- This topic has 39 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
MrW, the point is that laying your horse would no longer be ‘dodgy’ if such a move was sanctioned, and owners would not have a moral dilemma to address.
I’m sure upright citizens like AP would not indulge, but even if it’s done at a low level…………..say, in an attempt to recoup entry fees in ante-post races when the horse isn’t going to be ready………it would end-up crippling the game.
How come Betfair have continued to take Harry’s lays when they know full well it is against the rules and they have a MOU with the sport?
- Total Posts 17716
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.
I’d suggest the latter – a cynical piece of public relations, which is why we won’t be seeing a response from the BHA anytime soon.
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.
I’m not suggesting anything I am merely pointing out this has always gone on in one form or another and it always will.
It is impossible to outlaw.
Owners laying horses
will not
kill the game off.
As I stated betting never has been fair – bookies have always used inside info to get an edge.
It is utopian and idealistic to expect a level playing field.
Punters need to accept this if not they should not play and yes it is a case of
caveat emptor
Paul, I realise that it is impossible to "outlaw", because there will always be unscrupulous owners.
The point I am trying to make is that, if you
allowed
owners to lay their own horses as suggested earlier i.e. the restriction was removed, there would be no moral dilemma for owners – they could lay with impunity.
It’s a totally different scenario to the one you appear to be describing, and
certainly
has the ability to cripple the game.
Paul, with respect, you are talking nonsense….
To allow owners to freely lay their horses when they have information that they won’t be winning would kill the game in a very short space of time. Say Denman had gone off at 20-1 at Kempton, and it later transpired that Harry Findlay had laid him to all comers on Betfair to win a fortune. Would you say that was acceptable? And can you not appreciate that this kind of activity would soon see ordinary punters leaving the sport in droves?
It is as acceptable as the bookies paying snouts for information and laying accordingly.
Bluechariot, if you think big bookmakers possess such information then I think you are misguided. If a "snout" knows a horse won’t be winning, why would he sell that information to a bookmaker when he could clean up himself?
I have to say that I am with tdk/Grasshopper on this.
No-one has managed to eradicate murder but everyone knows it is against the law and that they will be punished if caught. You don’t make it legal just because you cannot eradicate it.
I have asked the BHA before now if they will be tightening up their regulations on ownership. If I open a betting account I have to go through various checks; if I own a car I have to go through various checks; if I own a house I have to go through various checks. Surely owning a horse should be similar.
I suspect not rocking the boat is nearly as much an issue here as the undoubted cost that would come with such an initiative.
Owners and connections are just taking advantage of a flawed system, in my opinion.
I most definitely do not agree or condone what some of them might be doing, but if they weren’t laying their horses to lose themselves, then in all probability they would simply instruct others to do it for them.
Afterall, it can be made so much easier for a horse ( even the favourite ) to lose a race than to win.
There is a simple solution – ban all laying of horses.
But sadly, now that it’s in full swing, that won’t happen.
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
There is a simple solution – ban all laying of horses.
Dare I ask what bookmakers are supposed to do then?
Banning the laying of horses
would put a quick grislly end
to the reign of the bair
and what it initially createdited
a true godsport
modelled on New YorkAs for ownwer’s laying
put em all in cages
and read the BHA
riot act at em.I am much more interested
in examining the
hopefully uncosy
BAIR – BHA relationship
as a true solution
to heavy betting
lies in heavy vetting;
rigorous, open-minded
and with gamble at the heart
yes a tripartite
and strangely enough
I am free in the summer
There is a simple solution – ban all laying of horses.
Dare I ask what bookmakers are supposed to do then?
I knew someone would pipe in with that obvious retort – but you know exactly what I am alluding to – PUNTERS betting on horses to lose !
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.