Lessons need to be learned from Harry Findlay case
Abraham Lincoln once said that “the best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.”
As both Harry Findlay and the BHA come to terms with a month that all of them could probably have done without, the hard-won lessons that both parties have to absorb need to be put to productive use.
In June Findlay was given a http://www.senore.com/Harry-Findlay-penalty-cut-from-six-months-to-4,500-fine-a16739 in favour of £4,500 fine.
The sum is almost exactly the same as the overall profit that Findlay had made after his back and lay bets on Gullible Gordon, one of the horses who ran in the name of his mother, Maggie, had won a race at Chepstow in October 2009.
Simply lining up the BHA as the Aunt Sally of this saga is not entirely correct. They may have framed the Rule but had no influence over either the Disciplinary Panel or the Appeal Board, both of whom are independent. Whether this case actually ever needed to go before such formal bodies is open to doubt. There appears to be a difference of option between Findlay and the authorities over whether or not he had been warned about his betting activities in terms of the horses in which he had an obvious interest but the running of them in his mother’s name was never meant to be an attempt at subterfuge and he was open with investigators when questioned.
Findlay never tried attempted to hide what he saw as a legitimate betting strategy, that would not have been a problem for anyone not connected with the horse, and there was ever a suggestion that there had been any attempt to have the horse not race on its merits.
Therein lies the problem for those charged with maintaining the integrity of racing in Britain. Betting exchanges have changed the face of gaming almost entirely for the good, however, they have been abused by an unscrupulous few and it is for those that the BHA framed a Rule that was well-intentioned but has been found to have its limitations in its current form.
As the Appeal Board said in its statement: “Turning to the Rule against lay betting by owners and certain others concerned with the horse in question, it is relevant to identify the real object of the Rule and the vice at which it is aimed. Manifestly it is an attempt to remove temptation and prevent corruption in and around the running of a horse. Those intimately connected with a horse in training inevitably know more of its condition and general well being than the betting public.Sadly, it has on occasions proved but a short step to the deliberate manipulation of those matters for the purposes of betting. The Rule is one weapon against such practices.
“Those drafting the Rules of Racing had an extremely difficult task and we are sure were concerned to keep them as simple as may be. In many cases a Rule or Rules cover various shades of turpitude. Given the ingenuity of gamblers it would be difficult to anticipate every situation that may arise or strategy that might be employed and the only practicable course maybe a simple ban on certain conduct leaving the question of penalty to be dealt with on a case by case basis depending on the precise circumstances. We doubt, for example, whether those who drafted the original version of the Rule in question anticipated the betting strategy Mr Findlay adopted here. It became desirable to clarify the Rule to cover that type of betting.”
At the top end of the scale there have been cases such as Miles Rodgers, who was given a lifetime ban from the sport last year following the BHA's race-fixing investigation, to the case where owners Anthony Ramsden and Robert Owen were both fined £750 in 2007 for a similar, but more serious offence, to that of Findlay’s.
Yesterday's Appeal Board ruling would appear to place the BHA and exchanges at odds over the technicality of the laying rules.
The BHA took a firm stance saying that nothing needs to be changed. However, either the Rule as it stands is too is far too restrictive in its interpretation or the penalty structure needs to start with a minimal fine, to reflect the growing complexity of betting on exchanges, unless it can be proved that an owner’s activities were indeed corrupt.
Looks like Honest Abe is right again.
Tags: