inside"?
If you want to kill the game off, allowing owners to lay their horses would get the job done a lot quicker than any animal rights mob.
Carvills,
The situation you quote is another one of the grey areas – personally I’d regard it as ethically wrong, but so far as I’m aware, it isn’t specifically covered by the rules.
My own view is that the rules should be absolute – if you own, or part own, a horse, then backing that horse is your only option in any race it contests. And I would imagine that for 95% + of owners, that’s exactly what they do, regardless of what the rules might or might not say.
The problem is the other 5%, and the fact that policing that minority involves up to £20M of Levy money being diverted from better causes in order to pay for the security services.
- Total Posts 17716
If you want to kill the game off, allowing owners to lay their horses would get the job done a lot quicker than any animal rights mob.
Grass,
If you give these "dodgy" ones enough rope by letting them be able to lay their own horses then surely we can eliminate them from the sport?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.