NHA rules-part2

Another rule which exists,and has the potential to be controversial,reads as follows;

Rule72.1.12: No person or individual shall improperly obtain information about a trial,or about any HORSE in training from any OWNER,TRAINER,RIDER or anybody else employed in a racing or training stable or in the services of the OWNER or TRAINER of such HORSE and no PERSON or individual shall improperly make such information available;

This rule is interesting and probably hinges around the definition of the word "improperly",used twice! Is money changing hands for the info,improper? If so,it raises interesting questions about some of the "pay" tipping services that are offered.

Rule72.4.1 An OWNER,TRAINER,STABLE EMPLOYEE or their respectiveSPOUSES shall not,directly or indirectly,place a bet with a Betting Exchange in respect of a HORSE owned,trained or cared for by such OWNER,TRAINER and/or STABLE EMPLOYEE other than that such HORSE will win the RACE in which it is to participate.
Rule72.4.2 It shall be an offence for any PERSON to act in contravention of RULE 72.4.1.

Does the fact that these rules exists ,not contradict the warnings(which are obviously aimed at the use of Betfair) continually published in Computaform? (It is a breach of a similar rule which has caused such a furor in the UK recently.)
Does it perhaps open the door to INTERBET to allow "any PERSON"to lay horses they don't own?

What do you think?

Another good one Rob, I am against paying for tips and feel they are a con

As far as the exchange saga plenty on the site but the recent "match" bets on offer adds another dimension

txs again

Regarding 72.1.12, I fail to see how this rule can be enforced as long as the term 'improper' is not defined; may as well scrap the rule imo

Regarding 72.4.2; Again I fail to see what this rule is trying to accomplish; imo opinion the way it is written certainly does not prevent a PERSON (i.e. anyone who is NOT an OWNER, TRAINER. STABLE EMPLOYEE or their respective SPOUSES) from laying a horse on a exchange.It also does not prevent OWNERS, TRAINERS and/or STABLE EMPLOYEES laying horses they DON'T OWN, TRAIN or CARE FOR on exchange.

I am not a fundi when it comes to the NHA rules, but from the examples put forth by Rob so far, it seems as if a lot of them needs to be scrapped/replaced/re-written as they are not worth the paper they are written on.

Another issue regarding the NHA which I am not clear on (and I apologise if this is not quite relevant to this thread), is why does one need pay to renew your colours every year? Where is this money going? Into their 'world famous laboratory'? Does this money pay the salaries of NHA employees?

So you can`t say my horse had a good gallop on here,have your house on it?

Is there any rules on pacemakers?