Skip to main content

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.

Comments

  1. Couldn't agree more - no one but he decided to lay - he knew the rules but even if he didn't ignorance of them is no excuse.

    One person to blame and imo the first punishment was right not the latter.

    ReplyDelete
  2. In the aftermath of it, a six-month disqualification isn't that big a penalty, so perhaps it was appropriate... but that is conditional on other penalties being stiff and very tough. Rules are rules, and while I think there should be a separate assessment of trading whilst still profiting from a win, until the rule book changes, you have to live by what is written.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think it is a bit extreme to for Harry to say that Nic Coward has ruined his life.

    Findlay isn't stupid and I'd be surprised to find that he didn't know the rules.

    I'm sure there are 'people in the know' who lay horses in a far more discrete manner than Findlay does, it smacks of arrogance from him in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Thanks for your comments, but if you're a spammer, you've just wasted your time - it won't get posted.

Popular posts from this blog

It's all gone Pete Tong at Betfair!

The Christmas Hurdle from Leopardstown, a good Grade 2 race during the holiday period. But now it will go into history as the race which brought Betfair down. Over £21m at odds of 29 available on Voler La Vedette in-running - that's a potential liability of over £500m. You might think that's a bit suspicious, something's fishy, especially with the horse starting at a Betfair SP of 2.96. Well, this wasn't a horse being stopped by a jockey either - the bloody horse won! Look at what was matched at 29. Split that in half and multiply by 28 for the actual liability for the layer(s). (Matched amounts always shown as double the backers' stake, never counts the layers' risk). There's no way a Betfair client would have £600m+ in their account. Maybe £20 or even £50m from the massive syndicates who regard(ed) Betfair as safer than any bank, but not £600m. So the error has to be something technical. However, rumour has it, a helpdesk reply (not gospel, natur

What shits me about match-fixing 'journalism'.

The anti-wagering media bandwagon has dozens of new members this week, all weighing in an industry they have absolutely no idea about. I'm all for getting the betting industry into the mainstream but it shits me no end when they roll out reports and celebrities who simply don't have a clue what they are talking about and don't bother to check basic facts which key arguments in their story. If this was the financial industry, making errors like this would have them in all sorts of trouble, but the same level of regulation doesn't apply because finance stock markets are supposedly all legitimate and serious, whereas sports betting is just a bit of fun for people who can never win in the long-term... according to the media. This week we have seen the sting by the Telegraph which, on the face of it, looks to be a tremendous piece of investigative work into fixing in English football. But the headlines around it are over-sensationalised yet again. Delroy Facey, a former pla

Racing has a Ponzi scheme - and the fallout will be enormous

When the term ' Ponzi scheme ' is mentioned these days, the names Bernard Madoff and Allen Stanford instantly spring to mind. The pair of them ran multi-billion dollar frauds (US$60bn and $8bn respectively) that destroyed the lives of thousands of investors who had put their life savings into a 'wonderful' investment strategy. How so many people were sucked into the scheme is baffling to those on the outside. The lifestyle, the sales pitch, the success stories of the early investors - I suppose it all adds up. So where does this link to racing you ask? A prominent Australian 'racing identity' this week has been reported to have lost access to a bank account with punters' club funds of $194m in it. Firstly - is there a worse term for anyone to be labelled with that 'racing identity'? It ALWAYS ends up meaning shonky crook! Secondly - who the hell has a punters' club with an active bankroll in the tens of millions? It simply can't be done. T