Denman's owner banned for betting against his own h

God, just how stupid can you be? He knows the blimmin rules, why the hell jeopardise the other horses, now we won't see Denman run until December :mad:
 
wizoz said:
God, just how stupid can you be? He knows the blimmin rules, why the hell jeopardise the other horses, now we won't see Denman run until December :mad:
Click to expand...

I expect he will sell Denman and others......what price Denman? He was £100K (having had a wind op) when HF bought him (so the rumour goes) what price now??
 
He was hedging his bets though, not laying his horse to lose. It's a really harsh punishment when the penalty for the rule is apparently open to be interpreted in the spirit of the law.........

From the report;

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.

The horses are to be transferred to run in other colours than his, but the real sadness is that HF is currently saying he's never going to own racehorses in Britain again.

Racing once again shooting itself in the foot.
 
For somebody so high profile in the sport this was at best stupid and at worst something else.
From my point of view if the guy was in financial trouble he should have sold Denman, there would have been any number of takers to buy him and let him fulfil his potential on the racecourse and not have this season delayed by however many months. Maybe that's what he should do now to get himself out of the financial trouble he is in.

But then then Mr Finlay has always basked in the TV glory of Denman..
 
He wasn't in any more financial trouble than at any other time....... he's a pro gambler, so his income/outgoings are massively variable. Denman will NOT be affected by this..........

HF has a lot of horses in training, you are way off the mark to suggest he just basks in Denman's glory.
 
Don't worry too much. Within 24 hours the racing authorities had allowed one of his horses to run in Mike Channon's "ownership" and it won. Amazing how things can be rushed through when you are a "Name".
 
What's with the attacks on HF? He's a genuine guy who has done far more for racing than a lot of other high profile people born into the game, or given a free pass because of their celebrity status.
He's well known because of his enthusiasm and love of the sport, and because he's a gambler. It's his gambling that has bought him all this, nothing else. The rule (which needs some amending because of how it's worded) he broke was put in place to stop owners solely laying their horses for a profit when they know they cannot possibly win. All HF did was cover the potential losses of his win bet, IN RUNNING, in case the horse lost. It's trading, not laying to lose. The Panel could have interpreted it differently, the BHA certainly seemed to pushing for that, but they chose not to.
I believe the majority of horses that he 'owns' are in partnership anyway, so transferring ownership across to another involved person is normal.
Why so down on him? I have every sympathy with him, and think racing is definitely the poorer for his departure. :(
 
Yet again a bunch of people who know nothing about racing choosing to comment :rolleyes:

Caledonia I agree (and most I know do) that's it's a stupidly harsh and unneccesary punishment and in no way beneficial to racing at present. Nice one BHA.
 
Caledonia, I totally agree with you. Once again the BHA in it's wisdom has decided to interpret the rules as it sees fit, and not in the best interests of the sport.

HF has given a lot to racing over the past few years and owns a significant number of horses, I really enjoy the obvious enthusiasm that he has for the sport. He has also never hidden the fact that he is a professional gambler.

I really can't see him selling Denman, the affection and respect that he has for that horse is clear for all to see. I also hope that he does continue to own and race horses Britain.

I hope that he does appeal and that it is successful.
 
Does make you wonder what they're going to dish out to AOB about Cape Blanco ........ wonder if he'll get a ban?? Then again, he'll have serious lawyers, and not be naive enough to think that common sense and fair play is alive and well at the BHA.
 
I really don't know how they will treat AOB. There seems to be no rhyme nor reason to the punishments that are dished out. It could be anything from a ban to a naughty, naughty don't do that again!
 
Another own goal for BHA!:mad: HF has done far more than most to raise the profile of racing. I hope his appeal goes well.
 
The penalty is at the lower end of the scale. He could have got 18months but the mitigating circumstances have meant he received a lesser ban...or was it because he is a name that he got a reduced ban? The rules are there, he broke them.
 
Caledonia said:
The rules don't cover what he did.
Click to expand...

They do in my rulebook?

Rule E92.2 clearly states:

92.2 A Listed Person must not


92.2.1 lay any horse he owns with a betting organisation to lose a race,
92.2.2 instruct another Person to do so on his behalf, or
92.2.3 receive the whole or any part of any proceeds of such a lay.

Or the previous one:

247. It shall be a breach of the Rules of Racing for
- a Trainer to lay any horse, under his care or control
- a Stable Employee, who is or has been registered under Rule 54(ii), to lay any horse, under the care or control of the Trainer for whom he is or was employed, whilst so employed and for a period of 21 days after ceasing to be so
- an Owner to lay any horse he owns
- an Authorised Rider's Agent to lay any horse that is ridden by a Rider for whom he acts as an Authorised Rider's Agent.
- a Service Provider to lay any horse owned, trained or ridden by the person for whom he has provided a service and for a period of 21 days after ceasing to do so.


to lose a race with a Betting Organisation or to instruct any person on his behalf to do so or to receive the whole or any part of the proceeds of such an act.

There was also his admission of breaking the rule...
 
It doesn't cover the fact that he bet his horse to win more than he laid it to lose. The rule is designed to stop owners laying their own horses when they know they cannot or won't win. HF was trading, or hedging, NOT simply laying the horse to lose.
That's why the rule needs amending, and why the punishment is so harsh for his 'crime'. If you look back over my previous posts, you'll see where the BHA clearly tried to guide the Panel to not disqualify him.
 
Did you all read his letter in the RP yesterday? HF is a great chap! One of the most enigmatic people I have ever had the pleasure to meet! He is a professional gambler, that is how he earns his living - by the skin of his teeth sometimes! He did explain it all to me once in great detail, but it was far too complex for me to retain. He doesn't just bet on Horse Racing and when he first entered into racehorse ownership he was completely open about his 'business'. If he now stops owning horses in this country, will that then stop his involvement in the bloodstock industry in this country too - potentially quite a knock on effect. Good one - not!
 
Caledonia said:
It doesn't cover the fact that he bet his horse to win more than he laid it to lose. The rule is designed to stop owners laying their own horses when they know they cannot or won't win. HF was trading, or hedging, NOT simply laying the horse to lose.
Click to expand...

He's not daft though. He laid his horse before actually backing it in one of the races that were investigated. Oh yes, he hit the wrong button! In that case why didn't he ring his mate Andrew Black and get his bet cancelled? By backing it to lose first, the price was being manipulated so that he would have had a better price to back later. There were at least 5 other races that day, if he wasn't that convinced on winning the race he could have (and should have) left that race alone or had a smaller bet on winning only.

If I acted on inside information (and I am privileged to receive some) and laid a horse to not win then I would lose my job...I know my limitations. As an owner HF should know his. No matter how nice a chap he is.

If you want to read the Disciplinary Panel's judgement and further details on the case it's here: https://www.britishhorseracing.pres...FOLLOWING-DISCIPLINARY-PANEL-ENQUIRY-12f.aspx
 
I've already read it.

You are ignoring the pivotal point in this, in that he was hedging, not laying to lose using insider info, which is what the rule is designed to police in the first place.

The rules need amending to deal with this kind of scenario.

Your personal access to insider info is as irrelevant as mine in this instance, so I'm not sure why you need to bring it up.
 
Caledonia said:
Your personal access to insider info is as irrelevant as mine in this instance, so I'm not sure why you need to bring it up.
Click to expand...

Because I know my limitations regarding betting and so should HF.

Hedging his bet is irrelevant. The rule is you cannot bet against your own (or even Mother's) horse. It is clear in the rules and regulations as I have previously quoted.

I suggest you read today's letter from Gemma Webb in the Racing Post together with Paul Roy's statement...they sum the matter up quite clearly.
 
Last edited:
He broke the rules simple as that. Whether the rules are sensible is another matter.
I also think there was some misunderstanding about what Harry thought he was allowed to do, based on an earlier conversation with the BHA, and what they think they agreed to.

All in all a bit of a mess and the BHA have not covered themselves in glory as they constantly seem to give out conflicting messages.

Sadly since you can now openly bet on a horse too loose, the opportunity for corruption has increased, which is no good for racings image at all.
I'm sure Harry won't quit english racing and what he said was heat of the moment stuff. And all his horses will be transfered to other ownership for the time being. Most of the chasers will run in Paul Barbers name and I'm sure I saw somewhere that the flat horses are transfering to the Aga Khans name for now.
He'll bounce back I'm quite sure.
But I agree, rules need clarifying or amending so there is no gray area once and for all.

And while the BHA are sorting out the rules, they also need to sort out the stewarding - some of the inconstistancies in stewards enquiries are shocking. And sort out the use of the whip rule as well !!!
 
I don't know where it has been said he's not guilty to a degree, the point in question is the unnecessary severity of the punishment because the rule is not applicable to the situation in it's entirety.
I hope you're not involved in racing to any significant degree, as your attitude sums up exactly what is wrong with the powers in racing. How can you have faith in a governing body that witch-hunts and bans arguably the best flat jockey riding before his case even goes to trial? You'd think the egg on their faces after that incident might have caused a rethink.
I hope, for one, that HF has success with his appeal and the ban is altered to a monetary punishment (as the rule book allows for), and that the idiocy of those at the BHA is somehow checked.
 
I meant the Sangsters, why on earth I said the Aga Khan lord alone knows. Must be the heat.

I've not always been the greatest fan of HF (possibly because of some of the hangers on that seem to surround him) but in recent years he's grown on me and the Denman / Kauto hype, which has been great for racing, was largely due to him and his enthusiasm for the game and the horses involved. And while I think he's generally a bit bonkers in the nicest possible way, he does talk some sense and has always been generous and sporting in defeat and in awe of great horses. And I wouldn't have put him down as someone who is corrupt. He seems just too open for that. Although I know appearances can be deceptive.
But it seems the BHA have supported him to a point and then hung him out to dry.
I doubt he'll win the appeal because presumably he can carry on with his betting activities and therefore earn a living.
Unlike the KF situation, which was a complete cock up from start to finish.
I don't know what you do with the BHA though, it was no better when the Jockey Club ran things as far as I can see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top