Another Boycie Betting Blog exclusive

In keeping with the Boycie Betting Blog’s record of being ‘first fast and factiest on Findlay’ I can exclusively reveal that Harry Findlay has indeed contacted the BHA to confirm that he will lodge an appeal against his six month disqualification.

The BHA has just confirmed to me that it has received written confirmation that Findlay wishes to appeal. They are now waiting to hear from Findlay’s legal representatives and, until that happens, an appeal date can’t be scheduled but the authority has previously stated that it hopes an appeal could be heard in timely fashion.



  1. fawwon says:

    Great stuff Sean. Your blog is becoming a must read site.

    This is going to be absolutely fascinating if Findlay repeats his claim that the BHA gave an “exemption to lay”. What I find intriguing about all this talk about laying by Findlay is that he often seems to be going out of his way to stress that he is a fearless backer. Now he says that he even has a unique exemption from the authorities specifically for his laying activities.

    What can you say about Harry is that he gives VFM as this is all quite rivetting stuff.

  2. Patrick says:

    Hardly the greatest scoop in history Sean after all the fawning letters in the Racing Post mostly from those within racing the appeal if priced up by the bookies would have been in Harrys territory of fearless punting 1/33 on.

    At least a few letters lately in the post were scating of his arrogance, the same guy has the Betfair forum held to ransom, can’t even start a thread with the guys name on it and its instantly a locked thread, sugar and spice and all things nice Harry, as has been mentioned on here before I would love to know the real story behind Findlay and Betfair, if the truth be known and you delve a little deeper spmething much more sinister might emerge.

    Poor Old Arry!

  3. fawwon says:

    Credit where it’s due. If everyone wanted the same credit facilities as you know who!, then BF would be needing the IMF. I think the story is why the 5% ish comm. payers are also having to leave funds on deposit whilst the 2% mob don’t even use their own money.

  4. Santiburi says:

    fawwon, if I read the submission from Findlay correctly, he went to the BHA and Betfair to ask whether a the definition of a ‘connection’ defined someone who owned or trained a horse, so that he could get clarity on whether he was allowed to have a financial interest in the performance of horses not owned by him/his mother but being trained by one of his primary trainers. Seems like a perfectly reasonable question to me. Therefore, my reading, is that he got an exemption where he wasn’t directly or indirectly the owner. The same exemption ought therefore to be available to anyone else in a similar position.

  5. seanboyce says:

    Which submission are you referring to there Santi?
    Who approached who is one of the questions I’ll be trying to get an answer to on this.
    BHA, as you know, hotly denies that any such exemption was given.
    Fawwon’s questions are more related to whether all BF players at all times are playing with their own funds or playing on credit I think?
    Although I’m not sure that there would be any legal issue with such a practice? Maybe a reputational one though?

  6. Santiburi says:

    Hi Sean, my reference to ‘submission’ was as much a reference to Findlay’s discussion with Matt Chapman on ATR as it was to all the various articles that have quoted him.
    I sense the BHA is trying to ensure that no one thinks they’re supportive of laying in the general case. However, they would have their work cut out trying to work out tenuous linkages to stop someone laying a horse from stable X when that individual has an ownership stake in another horse in stable X. Hence, with his profile, it would make sense from Findlay to have, some time in the past, ensured that everyone who might be concerned knew what he was doing.
    Obviously, I don’t know the facts. I’m not sure who does for that matter so I’m intrigued like you. I’m also not a major supporter of Betfair despite admiring the way in which Wray and Black built the business. The one thing I do know however is that I’d trust the word of Findlay and Betfair long before I trusted the word of Racing’s authorities.
    I understood what fawwon put forward but having looked at the link he offered and taken a quick look at Betfair’s accounts, I don’t see anything there that I wouldn’t expect to see in a business of that size.
    If they were just a betting exchange then I could possibly understand the attempted link to Betfair giving out credit but my guess is that they don’t do that. Why would they need to these days? There are specialist market makers: even a public company in Sweden that does nothing other than make markets on Betfair and other exchanges. I imagine that such businesses might get different terms to the normal consumer but I’d be really surprised if those terms included credit.

  7. seanboyce says:

    cheers Santi. Wasn’t sure if I’d missed some kind of formal submission. The arguments Findlay has made re dispensation to lay have of course been totally rebutted by BHA. Not clear who called that nov 08 meeting though and that would be interesting.
    Agree with you re the accounts. Wouldn’t rule out the possibility of credit having been extended to some individuals though.

  8. fawwon says:

    At another point, Kelson raised the name of a high-profile, high-staking punter who has never been connected with the case. “Have Betfair ever extended a £1m credit line to Harry Findlay?” he asked, without offering any explanation for the question. “If they have, I am not aware of it,” replied O’Reilly.

    This notion first surfaced publicly during the Fallon Trial at the Old Bailey. It seems that the notion that betfair give credit is seen as a weakness in them by their detractors. All it takes is someone like Sean to ask BF or Harry what’s going on!!!

  9. seanboyce says:

    that was indeed curious at the time wasn’t it and as I say, I wouldn’t rule out the idea of credit begin available to some at different times.

  10. Santiburi says:

    So, we have to wait until at least tomorrow to understand the outcome of Findlay’s appeal. Does the following paragraph from the Racing Post’s coverage of the appeal give both sides a way out?
    ‘Findlay was found guilty in June of two charges of laying Gullible Gordon to lose in races in 2008 and 2009 on Betfair, falling foul of the rule that “debars on owner from laying his horse to lose”.’
    Findlay didn’t lay his horse to lose. He did have lay bets against the horse but was a net backer. Odds just in favour of the ban being withdrawn and a small fine in its place?

  11. Santiburi says:

    I wonder what the fallout will be now? Radical overhaul of the rules? A change in the way Racing views all aspects of betting? A retreat to the bunker and pretend everything is OK? Will Findlay and his mum go back to building a string of horses that race in the UK or will his discontent mean he leaves these shores?
    Personally, I’m heartened to see this appeal upheld and would now like all parties to disclose how and why this case ever came to be heard so that Racing can start moving forwards instead of backwards.

  12. fawwon says:

    It is amazing that an owner who pays the bills can’t back and lay off, but someone who pays nothing can. This is a good decision for the owners who are paying the bills at the moment.

    I don’t think is the end of it. This from Jim, McGrath in the Telegraph. Someone is leaking against Harry.

    But there have been other questions that have come to light in press coverage so far. They need answers. One report suggested Findlay had been betting on credit with Betfair, another was that he had had a special arrangement whereby he could lay horses in stables in which he or his mother (Maggie Findlay) owned horses. Even more recently, there have been suggestions that quotes attributed to Paul Nicholls that appeared in the Racing Post had not been made by the trainer.

    The statement about quotes attributed to Paul Nicholls by McGrath is a bit strange. Perhaps Sean can ask the Croc what’s that all about?

    All that Denman talk about it not being 100% when it won it’s 1st Hennessy. Who wrote the PN Column in the RP then, Harry or Glenn!!!

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Custom Search

Switch to our mobile site