Harry Findlay penalty cut from six months to £4,500 fine
In what has to be seen as an about turn by the racing authorities, Harry Findlay has had a six-month ban from any involvement in racing reduced to a fine after he appealed the original decision.
Findlay was found guilty last month of two charges of laying a horse, Gullible Gordon - who was then owned in a partnership of Findlay's mother, Maggie, and Paul Barber - to lose on betting exchanges in 2008 and 2009.
He launched an appeal against the ban, which came into effact on June 11th, that had been imposed by an independent BHA Disciplinary Panel which was heard by an Appeal Board. After a five-hour hearing the panel - that was chaired by Sir Roger Buckley, along with Christopher Hodgson and Jane Gillies.
That panel held over making public their deliberations until today when it was announced that the appeal had been upheld with the penalty reduced to £4,500 fine, taking into consideration partial penalty served.
At the original hearing, at which Findlay represented himself, he admitted two breaches of the Rules of racing in respect of owners placing lay bets on their own horses for which he was disqualified from any involvement for British racing for six months. The BHA brought the charge despite accepting that Findlay had actually staked more money on the horse, Gullible Gordon, winning and that Findlay had no corrupt motive for the wagering. In effect his breach of the Rules appears more of a technicality than an attempted corruption but did contravene the Rule which "debars an owner from laying his horse to lose".
The case centred on two races. When Gullible Gordon ran in a novice hurdle at Exeter in October 2008, at odds of 1-3, Findlay laid him for £17,000 before staking £80,000 on him to win. The horse was well beaten and Findlay made a net loss of £62,000.
The second race was a novice chase at Chepstow in October 2009, which Gullible Gordon won at odds of 4-6. Findlay had staked a total of £64,000 on him to win before the race started but, during the race, an associate, Glenn Gill, who was operating his betting account because Findlay was present at Chepstow, laid off £32,000 at shorter odds. As a result Findlay made a profit of £35,000.
In their published reasons for the decision the Appeal Board said: “It should be noted, in fairness to Mr Findlay, that there has never been any suggestion that Gullible Gordon did not run on its merits or, to be more blunt, that there was foul play on anyone’s part.”
The Appeal Board’s statement continued: “The BHA keeps the Rules under review as we all know and is prepared to consider sensible suggestions. Sometimes a well intentioned amendment aimed at identifying some exception or other exclusion from a Rule can lead to great difficulty in monitoring compliance or ascertaining a breach. The alternative is to maintain the Rule in question and rely upon flexibility of penalty. We intend no comment upon the Rule in question here, that is not our role, but we do feel that in principle a clear distinction needs to be drawn between a lay bet placed as part of a corrupt practice or even conspiracy and a betting strategy which has not interfered in any way with the integrity of the race and in particular the running of the horse in question.”
The statement continued: “As to the appropriate penalty, our starting point would have been that the £4,500 by which Mr Findlay improved his position should be removed from him and a further fine imposed which was significant in the context of the very large stakes involved. The result could have been a substantial overall fine. However, we cannot undo the fact that Mr Findlay has suffered disqualification and the indignity of it for over a month now. That will remain with him and we regard it as a serious penalty in itself. He was, for example, prevented from attending Royal Ascot where he would have seen one of his horses win and generally lost every aspect of an owner’s participation in racing during the last month. We consider that a fine, removing the extra profit made from the Chepstow affair, namely £4,500, will suffice in the particular circumstances of this case which obviously should not be regarded as a precedent by anyone covered by the Rule, contemplating a betting strategy involving lay betting.”
Paul Struthers, head of communications for the BHA, said: "As this case conclusively highlights, both the Disciplinary Panel and Appeal Board are independent of the Authority and reach their own conclusions based on the evidence and material presented to them.
"The Authority's role is to set the Rules and Guideline Penalties and then charge and prosecute when necessary.
"In this case, we maintain it was absolutely right to charge Mr Findlay; he had clearly breached the Rules, despite having previously been reminded of them and his responsibilities. The Rules must apply equally to everyone. As the Appeal Board themselves say, 'it is hard to envisage any excuses for its breach in future.'
"The Appeal Board makes detailed reference to the existing rule, and we believe upholds the requirement for the rule as it stands. Disciplinary Panels have at their disposal flexibility with regards to penalty and a vast range for this offence itself - three months to ten years. They are guidelines and the Panel is fully entitled to go outside those guidelines when they feel it is justified, as they have done in the past. Consequently we have no intention of amending this rule in any material way.
"The Disciplinary Panel gave detailed and substantive reasons for their decision as have the Appeal Board, and as always we respect and accept both decisions."
The verdict could open the way for a review of the relevant Rule by the BHA. As for Findlay, much of the damage that has been done to his reputation cannot be repaired so easily.
And his very http://www.senore.com/Harry-Findlay-gives-up-share-in-Denman-a15079, from where he and his mother have relinquished their share-holding in former Cheltenham Gold Cup winner Denman, means that this episode will not be so easily closed.
Tags: