Harry Findlay To Quit Racing

Harry Findlay is one of racing’s most infamous horse owners and for years has played a very dangerous game of playing the odds, more recently to his financial detriment. So much so that it now looks like the time has come when he bows out of racing.

His most famous horses are the incredible Denman whom he co-owns with Paul Barber and Big Fella Thanks, who is tipped for the 2011 Grand National and they are but two of the once 80 race horses that he owned. But Findlay isn’t just another horse owner, he’s known as Britains premier punter ans plays the odds as a profession gambler, always chasing that elusive big win. Reportedly, at one time, worth over

Harry makes sense - poor prizemoney opens the door to corruption

It really isn't rocket science - when the rewards for competing are poor, then corrupt influences are more likely to be listened to. Sport at the biggest level - the Premier League, NFL, the Olympics, Group I races etc, has little problem from corrupt gambling influences. The incentive to win is so great that competitors are more likely to cheat to win, via performance-enhancing substances or illegal equipment. But when a sport is specifically run for betting and the prizes for competitors are so poor, then can you really blame someone for being tempted by corrupt influences?

Harry Findlay reckons horse racing's 'poverty' prize money could lead to corruption


Professional gambler Harry Findlay warned on Friday that "poverty" prize money could lead to an increase in corruption in racing.

Findlay said that a drop in prize money is likely to lead jockeys, trainers and other racing professionals to be more likely to bend the rules, or susceptible to approaches from corrupt individuals.

"I believe that the powers that run racing have got some people in racing into such a distressed state, with low prize money meaning people are losing their jobs and having houses repossessed, that it could lead people to corruption," Findlay said during a debate on integrity at the Leaders in Football conference in London.

"There are two races at Wolverhampton tonight with £1,300 prize money, and there's a couple more that just over £2,600, that's scandalously low when you consider what trainers have to spend to get horses to the line."

The BHA is treading a very fine line - it wants to stamp out corruption and has been highly visible in the way it prosecuted the Findlay case (re trading his own horse) earlier in the year and the Casela Park non-trier case this week. That stance is commendable IF they are completely consistent and do everything they can to provide a natural deterrent to breaking the rules. Will the Casela Park case (trainer Eamonn Tyrell and jockey Jason Behan were banned for three years) become a line in the sand so that now we will see several cases each month of trainers being pulled up with non-triers? Not a chance. Will the Findlay case lead to other convictions, more consistency or clearer rules? Unlikely.

The most natural deterrent to dodgy activity is making the prizes as valuable as possible, not wasting money in court rooms. Close some racecourses, stop running races for horses too slow to pull carts and stop wasting money prosecuting cases unless the BHA is 100% prepared to draw a line in the sand and be consistent and transparent with the cases it pursues. All this other headline-chasing stuff such as moving Champions Day to Ascot really is irrelevant until they underpin the base of the industry.Posted byScott Fergusonat23:33

Big Harry goes nuts at BHA Chief Exec

A heated confrontation yesterday at Doncaster races when professional punter Harry Findlay crossed paths with BHA Chief Executive Nic Coward. The reasons behind the angst can be found here in a previous post. Findlay accused Coward of ruining his life and demanded the resignation of Coward and BHA Chairman Paul Roy.

Now, I'm not one to side with racing authorities very often, but the facts of the matter are that Harry knew the rules, and broke them - not once, which may or may not have been an accident, but twice - and that's only of the times that we know Betfair and the BHA Integrity Unit spoke. And then he had the gall to claim he had special privileges, despite all figures in the racing industry being told very firmly that using inside information to lay horses in the same stable was expressly prohibited. He was given a severe penalty which was later reduced on appeal, but he was still found guilty of the offence.

You made your own bed Harry, now you have to lie in it. Rather than blaming the BHA for your problems, perhaps you should accept the fact your penchant for hooch is frying your brain and ability to think rationally. Stop acting like a two-year-old throwing a tantrum.Posted byScott Fergusonat15:36

the Harry Findlay case

I've waited until now to comment since his appeal is currently being heard. For those outside UK racing, this is the case where the biggest punter in the UK, one who trades, nearly every race, every day, was penalised for laying his own horse twice on Betfair. Harry owns (or at least did, until the initial ruling was made) a string of horses with various trainers around the country, and most notably is involved in Denman, the champion jumper.

Nobody will disagree that laying your own horse for profit is a bad thing which needs to be heavily punished. However that was not the case here. Both times Findlay had already backed his horse heavily and was reducing his risk by laying some of his outlay back. In both cases, he still wanted the horse to win overall.

Mark Davies has commented about the case today - here.

There are two camps of thought here - 1. that all betting against your own horse is evil and must be struck out, and 2. that one should only be punished if the owner/punter will reap a net profit from opposing his horse.

Idea #1 sounds simple enough.... but why should it only apply to lay bets on an exchange? If you own one horse is a race and back another, then by default, you can profit if your horse loses. For every back bet, there has to be a lay bet. If you back one horse, by default you are laying the field. If you lay one horse, then by default you are backing the rest of field to beat it. It is not a difficult concept.

But the racing authorities seem to think that corruption can only occur through betting exchanges which is the biggest furphy of all time. Corruption in racing has occurred since the first time they ever ran for a prize. If an owner bet on all the other horses in a race, against his charge, via other bookmakers, in cash or online, and via Betfair, but only BACKED the other runners, would he be penalised? Unless it could be proven the horse was pulled up, then no, he wouldn't - because backing other horses is perfectly acceptable...

It's a stupid rule which only satisfies those who scream about the supposed illegality of exchanges, yet does nothing to prevent the same actions occurring elsewhere, albeit where the perpetrator has to cop higher margins.


Idea #2 - only penalise the owner if they reap a net profit by opposing their own horse. Possible, but tricky. Very difficult to be able to record all the figures if it involves an owner using a bookmaker and an exchange. It could be done, but I can't see bookies being too keen on sharing the info. So it would have to be exchange trading only.

As I hinted on a few posts back, there are people who are allowed to lay their own horses - bookmakers. Under the terms of their licences, if there is anything untoward in those races, the racing authorities can see for themselves what the bookie has done.

So why not look at introducing a special traders' licence for those major punters/owners who bet heavily as a business? Findlay has always been open about the activity on his account, took responsibility for errors made on his account by people who work for him. and never denied the fact that he owned the horses, even though they were all registered in his mother's name. Any additional income for racing will be welcomed and the policing part of it will still be done by Betfair. Such persons going for this type of licence would not have the same privileges as a bookmaker - able to set their own rules, handle other punters' money and advertise their services - so the fee shouldn't be too ambitious - after all, they want people to sign up to this, not hide their activities from them.

It's at least worthy of consideration because all the current rule has done is rob racing of one of its biggest ambassadors over, what is in the grand scheme of things, a rather trivial event.Posted byScott Fergusonat10:56