Harry Findlay- the guy that wanted to shut all bookies down

The guy that championed the exchanges !!!

Do people really want to be involved with pros taking the piss?


RESULT OF AN ENQUIRY HEARD BY THE DISCIPLINARY PANEL ON WEDNESDAY 9TH JUNE 2010

· Owner Harry Findlay disqualified for six months beginning Friday 11 June 2010

· Horses registered in his mother’s name cannot race while she remains owner or part owner during the disqualification period




1. On 9 June 2010, the Disciplinary Panel held an enquiry into allegations that Harry Findlay, a registered owner, was in breach of the Rules of Racing for lay betting against GULLIBLE GORDON (IRE) in two races: the first at Exeter on 21 October 2008 and the second at Chepstow on 10 October 2009.

2. The first occasion was alleged to be a breach of Rule 247 of the Rules of Racing; the second was said to be a breach of the modern equivalents in the new Rule Book either Rule (A)35.4 or Rule (E)92.2. Put summarily, these provisions all outlaw lay betting against a horse whether by an owner of that horse, or by a person who plays an active part in managing it if in joint ownership, or by a “service provider” to its owner.

3. Mr Findlay, who represented himself at the hearing, admitted the breaches of the Rules alleged. Though there was no exploration at the hearing of the basis on which he made this admission in relation to GULLIBLE GORDON (IRE), for which his mother Margaret is in fact registered as half owner, the Panel was content to accept that he was right to do so at least on the basis that he was actively engaged in managing it. It is likely that he is also the effective owner of his mother’s share of the horse. Either way, he is subject to the Rule which debars an owner from laying his horse to lose.

Lay betting – the Exeter race


4. On 26 October 2009, when Mr Findlay was being interviewed by BHA investigators about a number of matters, he was initially asked about the more recent GULLIBLE GORDON (IRE) run at Chepstow. He responded by volunteering that he was responsible for lay betting against that horse at an earlier race – the novice hurdle at Exeter on 21 October 2008. He said that he had been at Exeter for the race and when he heard the trainer Paul Nicholls’ instructions to the jockey to hold it up, he got in touch with his associate Glenn Gill, who usually carries out horserace betting transactions for Mr Findlay, and told him to reduce the size of his win bet exposure by laying it. Mr Findlay said he did this because he disagreed with the riding tactics. The Panel was told by the BHA that the horse was “initially backed to the sum of around £80,000 and was subsequently laid to the sum of around £17,638”.

5. In order to check this explanation, the Panel asked to see the Betfair records of bets for this race, which was due off at 14:10 hours and which is recorded as actually off at 14:11 hours. They disclose a quite different picture. The first bet on Mr Findlay’s account was placed at 14:04 hours and was the lay bet to win £17,683 at a price of 1.46. This is followed by back bets timed between 14:04 hours and 14:12 hours for which a total of £80,004 was staked. The first price taken was 1.45 and the last pre-race price was 1.37. (All the prices taken fell within that bracket).There was a relatively small (by Findlay standards) back bet just after the start of the race of £1,753 at 1.4. His overall position on the race was that he stood to win £23,755 if the horse won. However it was beaten, so he lost £62,321.

6. It follows that Mr Findlay’s original explanation to the investigators that he was trading out of back bets on the basis of inside information about riding instructions was wrong. When asked to explain the betting at the hearing, Mr Findlay told the Panel that the lay bet must have been a mistake. This is a possible explanation – that his experienced associate Mr Gill pressed the lay rather than back button. Another explanation was canvassed – that Mr Gill was trying to move the market to make it more favourable for the intended back betting to come. Mr Findlay’s riposte was that the lay bet was too late to have that sort of effect. He may be right or wrong about that – there were no figures available for the overall size and movement of the market on this race. In any event, if that had been the intention, it didn’t work. There may indeed be other explanations for the lay bet about which it is wrong to speculate because not enough is yet known of the surrounding facts. Though the BHA submitted, in endorsement of Mr Findlay’s new explanation, that the Panel should approach this instance of lay betting as a mistake, the Panel felt unable to come to a conclusion on this one way or another on the present limited information. If it had been a mistake, it is surprising that no such explanation was given in interview in October 2009. It is also disappointing to note that nothing was done, seemingly, to rectify this “mistake” after the race by asking Betfair to reverse the transaction and credit the accounts of those who were on the other side of the successful lay bet. It may of course be possible still to do this.

7. Finally, it should be noted in Mr Findlay’s favour that his original explanation for the lay bet, if true, would have led the Panel to take a more serious view of the situation than may turn out to be the case if it really was a mistake.

Lay betting – the Chepstow race


8. On this occasion, the betting records produced at the hearing show a total of £64,000 was staked at prices from 1.89 down to 1.66 before the race. The vast majority of this (£56,000) was bet in the three minutes before the race was off at 15:00 hours. Then, four lay bets were matched in running risking a total of £9,223 for a potential win of £32,034. The first three of these lays were placed at a price of 1.53; the last at 1.10. GULLIBLE GORDON (IRE) led from the start of this 3 mile novice chase, was never headed and won easily. So the net result for Mr Findlay was a win of £35,245; if the horse had been beaten, he would have lost £31,966.

9. The bets were in fact placed again by Mr Gill, because Mr Findlay was at Chepstow. The account used belonged to Eamonn Wilmott, a friend of Mr Findlay from childhood days. He allowed Mr Findlay to use it (and through him Mr Gill for Mr Findlay) around this period because Mr Findlay was in financial difficulty and unable to use his own Betfair account. This arrangement was cleared with Betfair in advance, so there can be no suggestion of concealment by Mr Findlay of his activity through the use of an account in someone else’s name. Likewise it is right to say that Mr Wilmott took no part in the betting activity while Mr Findlay was using his account: he just agreed to take 3% of wins and losses.

10. Nevertheless, it remains a breach of the Rules for Mr Findlay to have placed any lay bets, even though he was a net backer and even though the lay bets were placed in running, as his admission of breach recognised. Though he sought to suggest that he was unaware that this was a breach until this was pointed out to him in his interview with investigators a couple of weeks later, the Panel had no doubt that he was fully aware at the time that lay betting of any sort against this horse was not allowed. Even if he had been unaware at the time that what he was doing was wrong, the Panel would not have seen that as mitigation.

11. He explained at the hearing that he and Mr Gill had been planning to do this “for months”. However, he also said it was a “spur of the moment” decision. Whether it was a plan long thought about or decided on the day of the race, it was planned nevertheless. The idea was to back it for more than they would otherwise have done (in the event staking £64,000 rather than about £40,000), in the expectation that the horse would lead from the off and that it could then be layed at shorter prices than it had been backed. That expectation proved to be right. By the combination of backs and lays actually placed, Findlay was better off by £4,437 than he would have been if he had just placed the first £40,000 of back bets. In taking this course, Findlay was relying on his private knowledge and expectation that on the occasion of this race the horse would make the running.

12. Against that, the Panel recognised that lay betting in running is to some extent to be treated as less serious breach of the Rule than lay betting before the start, because the running of the race is public, and punters can take their own view of what they see. But the plan to do this was informed by inside information about the riding tactics to be followed.

13. This is not, therefore, to be seen as a “technical” breach of the Rules as Mr Findlay said more than once. It was a real breach, and it was a planned one. It produced a better result for him by £4,437 than he would have achieved by just staking £40,000 in the win market. Of course, it is not necessary to consider here the position of those on the other side of his lay bets, because those gamblers were successful. The Panel considered what if anything was called for in respect of those on the other side of the last £24,000 of his successful back bets. It concluded that nothing was required to compensate them. They layed those bets at a time when Mr Findlay was doing nothing wrong: he was entitled to back his own horse. If his expectation that the price would continue to shorten in running had not been correct, it seems obvious that Mr Gill would not have placed the lay bets, and there would never have been a breach of the Rules. Though a breach did later come about, it does not follow that the earlier layers matched to Mr Findlay’s last back bets have been victims in any real sense.

Penalty


14. The current edition of the Guide to Procedures and Penalties prescribes a penalty range of 3 months to 10 years with an entry point of 18 months’ disqualification. This seemed to come as a surprise to Mr Findlay, and he pointed out, with justification, that the stance taken on behalf of the BHA in submissions to the Panel was “that the people charging me don’t want me to be charged”. The Panel’s attention was drawn by the BHA to paragraph 2 of the general guidance on the approach to penalties given at page 49 of the Guide, which reminds the Panel that it can go outside the penalty range altogether, impliedly suggesting that something other than disqualification might be appropriate here.

15. But as already pointed out above, the Panel was not able to decide, one way or the other, whether the first breach (the Exeter race in October 2008) was just a mistake as Mr Findlay said and as the BHA was disposed to accept. At this stage, no penalty is imposed in relation to this.

16. As for the second breach (the Chepstow race in October 2009), it was planned, it was based to some extent on inside information, and it was designed to produce and did produce a better outcome for Mr Findlay than simply backing the horse for a lower stake, at a time when he was evidently under considerable financial pressure. Against that in Mr Findlay’s favour it is necessary to set the fact that the breach can be treated as less serious because the lay bets were placed in running, and the race was public for those who were on the other side of his lay bets. He was also a net backer. Further, these lay bets led to profit, rather than loss, for those on the other side of them. But the limits of these points must be recognised. Just because he was a net backer will be no consolation for anyone who is on the other side of an improper lay bet by Mr Findlay. Though such people did not lose on this occasion, the real vice was the placing of lay bets by him.

17. There is one further important matter which the Panel took strongly in Mr Findlay’s favour. He was open with BHA Investigators during interview, and he drew the Exeter race to their attention. He asked the BHA to investigate his betting records.

18. Mr Findlay also told the Panel that a disqualification would be a catastrophe for him and also for racing because of the prominent public profile he enjoys. And he rightly pointed out that no suspicion can exist about the merits of the runs by GULLIBLE GORDON (IRE) in both races. The Panel recognises the seriousness for Mr Findlay of disqualification, but did not feel that his high profile could be seen as a reason for treating his breach of the Rules more gently than might otherwise be called for.

19. Balancing all these considerations, the Panel decided that this was not a case where it was appropriate to take some course short of disqualification. It is right to drop substantially below the entry point of 18 months because of the nature and circumstances of the lay betting for the Chepstow race, and because of Mr Findlay’s open co-operation with the investigation.

20. The Panel imposes a disqualification of 6 months to come into effect on Friday 11 June 2010 until 10 December 2010 inclusive. The effect of this decision, in the light of Mr Findlay’s admitted direct involvement in the ownership of the horses currently registered in his mother’s ownership, is that horses registered in his mother’s name cannot race while she remains owner or part owner. Administrative arrangements for transfers of interest will need to be agreed by the Findlays with the BHA.

I am not sure how to interpret your point at the beginning of the post,but based on your past position on exchanges,I am assuming that you believe that this is a bad advert for exchanges.

On the other hand,but for BETFAIR's undertakings and records,this evidence would not have been avalable........(.big punters have always been able to lay horses,under the lap,with the assistance of a friendly bookmaker)

It is interesting that almost every case of skullduggery that has been investigated in the UK ,in recent times,has relied on "exchange" evidence.

Imagine if all fixed-odds bets in SA were restricted to one transparent market and details of who layed/backed was a matter of record.

A pipe-dream maybe but would surely be good for the inegrity of racing?.....and a better product to market,as a result.

Personally i think this is a shocking decision. I can sort of see how they maybe had a case on the 1st horse but the second horse he did what most punters on betfair do. backed the horse and traded out to secure his invesment. This guy is NOT a thief and banning him is a disgrace.

I agree Easy(even on the 1st horse....he lost cos the horse lost,so his ultimate position was a bet,not a lay)
It appears that no understanding of trading was considered.They seemed to object to the "lay" bet preceding the"back" bet,but,as you say,that is merely anticipating the direction the price will take,and trading accordingly.

Rob

actually what he did was back his horse before the jump and anticipate that the horse would be "in the race" he put it in a much lower odds to lay. I do that every day and i do it "jusdt in case " my selection gets mugged and runs a gallant 2nd or 3rd.

Crestfallen owner Harry Findlay has vowed to lodge an appeal after being 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.

He was charged by the BHA last month and told of the news on Friday morning.

Horses registered in his mother's name, Margaret Findlay, are also unable to race while she remains owner or part-owner during her son's disqualification period.

Findlay's disqualification period begins today.

The outspoken professional gambler insists he will contest the decision, but claims his days of owning racehorses in Britain are now over.

A visibly shaken Findlay said: "I'm not going to shout and scream at anyone - I'm a heartbroken man.

"I've admitted my guilt and I couldn't be more expressive about it.

"The rules are now much stricter and any ban should be 18 months. I thank the panel for deliberating as long as they could to give me as shorter term as they could.

"I will obviously appeal it, I doubt if I will win the appeal.

"Win or lose the appeal, I will never own horses in Britain again."

Back bets had been placed both times on the Paul Nicholls-trained Gullible Gordon that significantly outweighed the lay bets.

The first charge made against Findlay revolves around the seven-year-old's participation in a race at Exeter on October 21, 2008.

If Gullible Gordon, who finished sixth, had won, the profit would have been £23,755.60. The loss was therefore £62,321.26.

The second charge related to a race at Chepstow on October 10, 2009.

If Gullible Gordon had been defeated, the loss would have been £31,966.33. He won the race, so the profit was £35,245.30.

The BHA accepts there was no corrupt motive behind Findlay's actions but insists he is technically in breach of the rules which must be enforced.

The owner added: "The first race at Exeter I made a technical error and pressed the wrong button.

"The second one, we had a big bet before the race and as a gambler I called my friend Glenn (Gill) from Chepstow and had a big bet on Gullible Gordon and he had a bit more on and laid it in running.

"He's a front-runner and a bit of a character. We were certainly wrong to do so.

"When the BHA top-class investigators came down we had a bit of a joke about it.

"At the time we saw nothing wrong with it and the investigators totally agreed with that and passed on what they thought was the right thing.

"It was myself who went to the BHA and said these horses are actually owned by my mother and to all intents and purposes for gambling they are my own.

"I said they were quite welcome to use my account, I gave them my password to check my bets everyday and I said if I could help them on any integrity issues, please feel free to ring.

"I did not check the rules and the serious trouble I was in was my own fault and I certainly don't blame the panel."

While Denman is undoubtedly Findlay's star attraction, he has also enjoyed a number of other successes over jumps and on the Flat.

His colours were carried to Racing Post Chase success by Gungadu, who was in the care of Nicholls before being switched to Gordon Elliott's Irish yard.

Big Fella Thanks, whom Findlay owns in partnership with Paul Barber, finished fourth in this year's Grand National having been sent off joint-favourite.

Herecomesthetruth is another who has tasted Grade One glory, while on the Flat, Findlay has horses with, among others, Mick Channon and Brian Meehan.

Findlay added: "We are trying to arrange the horses we've got with Michael Channon can run in his (Channon's) colours and my mum is still allowed to go racing, though she won't have any owner's badges or anything.

"She will be able to go racing but she won't. She's hurt by this."The other horses that me or my mother own will run, if we can arrange it in time, in the Sangster family colours."

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."

I wonder how many are aware that a similar rule applies in SA,and is included in the NHA rules.(of course the irony is the NHA having a rule prohibiting an ASPECT of exchange betting,whilst at the same time "P" stating that exchange betting is illegal,in its entirety)
Any owners here who use exchanges(and they exist)need to be aware that they are only allowed to BACK a horse they own and not lay it.
What,of course,is interesting,is that bookmakers are allowed ownership......are they prohibited from laying their own horses?

Have always thought that Betfair was the best invention ever and coming from a Scotsman

www.magicdragon.com/Wallace/thingscot.html

()

Betfair says Findlay ban is 'disproportionate'

BETFAIR said the warning-off handed out to Harry Findlay on Friday for laying one of his own horses to lose was "disproportionate" and "inconsistent with similar offences in the past".

The professional gambler was banned from running his horses and from visiting racecourses for six months after found guilty of twice laying Gullible Gordon to lose on Betfair, but the betting exchange pointed out Findlay was a net backer on both occasions.


At Exeter in October 2008, Findlay laid Gullible Gordon to the sum of £17,638 but backed him for £80,004, while at Chepstow a year later he laid the horse to the sum of £32,033 but backed him for £64,000.

Betfair spokesman Tony Calvin said: “While this may have been a technicalbreach [of the rule on owners laying horses] he was, in effect, overwhelmingly a net backer of the horses in question.
tony calvin


“When the rule was introduced the then Jockey Club made clear 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.”

The BHA stressed the independence of the disciplinary panel but said it could not comment in detail on the case as Findlay has seven days to appeal. Findlay has said he will launch an appeal.

“As with all disciplinary inquiries, Mr Findlay has seven days from the receipt of the panel’s reasons to appeal the decision,when he can also request a stay of penalty," the BHA said.

"Should he choose to appeal, we hope the appeal board would be in a position to consider such an application on an expedited basis. Consequently, it would be inappropriate to comment further on the panel’s decision.”

This is a scandalous decision and Harry is being used as a scapegoat.

The guy had an effective long position on his runners so was obviously only concerned about winning. Who cares how much he traded to get to that position?!!!

Sometimes these farkin stupid rules are followed blindly by authorities when its obvious to all concerned Harry didnt lay his horses to lose but rather to reduce his exposure. The mind boggles!

BHA deny Findlay's claim he was a special case

BHA chairman Paul Roy has strenuously denied Harry Findlay was given special dispensation to lay runners from the stables of trainers with whom he has horses.

The professional gambler and part-owner of 2008 Cheltenham Gold Cup winner Denman made the claim after being warned off for six months on Friday for laying one of his horses, Gullible Gordon, in two races, in 2008 and 2009, on Betfair.

Findlay, admitted what was described as a "technical breach" of the rules, but in a letter to the Racing Post singled out Roy and BHA chief executive Nick Coward for criticism and said that while the pair remained in their posts, he would not race any horses in Britain in protest at "the lack of respect" they had shown towards him.

Roy, in a statement released on Tuesday, said: "The BHA never gave permission to Harry Findlay to lay horses in yards where he had horses in training. At a meeting on 24 November, 2008 Mr Findlay was reminded that it was a breach of the rules of racing to place lay bets on horses owned by him, including those registered in the name of his mother.

"He was also reminded of the code of conduct for racehorse owners which states that they should 'Refrain from laying any horse when you have a horse in training'. Mr Findlay accepted the warning and gave assurances that he would neither lay his own horses nor those trained in the same yard."

Roy went on: "Mr Findlay suggests there to have been a personal dimension to the outcome of this case. This suggestion is entirely wrong."

Findlay warning-off appeal set for July 14

HARRY FINDLAY'S appeal against his six-month warning-off will be heard by the BHA in London on Wednesday, July 14.

Findlay, the part-owner of Cheltenham Gold Cup winner Denman, was banned this month for breaching the rules of racing after laying one of his horses, Gullible Gordon, in two races on Betfair.

The severity of Findlay's penalty has been condemned by a number of leading racing figures. Conservative MP Philip Davies has also appealed to the BHA to rescind the warning-off and replace it with a small fine.

The BHA Appeal Board for the hearing will be chaired by former High Court judge Sir Roger Buckley, sitting with Christopher Hodgson and the Hon Mrs Jane Gillies.