Harry Findlay warned off for six months

mike65

from guardian

Leading owner Harry Findlay has been warned off for six months in connection with laying his own horse, Gullible Gordon, on two occasions.

Findlay, who joint-owns 2008 Gold Cup winner Denman, was found guilty of the offence by a British Horseracing Authority disciplinary panel.

---

Laying denman would have been much wiser.

orourkeda

I can understand why he was issued this punishment. However, would it be possible for him to lay his own horse in a way that he couldnt be caught.

Why was he only warned off for 6 months?

convert

For anyone who wants to read the full article, here it is:

A mortified Harry Findlay said today that he was unlikely to own racehorses in Britain again, after he was given a six-month ban for laying one of his own horses through Betfair. The gambler, made famous by his ownership of the Cheltenham Gold Cup winner Denman, will appeal against the decision and may have a chance to put his case as early as next week, but even a complete success at that stage may not be enough to repair his enthusiasm for the sport.

"Win or lose the appeal, I will never own horses in Britain again," Findlay said, visibly upset during a televised statement that was the only formal comment he would offer yesterday. "I'm not going to shout and scream at anyone. I'm a heartbroken man."

Findlay had admitted the facts of the case long before Wednesday's three-hour hearing before an independent disciplinary panel convened by the British Horseracing Authority.

He made no attempt to deny that he had taken lay bets on his own horse, Gullible Gordon, when it ran at Chepstow in October last year, and even drew the BHA's attention to the fact that he had done something similar when it had raced at Exeter the year before.

But Findlay was not trying to profit from the defeat of his horse on either occasion. As the BHA accepted, he also backed the horse to win both races, staking much larger amounts than he would win from the lay bets. The horse won at Chepstow, making Findlay a profit of £35,000, but cost him £62,000 by getting beaten at Exeter.

Findlay explained that he had not intended to lay the horse at Exeter, but that his friend, Glen Gill, who often places bets for him, had clicked the wrong button on Betfair's website. That tallies with the timing of the lay bets, which came shortly before Findlay's back bets on the same animal, and the BHA accepted a mistake had been made.

With regard to the Chepstow race, Findlay said Gill had been laying off during the race, when it was clear that Gullible Gordon was very likely to win and it was possible to protect Findlay's position at much shorter odds than he had taken before the race. Again, the BHA accepted that this had been his motivation.

The BHA's lawyer told the panel that the appropriate punishment would be a low-level fine, which would have been in line with the £750 levied in a similar case in 2007. But the panel did not accept this and ruled that a ban of some kind was required, albeit one well below the entry point of 18 months associated with such a breach. 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, and ruled that a six-month ban was appropriate, even though it accepted Findlay had been open and honest with investigators. The panel also accepted that Gullible Gordon was allowed to run on his merits in both races.

Betfair, which has done much to tackle corruption in racing, condemned the panel. "We do not believe the punishment to be proportionate or consistent with similar offences in the past. We will continue to welcome Harry as a customer," a spokesman said.

The BHA's only comment was to say that an appeals panel would be arranged as quickly as possible, perhaps within the next seven days. Privately, some BHA insiders are likely to be shocked, having assumed that Findlay would get no more than a fine.

Mick Channon, the former England striker who now trains racehorses, said the BHA had brought the sport into disrepute. "It's just crazy, but typical of horse racing," he said. "Harry's what everybody wants to be. He's done nothing wrong in my eyes."

Galtymore Lad, trained by Channon for Findlay, will be transferred into Channon's ownership before he runs at Royal Ascot on Tuesday.

From The Guardian

UrbanSea

I think common sense should prevail in certain cases,which clearly didn't hear.

Nulty

A bunch of clowns. How can they justify a ban for doing, essentially, nothing wrong?

Juwwi

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.



^^^That is wrong what he was doing there.

alsobacking backing heavy knowing it would make the price go down so he could lay off some of his original stake at a lower price is wrong also.

to be honest l think he deserved a ban,not sure if he deserved a 6 month ban but rules are there to be followed and he broke them.

the sad thing is tho he seems like one of the good guys in racing compared to some of the crooks out there that get away with cheating week in week out.

Whyno

Rules are rules and his punishment is very lenient compared what it could have been,
Finlay has been very open about the whole issue an it looks farcical but the issue is still there he laid bets on his horse to lose. Just not on and he had to be punished. The laughing matter is the way the bets were placed and anyone with any common sense would realise what was going on. It was far from vendictive what went on.

the groutch

there are much bigger gangsters in racing, that get away with a whole lot worse

Cantoris

the groutch wrote: »

there are much bigger gangsters in racing, that get away with a whole lot worse

There are people that drive a lot faster than me but if I get caught doing 40 in a 30 zone then I get done. The rules are there for a reason. you mightn't like them but he knew what he was doing.

ComplyOrDie

Although I can see this from both findlay and BHA point of view. The fact of the matter is if the horse lost he lost.

Although he had layed the horses he had considerably more on for the win.While you can argue that he had inside information on the horse and the tactics (which is correct) he may have been trying to green up (locking in a profit by having a free bet, backing at a high price laying at a low price and the surplus is yours). Having said that Gullible Gordon was always prominent and sometimes even keen in his races. Therefor it may have been possible for people to assume he was unlikely to be held up.

I think this is a very complex situation and both sides have great argument. Findlay was very open with explanations and his dealings with the inquiry.
I suppose the fact that he would of had a significant loss if the horse did not win, would be enough to give him a caution and maybe a small fine. But had he fully greened up (cannot lose on the race) then their would be serious questions to be asked.

Shelflife

Harry isnt "one of the boys" and thats why he was taken down a peg or two (in their opinion).

The panel have run cases against corruption and made total fools of themselves before by not having their facts right.

lets be clear, the horses were allowed to run on their merits , harry did not stand to gain from the horses losing , he stood to gain from them running well.

Its a crazy decision which shows no common sense at all, but the bowler hats have their rules that must be kept even if it goes against all common sense. this is just like their rule that jackets and ties must be worn in the members area even if its 30c and people are passing out with the heat.

technically he did lay his own horse but he did not stand to gain from it.

stupid ,stupid stupid.

mike65

Harry Findlay has been "unwarned off" and has paid a very small fine of 4,500.

http://www.attheraces.com/article.aspx?hlid=510097&raceid=&title=Findlay+wins+appeal&lid=&ref=PA+Racing+Feed&nav=&sub=&day=Thu

finbarrk

Well done Harry. I'm delighted for him. It was obvious he hadn't done anything wrong as he was set to win more in the event of his horse winning.

http://www.sportinglife.com/racing/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=racing/10/07/15/RACING_Findlay_Snap.html

Cantoris

As I said on another forum, this is great for me with my new plan. Put €10k on our horse and see it plunge from 10s to 6/4. Then lay off €9,999 at 6/4, so a net "Harry style" backer. Then I tell the jock not to bother if he's not winning, in fact don't be placed as I won't lose out and we will keep his handicap mark preserved. Lovely, we have created a new opportunity for Charles Byrnes. He will be laughing all the way to betfair.

Whyno

Cantoris wrote: »

As I said on another forum, this is great for me with my new plan. Put €10k on our horse and see it plunge from 10s to 6/4. Then lay off €9,999 at 6/4, so a net "Harry style" backer. Then I tell the jock not to bother if he's not winning, in fact don't be placed as I won't lose out and we will keep his handicap mark preserved. Lovely, we have created a new opportunity for Charles Byrnes. He will be laughing all the way to betfair.

For sure...You should also lay him in the place market when he gets to 6/4 and you'll clean up when your fellow "pulls up after the second" due to the jockey hearing a noise!!!!

Cantoris

Whyno wrote: »

For sure...You should also lay him in the place market when he gets to 6/4 and you'll clean up when your fellow "pulls up after the second" due to the jockey hearing a noise!!!!

Ah no, you couldn't be doing a thing like that. Sure you're not a net "Harry style" backer if you've laid him in the place market without backing him first

Whyno

Cantoris wrote: »

Ah no, you couldn't be doing a thing like that. Sure you're not a net "Harry style" backer if you've laid him in the place market without backing him first

Some of these horses just wont pay for themselves

greystoke

Cantoris wrote: »

Ah no, you couldn't be doing a thing like that. Sure you're not a net "Harry style" backer if you've laid him in the place market without backing him first

seems harry has got the rules changed for everyone, its now ok for owners to lay their own horses and basicly have a risk free bet.

seems he logged into the wrong betfair account, should have logged into Paul Barber's account seeing as he is the one that does the betting on the horses lol

Cantoris

greystoke wrote: »

seems harry has got the rules changed for everyone, its now ok for owners to lay their own horses and basicly have a risk free bet.

Bingo. Look at the lads that backed Golan Go last night. The could easily have laid off before his antics and had a free bet. They wouldn't be getting too upset.