- This topic has 27 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 17 years ago by
.
- Posts
I see in today’s Racing Post, Patrick Veitch is advocating a change to the rule which prevents owners laying their won horses (Rule 247) so that an owner could lay his own horse provided that no profit is made if the horse loses – eg – if he has already backed it at a bigger price and is laying to get his stake back
I can see his point but personally I think this would be delving into murkeir waters than we already have, with owners potentially laying their horse and claiming that they thought it would drift or, as in the case with Anthony Ramsden (see article), laying the horse to hold up the price so they could back it later.
I can tell you as an owner there is a lot of sense in it. All any of us want is to just about break even,and there is a full paper trail to show what has happened. We love the game otherwise we wouldn`t be in it but we have got to pay for the hay somehow.
I can also tell you as an owner (not that that makes me point any more valid) that allowing connections to lay their own horse at all would be a bad idea. I acknowledge that my involvement is as a hobby, and expect to have to pay to enjoy that hobby, much as I would if my hobby was playing golf. You wouldn’t expect to be allowed to help yourself to a set of golf clubs and play at Wentworth without paying green fees would you? Why should horseracing owners be any different. Fortunately the majority of them realise that.
………. but we have got to pay for the hay somehow.
Can you please " pay for the hay." out of your own pocket and not from the proceeds of insider trading.
Backing two runners is the relentless pursuit of value. Backing each way is a shortcut to the poor house. Only 7% make a long term profit.
I’m all for letting owners do their own thing. For every one of them that wins there’s half a dozen who lose. We mere bystanders just have to work harder at recognising the ‘fixes’.
Greed and temptation will never be eradicated, in horseracing or in life; for the future well-being of our churches it’s essential we retain those sins and sinners.
The secret of betting is not in finding the winners but having the guile to spot the losers. Says he who has such a woeful track record.
Re. the hay – can anyone remind me of the name of that lovely sweet smelling stuff that horses go potty for, please?Allowing owners to lay their own horses will be the beginning of the end for the exchanges and most probably the sport as we know it. It would be racings biggest mistake since the introduction of the levy.
Racehorse ownership is a hobby, you pay for it like any other hobby. Any owner who doesn’t want to accept that FACT shouldn’t be let within 10 miles of a racecourse.
Pay for your own hay Roddy
It’s ridiculous to suggest that someone who has power over whether the horse runs and what instructions are given to the jockey should be able to lay a horse. Anyone can spoof and try and hold a price up, but being able to take your ball away when your spoof is called is completely unfair.
If Veitch’s proposals went through every punter would be getting the knock on the door from the proverbial gangster offering three envelopes where you have to decide to back a horse early doors, back it near the off or lay it.
The reverse of the envelopes look like this:
back a horse early doors – the horses price collapses early before drifting late, gets no sort of run with rider sitting still. You lose
back a horse near the off – you keep getting leapfrogged by someone going for a double smash, bet unmatched. You kick yourself.
Lay it – horse gets smashed off the boards and shows stones of improvement on its previous form. You lose.
My word you are animated, I don`t think many of you have read the story. What we are saying is we are prevented from say having a bet on at 10/1 and then laying off at a lower price,which everyone else but us can do.
BHA stands firm on rule for owners laying horses
By Graham Green3.08PM 21 APR 2009
PATRICK VEITCH may, in the words of his best-selling autobiography, be ‘Enemy Number One’ with bookmakers, but the professional punter appears to have backed a loser where attempting to persuade the BHA to change the rule on owners laying their own horses is concerned.Veitch’s hopes of encouraging Shaftesbury Avenue officials to consider redefining rule 247 with gamblers in mind included raising the subject with BHA chief executive Nic Coward, but his appeallooks to have fallen on deaf ears, with the regulator adamant it is standing firm over wording of the regulation, and its rigid interpretation.
The response mirrors the outcome of what amounted to a test-case two years ago when Anthony Ramsden, son of former trainer Lynda, and Robert Owen, part-owners of Mickmacmagoole, were found in breach of the rule despite arguing they only laid the horse as a manoeuvre in order to hold the price up so they could back it themselves.
Both were fined £750, although the recommended punishment for the offence is disqualification of anywhere between three months to ten years.
BHA chief executive Nic Coward
PICTURE: Edward Whitaker/racingpostpix.com In an interview with the Racing Post this month, Veitch raised his concerns, saying: "The regulation that prevents the laying of horses by owners, trainers, grooms etcshould be clarified so that laying is defined as an activity that would bring about a profit should a horse lose.
"At the moment the rules prohibit any type of laying whatsoever, so I could not, on the same account, have £500 at 6-1 and then lay-off at 5-2."
BHA spokesman Owen Byrne confirmed Veitch had spoken to Coward, but said: "In the Mickmacmagoole case, Ramsden and Owen explained they only laid the horse for small amounts to make surethe odds didn’t contract so they could get a better price the next day when they wanted to back the horse to win.
"They argued that because they were net backers, they weren’t in breach of the rule, but the disciplinary panel decided rule 247 ‘imposes an absolute prohibition on an owner laying his horse to lose’, and that situation has not changed."
If Patrick Veitch can appoint a trading manager and use agents and sub agents to back horses how hard is it then to use these same people to lay his ‘selections’?
If someone joined Betair today who was not an owner and started to lay horses that Patrick Veitch had told them to lay surely Betfair could not find the link between them and even if they did I would not consider they have breached any rules.
Alan Potts cannot lay his horse Salute himself but surely he can tell his freinds that either he or Pat Murphy does not think it will win and if it loses and they buy him a few beers or give him part of the money they made how can this ever be stamped out?
I think the timing of all this is all designed to keep the public aware of his book.
My word you are animated, I don`t think many of you have read the story. What we are saying is we are prevented from say having a bet on at 10/1 and then laying off at a lower price,which everyone else but us can do.
Who’s to say someone like Veitch lays £5,000 at 6/4 and then "forgets" to have the £5,000 he supposedly wants at 2/1 or 9/4. If he does the reverse of what you mention above Roddy he’ll be left with a lay bet and no chance of backing it back as the price has collapsed ie. he’d stand to lose money if the horse wins and win money if it loses.
If you allow the situation you mention above to take place then you have to allow the otherside – both of which are open to abuse and increase the likelihood of corruption in racing.
Alan Potts cannot lay his horse Salute himself but surely he can tell his freinds that either he or Pat Murphy does not think it will win and if it loses and they buy him a few beers or give him part of the money they made how can this ever be stamped out?
Seagull – You are wrong on this. This is exactly the sort of practice that the BHA have made clear with recent cases against jockeys that will not be tolerated. Winston was banned for passing on such information even though the BHA could find no proof that he had even received any reward for it.
I am in the camp that says owners shouldn’t be allowed to lay their horses at all…
but…
1) No-one knows (including Betfair probably) who owns a large number of horses. This information is not available to the public at all.
2) It is childishly simple to get someone else to lay your horse for you, and the chances of getting caught are close to zero (unless you were particularly greedy)
3) You can still "lay" your horse as an owner legally anyway. Unless the rule has changed recently, an owner is allowed to back every other runner in the race – thus effectively laying theirs..The whole thing is a mess..
The main glaring loophole in the rules as they are currently drafted is that members of ownership syndicates (other than the registered owners) are allowed to lay the syndicate’s runners.
Quite how there is a difference between the nominated partners of a syndicate and the others is beyond me.
Best to have some rules in place rather than a free for all, if you’ve done nothing wrong you’ve nothing to worry about.
thedarknight, if it’s so easy why don’t people like Veitch just do number 2 and 3 instead of whinging?
Pity the BHA didn’t clarify the situation over the likes of Harry Findlay laying other horses trained by Paul Nicholls but not owned by him, is it alright to do or not?
I have heard from a bookie certain stables lay their runners all times, i was shocked too learn that a stable that i had once had shares in horses were the biggest fiddlers of the lot. Frankly certain of trainers are bunch of scroats and not fit too wipe their horses boots let alone their owners…..
Connections, period, should not bar allowed too lay horses they are assocdated with as it leads too worse cheating than already goes on.
Best to have some rules in place rather than a free for all, if you’ve done nothing wrong you’ve nothing to worry about.
thedarknight, if it’s so easy why don’t people like Veitch just do number 2 and 3 instead of whinging?
Pity the BHA didn’t clarify the situation over the likes of Harry Findlay laying other horses trained by Paul Nicholls but not owned by him, is it alright to do or not?
He himself doesn’t own any horses – as you’ll see each time he has a runner they are all owned by "Mrs Margaret Findlay" ie. Harry’s mother. In the same way "Findlay and Bloom" will be Margaret and Tony Bloom.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.