HF

[thehawk009]

Findlay given six-month ban for laying own horse

BY RACING POST STAFF 12.13PM 11 JUN 2010

RACEHORSE owner and professional gambler Harry Findlay has been banned from running his horses for six months after the BHA found him guilty of laying one of his own runners to lose on two occasions. He is also warned off from visiting racecourses for six months.

Findlay, who owns a large string of horses including top-class chaser Denman - who won theGold Cup in 2008 - in partnership with Paul Barber, discovered the verdict on Friday morning following a BHA disciplinary hearing in London on Wednesday.

Findlay was found guilty of two charges relating to the laying of Gullible Gordon to lose on Betfair, at Exeter in October 2008 and Chepstow a year later.

The lay bets on Gullible Gordon at Exeter were placed on Betfair to the sum of around £17,638, when he was backed for £80,004. At Chepstow Findlay laid the horse to the sum of £32,033 but backed him for £64,000.

[andyfuller]

Was lucky to only get 6 months tbh.

He is talking a lot of sense on ATR at the moment with Chappers

[thehawk009]

true, did u hear he's "im a net loser on the horses and have made 24mio on sports" line. wouldnt mind seeing his p+l. would make interesting reading anyway whether thats true or not.

[Bet Angel]

It wasn't a net lay though, so should the ban only apply to net layers, rather than people reducing liability or is that just too ambiguous?

[Bet Angel]

Missed the interview unfortunatly, just tuned in but it's finished. Already watch 7 hours of racing a day so not in the habit of watching any more!

[oddstrader]

Silly verdict - it was a back to lay with the benefit in the result to him being the horse winning and not losing - stupid! verdict - it is modern day gambling

[thehawk009]

Betfair, the betting exchange service used by Findlay in Gullible Gordon's races, said in a statement: "We understand that whilst this may have been a technical breach he was, in effect, overwhelmingly a net backer of the horses in question.

"When the rule was introduced the then Jockey Club made clear that it was a rule that necessarily had to be applied in spirit as well as in law.

"We do not believe the punishment to be proportionate or, for that matter, consistent with similar offences in the past.

"We will continue to welcome Harry as a customer."

[andyfuller]

When he said he was a net loser I think he was saying it in terms of what he spends on horses in terms of trainers fees, gallop fees, purchasing horses etc etc which I can quite believe given the number of horses he owns but that is his choice. He gets a lot of enjoyment from it so I have no sympathy for him on that level. As he said with his lifestyle £25 odd million doesn't last long, but it is his choice to have such a lifestyle.

The rule is very simple - if you own a horse you can't lay it. There is no room for confusion. If you want to own a horse don't lay it. If you want to lay a horse, don't own it. It is simple.

He did stand to benefit from the horse losing once he laid off some of his bet. He no longer stood to loose as much, again simple. It makes no difference if he had already backed it. He was now in a better position by laying it and stood to gain from it losing.

It is similar to Nicky Henderson and his ban - he said he only gave the medication for the welfare of the horse. He knew he shouldn't give the horse the medication and therefore if he felt it could only run with the medication he shouldn't have run it as the rules were clear.

I like Harry over all and think he has done a lot of good for the sport. The rule is there and although it may be the wrong rule you still have to play by it and it is easy to understand - you don't lay your own horse.

[jimrobo]

so you can back every other hose in a race apart from your own and thats fine but touch the lay button on your own horse even by mistake and you get a hefty ban????

[andyfuller]

Without doing any research I believe that is fine to do, though a bit tricky inrunning.

As I said the rule may be wrong but as long as you play by the rules you will be fine. Harry didn't and as such got banned.

[jimrobo]

well the rules obviously need looking at. They can't say under any circumstances are you ever allowed to lay your own horse but go ahead and back every other horse? They are both technically the same thing but you get banned for doing it one way but the other way is fine?

Also Am I right in assuming it wasn;t actually HF that physically pressed the lay button on the horse? He has someone that does it for him and he just calls him and tells him what he wants to happen? Didnt the guy put more on than what he was told and then lay the difference after the first fence?

[Bet Angel]

I think it shows how outdated the governing bodies are. As JimRobo says HF could have simply done the reverse to avoid punishment. But.... It's a bit like drugs in sport even a little by is considered a bannable offence even if it is an accident. The onus is in the athlete to avoid at all costs. There is no dutching in atheletics though so sense should have probably prevailed in this case I think.

[andyfuller]

Also Am I right in assuming it wasn;t actually HF that physically pressed the lay button on the horse? He has someone that does it for him and he just calls him and tells him what he wants to happen?

Yes I believe that is how he operates. I always thought that operating in such a way makes you liable for tax

Didnt the guy put more on than what he was told and then lay the difference after the first fence?

He put more on than they normally would but without reading the details of the case yet I understand that he did it on Harrys orders.

As was said on Chris Cooks article on the Guardian website:

"The panel seized on Findlay's admission that he had planned to have a larger bet than he normally would on the Chepstow race, with the aim of laying off after the start. He did this on the basis of inside information, knowing the horse would be sent straight to the front and expecting he would soon establish a clear lead.

"This is not, therefore, to be seen as a 'technical' breach," the panel said"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/ju ... -month-ban

[andyfuller]

This case is a bit like Higgins in the Snooker - Higgins stood to make a lot more by winning his match but tried to place a bet to cover himself a bit in case he lost - very similar I would say.

Also I think Betfair were wrong to comment on the penalty handed down and I think it damages their reputation and leaves me wondering why they commented on the case, Harry was quite critical of Betfair this morning - they don't normally comment on the punishment handed down do they?

[lilgreenback]

Hi There,

How many other trainers or owners have been questioned for not trying

So one could Lay your horse with tactical instructions or back the field apart from his own horse and then ALLEGEDLY suggest to the jockey he should remember about his tennis elbow so he dropped his hands due to fatigue; thus allowing equine good manners "after you" "neigh after you" past the post.

Surley this all amouts to the same thing. A bit of inside information; Don't the financial bods have something to say about inside info, shares and takeovers.

It's only dodgy if you are caught; Maradonna's famous hand, Schumacher kicking the attacker in the chest, the other Schumacher running drivers off the road. And the nasal decongestants that every dope tested athlete moans about! it was not me, honest gov.

(Have you seen South Park where Cartman tries to win $1000 in the Special Olympics) In some ways excuses are like a**e holes everyones got one.

The jockey club do need to move with times (digital not analogue Major); but there is the rules and the spirit of the rules. This is one occasion where it's been highlighted how many other times has this been done by others without detection.

HF comes across as a really down to earth guy who you'd enjoy a pint down the pub with. Especially if he was paying as you'd have a share of the Scoop 6 A punter with the balls to go and win (is that all costs though)

Remember the spikes that everyone moans about for every winner there is a loser on the exchange and all that. Or am I out of order an wide of the mark.

LilGB