Harry Findlay to sell horses and quit racing

[andyfuller]

I don't see the grey areas - as you say yourself touch the lay button and you are fecked. Couldn't be any simpler.

Are the current rules correct - that is open to debate, I think it is a very hard area to police and wouldn't fancy coming up with a rule that suits - it would be very hard to come up with a rule that covers all scenarios.

But grey areas there are not.

[Iron]

What if you back the entire field except your horse(s)?

Jeff

I don't see the grey areas - as you say yourself touch the lay button and you are fecked. Couldn't be any simpler.

[andyfuller]

Ask yourself have I laid my horse?

No

Therefore you wouldn't fall foul of the rule.

It is really simple to understand - press the lay button on your horse and you are breaking the rule. Don't press the lay button and you are not. Don't think it could be any more black and white.

[Dobbin]

Personally I would question what Stewards base their decisions on before deciding the outcome of an enquiry.

Does anyone check their Betting Patterns

Dobbin

[Iron]

A lawyer might argue that effectively you have, so it amounts to the same thing.

If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck...

Jeff

Ask yourself have I laid my horse?

No

Therefore you wouldn't fall foul of the rule.

It is really simple to understand - press the lay button on your horse and you are breaking the rule. Don't press the lay button and you are not. Don't think it could be any more black and white.

[SilentDave]

Not knowing the rules by which you agree to, which you have by owning race horses, is no excuse when you fall foul of them.

Fair point however the rules are not clear. My understanding previously (which in the light of this was obviously wrong) was that if you are in a net lay position you fall foul of the rules - findlay stood to lose if his horses didn't win.

It is fairly common for people to lay off part of their stake when betting ante-post for example but apparently this means you are laying your horse.
This is not the spirit of the law that was intended when the rule was framed IMHO.

Jeff raises a valid point that makes a mockery of the rules. You can profit by your losing by backing the field and this is within the rules. This is farcical.

[andyfuller]

A lawyer will argue the sky is green and the grass is blue if you pay them enough

People can read what they want into a rule but it is clear as can be imo.

The rule does not cover dutching which is where the rule is wrong - just as it doesn't cover a whole other load of possibilities that are now available but I can't see how anyone can argue that pressing the lay button in any circumstances could be allowed with the rules current wording.

[Iron]

I agree that it's clear that, if you lay your own horse, you're breaking the rules.

But if I dutch every horse in the race except my own, am I not effectively doing exactly the same thing?

Jeff

A lawyer will argue the sky is green and the grass is blue if you pay them enough

People can read what they want into a rule but it is clear as can be imo.

[andyfuller]

Fair point however the rules are not clear. My understanding previously (which in the light of this was obviously wrong) was that if you are in a net lay position you fall foul of the rules - findlay stood to lose if his horses didn't win.

What isn't clear is your understanding of the rule, not the rule itself:

92.3 Any reference to laying a horse to lose includes any single instance of doing so, whether or not the single instance was, or was intended to be, one of a series of betting arrangements.

[SilentDave]

Andy, a decent lawyer could argue that the rule is ambiguous.
If I am backing and then lay off part of my stake, surely I could argue that there hasn't been a single instance of laying my horse.
It all depends how you define "laying a horse to lose".
I totally take on board your comments but I genuinely think this is unclear.

[freddy]

There are two different issues here

the 1st whether the rules are clear
and as Andy says they are,
it's quite clear you just can not touch the lay button full stop for any reason.

the 2nd is the rules them self,
imo they are a joke and full of holes and grey areas that need to be addressed.

You can lay your own horse just not by pressing the lay button , you couldn't make it up

[andyfuller]

If I am backing and then lay off part of my stake, surely I could argue that there hasn't been a single instance of laying my horse.

Bet HF wished he had thought of that

We are all entitled to our own opinion on the matter, mine is that it couldn't be any clearer. Press the lay button you fall fould. Don't press it and you don't.

I'm not an owner and never plan to so it really makes no difference to me, easiest way for you to find out for sure is as an owner start dutching all the other runners in the race where you know your horse isn't going to win and in the others back to lay it and try your arguments out - then come back and tell us all how you got own in court

I think everyone agrees that the rule needs re-wording to bring in other possibilities though.

Catch you later - has helped pass the afternoon. Hope you all had profitable ones!

[SilentDave]

I think the rules are clear now that there has been a lengthy enquiry and we know how they will be interpreted.

It is only now, due to the Findlay case, that it is clear that any use of the lay button will be construed as "laying your horse to lose".

Doesn't mean the rules don't need changing
Be lucky guys!

[Euler]

Whatever the mitigating circumstances it will be a blow to racing that Harry is packing it in. Racing needs to encourage new participants, not force established ones out.

[SilentDave]

Well said. As was mentioned earlier in the thread, even if he was bang to rights, there are ways of going about things...