WHY WAS MY THREAD REMOVED AFTER 24 HOURS?

Why was my thread....after 24 hours ? Because they didn't notice it sooner.

I read it this morniong frog, and was answering some questions.... when it got deleted.

thread was fine...IMO

but it is becoming obvious, as more info is published by the BHA that beftairs defence of Harry looks worse and worse, and they clearly want it to go away.

I am not cetrain they new what the BHA where going to publish when the "welcomed his ongoing business" whcih can of course now include laying Denman as he does not own it

ROA and dixon not helping... and betfair getting isolated by industry groups.

What did the ROA say?

page 4 of RP.

said he deserved time... rule is rule, he new it and he is a big boy accept the punishement....

see you in 6 months

Do you think TC should retract?

it was probably removed in the hope that the words from Betfair spoke persons tongue were removed from all reports on the case.

Frog   2   your  thread   was   removed   because   your    talking    bull .   bit   blunt   but  thats   zipper  .

Frog    get  your head   around    this    is  an  owner     who  pays   the  trainer   and   jockey     tells  em   this  horse   must   loss    . and  goes   on  here   and   lays   that   horse    for  £20k      ok   the  nag   is  running    on  the  sand   for     £1.300  to  the  winner ...  thats    not   fair   and  thats  not    gambling    no   wonder   horse   racing   is  on   its     arse ........   end   of   zipper  .

If  the   BHB   or    the  ROA   need   a  chat    Betfair    have  my     telphone     number   and  they   can   pass  it   on .   dont   hold   your   breath  ......

KIERAN CHEATING FALLON!!!
    HGsuperhoopza Joined: 14 Dec 09
Replies: 2107     3     13 Jun 10 17:24.
..........................................................

Frog They hit yours and the Magican threads.

Yet there doesn't seem to be any problem thrown up threads like the above one on the Racing Forum.

The Magician (100)     13 Jun 10 10:56 

I am not cetrain they new what the BHA where going to publish when the "welcomed his ongoing business" whcih can of course now include laying Denman as he does not own it

This comment is of no help to anyone and you should be embarrassed by it

WHY

IT IS ENTIRELY TRUE....

He is perfectly entitled to lay denman now...

the people that defend a warned off person and let him continue to bet should be embarrsed not me.

and sawyer

if you read the BHA report.

in order

1) He claimed to reduce his back bet after recieveing inside information of how the horse would be ridden. ( so he claimed he layed his horse/ reduced his bet, given inside info)

2) The BHA showed the lay bet came first, ie before the BACK bets

3) The story was changed to my associate hit the wrong button

and sawyer

if you read the BHA report.

in order

1) He claimed to reduce his back bet after recieveing inside information of how the horse would be ridden. ( so he claimed he layed his horse/ reduced his bet, given inside info)

2) The BHA showed the lay bet came first, ie before the BACK bets

3) The story was changed to my associate hit the wrong button

Also if people actually read the report they will see that when he claimed to make the lay bet last, to reduce his liability on the win bet, it was due to him disagreeing with the trainers riding orders to hold the horse up. Does he seriously expect people to believe that as a significant owner to his trainer, he could not over ride those orders? If you disagreed with riding orders you'd soon let the trainer know surely? Especially if you'd had a very large bet on it.

magician

You claimed yesterday that you were the one warned off by Betfair - but you are still posting the same self serving drivel.

I don't give a monkeys what you think and I don't think you give a monkeys about anybody elses views, but FWIW I agree with the BHA ruling

Given that betfair welcome HF as a customer even after he has been warned off it would be interesting to know if any of the other 49 on this list are still welcomed by Betfair......

MILES RODGERS

The Panel found Mr Rodgers to be in breach of Rule 247 (iii) in that as an owner he either had laid UHOOMAGOO and MILLION PERCENT to lose their respective races or had instructed others to do so on his behalf.

It declared Mr Rodgers to be made a Disqualified Person from 2nd April 2004 until 1st April 2006.

DARREN MERCER

The Panel accepted an admission from Mr Mercer that he was in breach of Rule 247 (iii) in that in five separate telephone conversations with Betfair he had, as the owner of JOSS NAYLOR (IRE), laid the gelding to lose the Coral Welsh National. The Panel was also satisfied that on the occasion of his last two telephone conversations he would already have been aware that the gelding was no longer running in the race and was therefore laying bets to people in the knowledge that it was impossible for him to lose.

The Panel declared Mr Mercer to be made a Disqualified Person for six months from Friday 16th July 2004 until Saturday 15th January 2005 inclusive.

ANDY BEARD

The Disciplinary Panel of the Jockey Club held an enquiry on 19th May 2005 to consider whether or not Mr Andy Beard, a registered owner, had committed a breach of Rule 247 (iii) of the Rules of Racing, in respect of his laying with Betfair horses owned by himself, namely MOSCOW MARY, to lose at Wolverhampton on 26th December 2003, and MIDDLETON GREY, to lose at Southwell on 27th December 2003.

Having considered the evidence, including a statement from Mr Beard, the Panel accepted an admission from him that he was in breach of Rule 247 (iii) in that he had layed both horses to lose through his Betfair account.

In reaching its decision the Panel took into account Mr Beard’s full and early admission and that the sums involved totalled £1127. However, the Panel felt it was beholden upon Owners to be fully acquainted with the Rules of Racing.

The Panel declared Mr Beard to be a Disqualified Person for 4 months from Friday 27th May until Monday 26th September 2005 inclusive.

GARY CARTER

Gary Carter was in breach of Rules 243, 220(iv) and 220(viii). The Panel declared him to be a disqualified person for 5 years, effective from 12 October 2005, and imposed a fine of £2000 for the breaches of Rule 220(viii).

CHRISTOPHR COLEMAN

Christopher Coleman was in breach of the Rules as alleged and that he had also unreasonably refused to cooperate with the investigation. The Panel ordered that he should continue to be excluded indefinitely.

DEAN COLEMAN

Dean Coleman was in breach of the Rules as alleged and that he had also unreasonably refused to cooperate with the investigation. The Panel ordered that he should be excluded from all premises owned or licensed by the Stewards of the Jockey Club with immediate effect for an indefinite period.

NEIL YORKE

Neil Yorke was in breach of the Rules as alleged and that he had also unreasonably refused to cooperate with the investigation n. The Panel ordered that he should be excluded from all premises owned or licensed by the Stewards of the Jockey Club with immediate effect for an indefinite period.

STEPHEN HOBBS

Stephen Hobbs was in breach of the Rules as alleged and that he had also unreasonably refused to cooperate with the investigation. The Panel ordered that he should be excluded from all premises owned or licensed by the Stewards of the Jockey Club with immediate effect for an indefinite period.

JAMES NASH

James Nash was in breach of the Rule as alleged and that he had also unreasonably refused to cooperate with the investigation. The Panel ordered that he should be excluded from all premises owned or licensed by the Stewards of the Jockey Club with immediate effect for an indefinite period.

DEAN SHAKESPEARE

The Disciplinary Panel of the Jockey Club held an enquiry on 5th December 2005 to consider whether or not Dean Shakespeare, in his capacity as Director of Direct Sales UK Ltd, the owner of WILD POWER (GER), acted in breach of Rule 220 (viii) on or about April 2005, by endeavouring by an overt act to mislead an Official of the Jockey Club, in that he deliberately tampered with and altered information on his itemised billing account for mobile telephone number 07977 xxxxxx prior to disclosing this information pursuant to a Production Order dated 30th April 2004, in order to disguise the fact that he had telephoned the mobile phone number 07774 xxxxxx (a number belonging to/or being used at the material time [April 2004] by Mr Phil Taylor, a person who by April 2005 was excluded under Rule 2(v) from premises owned or controlled by the Jockey Club) and did so knowing or foreseeing as a real possibility that such information was relevant to the Jockey Club’s investigation and showed that, contrary to the claim made during his interview on the 27th April 2004 that he did not know anyone who had laid WILD POWER (GER) on Betfair to lose the Levy Board Conditional Jockey’s Handicap Hurdle at Taunton on 4th March 2004, he knew Taylor, a professional gambler and bookmaker, who had laid WILD POWER (GER) to lose in this race.

The Panel considered a factual argument about whether Shakespeare knew that Taylor had laid WILD POWER (GER) to lose at or about the time of the race, or whether (as Shakespeare said) he only learnt of this in late July or early August 2004. The Panel decided that he was aware of Taylor’s betting activities at or about the time they occurred but took the view that this did not add materially to the seriousness of the conduct which Shakespeare admitted, namely the falsification of mobile phone records to conceal his calls to Taylor in March 2004.

Accordingly, the Panel found Shakespeare to be in breach of Rule 220 (viii) and ordered that he be declared a Disqualified Person for a period of 3 months from Wednesday 14th December 2005 to Monday 13th March 2006. The Panel’s reasons for imposing a penalty at the lower end of the recommended range are as follows:

(a) The Investigation on which the Jockey Club Officials were engaged was not materially misled by the false telephone records, although it undoubtedly caused some administrative delays;

(b) Shakespeare admitted the falsification within a month of submitting the doctored records;

(c) Shakespeare apologised unreservedly, both through his representative and personally in his evidence, for his dishonesty.

(d) The deception Shakespeare was attempting to create by submitting the false records was an odd one in the circumstances put before the Panel, because it was not suggested he did personally stand to profit from Taylor’s betting activities.

DAVID WRIGHT

In reaching its decision the Panel took into account Mr Wright’s full and early admission that he had layed HIT’S ONLY MONEY (IRE) to lose on two occasions. However, the Panel felt it was beholden upon Owners to be fully acquainted with the Rules of Racing and found it hard to accept that with all the previous publicity relating to Rule 247 that he was unaware that it was an offence for an owner to lay his own horse to lose.

The Panel declared Mr Wright to be a Disqualified Person for 5 months from Friday 7th April 2006 until Wednesday 6th September inclusive.

MICHAEL ROBINSON

In reaching its decision the Panel took into account Mr Robinson’s full and early admission that he had layed to lose horses trained by Carroll whilst in his employ. In his defence, Mr Robinson pointed out that he only rode out occasionally and that the money he received from riding out barely covered his travelling expenses.

The Panel declared Mr Robinson to be a Disqualified Person for 9 months from Friday 19th May 2006 until Sunday 18th February 2007 inclusive.

MARCUS REEDER

In reaching its decision the Panel took into account Mr Reeder’s admission that he had layed WELSH MAIN to lose. However, the Panel felt it was beholden upon Owners to be fully acquainted with the Rules of Racing and found it hard to accept that with all the previous publicity relating to Rule 247 that he was unaware that it was an offence for an owner to lay his own horse to lose.

The Panel declared Mr Reeder to be a Disqualified Person for one year from Friday 28th July 2006 until Friday 27th July 2007 inclusive.


OWEN CHURCHILL


32. Mr Churchill through a carefully orchestrated plan ensured that he would win a considerable amount of money, £56,339. The sum of the liabilities he risked during these races was £262,329. The plan was centred around the corruption of two jockeys, Reilly and Williams (both apprentices at the time), whom he befriended for this corrupt purpose.

36. If the only breach had been that of Rule 201(v), the Panel would have been minded to direct that Mr Churchill would have been eligible to apply for a lifting of the exclusion order after 6 years. The Panel has concluded this period is too short when taking into account the breach of Rule 220(ix). Mr Churchill’s behaviour in corrupting young apprentice jockeys at a vulnerable stage of their career is deplorable. We therefore consider that Mr Churchill should be deemed to be an excluded person and furthermore be ineligible to apply for a lifting of this order for a period of eight years.

IAN NICHOLL

105. He was engaged in a systematic use of inside information for corrupt lay betting, based in part upon the knowledge that some of the jockeys would ride in a way that would cause it to succeed. For his breaches of Rules 201(v) and 220(ix), for his non cooperation, as well as because the Panel determined that his presence on licensed premises is undesirable, the Panel decided to exclude him indefinitely, and indicated that an application to relax this should not be entertained for 10 years.

PAUL GLENDENNING

106. The breaches of the Rules in his case, together with his refusal to cooperate merit exclusion indefinitely, and an application to relax this should not be entertained for 3 years.

KIM EVANS

JOANNE ROBERTS

TEGAN WILDE

107. Their failure to cooperate merits exclusion indefinitely, and no application to relax this should be entertained for 2 years.

ANTHONY RAMSDEN

ROBERT OWEN

The HRA submitted that Rule 247 imposes an absolute prohibition on an owner laying his horse to lose and on each occasion that Ramsden and Owen placed the lay bet on Betfair they breached Rule 247 of the Rules.

Having considered the issue carefully, the Panel concluded there had been a technical breach of the Rules. On each occasion that Ramsden and Owen placed a lay bet on Betfair they were laying their horse to lose with a betting organisation.

The Panel accepted the evidence of Owen and Ramsden at the hearing that the reason the lay bets were placed was not that they were seeking to profit in any way from their horse losing, but to ensure that the price of the horse did not contract so that when they came to back the horse, good odds were available.

Ramsden and Owen submitted that they had believed that the Rules were merely drafted to prevent owners from laying their horses when they wished to profit from their horse losing.

In the Panel’s view, Owen and Ramsden, had breached the Rule and fell to be censured for their failure to be familiar with and observe the detail of the Rules of Racing. It was clear that they were not seeking to dishonestly profit from laying their horse to lose when they knew it would lose and therefore the Panel felt the circumstances enabled them to vary the standard penalty range set out in the 2006 Guide to Penalties in respect of breaches of Rule 247.

In the circumstances of the case the Panel felt that a fine of £750 was a proportionate fine and reflected similar penalties where there was a failure to comply with a requirement in connection with the Rules.

AJAZ KHAN

Disqualified indefinitely, and an application to relax this should not be entertained for 10 years.

MOHAMMED ALYAS

SAM ALYAS

GREG HEDGER

MOHAMMED IMTIAZ

ABDUL KHALIQUE

The breaches of the Rules in his case, together with their refusal to cooperate merit exclusion indefinitely, and an application to relax this should not be entertained for 3 years.

CHRIS FALOON

As he is not bound by the Rules of Racing in Britain (not being a registered member of Lambe’s stable staff), the Panel decided to exercise their powers under Rule 2(v) and excluded him for six months from premises licensed by the HRA with effect from Saturday 9th June until Saturday 8th December 2007 inclusive.

GARY LYONS

The Panel pursuant to their powers under Rule 2(v) has determined to exclude Mr Lyons indefinitely with an indication that an application to relax this restriction should not be entertained for a period of 2 years.

DAVE WATKINS

The Panel pursuant to their powers under Rule 2(v) has determined to exclude Mr Watkins indefinitely with an indication that an application to relax this restriction should not be entertained for a period of 5 years. The Panel concluded that Mr Watkins was the central figure in this case. He profited considerably from his betting activities having been in receipt of Inside Information from his sons-in-law and Mernagh, who was paid if the betting activities were successful.

CLIVE WHITING

declared to be a disqualified person for a period of 8 years.

VINNIE WHITING

ordered to be excluded from all premises licensed by the BHA for a period of 4 years.

DAVID WRIGHT

declared to be a disqualified person for a period of 6 years.

ordered to be excluded from all premises licensed by the BHA for a period of 6 years.

NICHOLAS ROOK

ordered to be excluded from all premises licensed by the BHA for a period of 6 years.http://community.betfair.com/general_betting/go/thread/view/94082/25030517/WHY_WAS_MY_THREAD_REMOVED_AFTER_24_HOURS?output_method=iframe#

MARCUS REEDER

declared to be a disqualified person for a period of 18 months.

MARTYN WAKEFIELD

declared to be a disqualified person for a period of 18 months.

ANDREW SCOTT

Scott’s exclusion is for an indefinite period from Friday 20th March 2009, and no application to lift this should be entertained until he has provided the necessary cooperation with the Authority’s investigation.

MANDY HALL

The Panel decided to make her a disqualified person. The penalty guidance for breach of Rule 241(i)(c) indicates a range of period for disqualification of one month to three years, with an entry point of three months. However, because of the nature of this case and the importance of the subject matter to be investigated, the Panel decided to make the disqualification indefinite from Friday 20th March 2009, but with a proviso that if Hall does now cooperate and provide the necessary information in interview, then an application to remove the disqualification can be made.

NEIL LEACH

The Panel also noted the mitigating factors to Leach’s credit in that he had stood down for a period of 11 months as travelling head lad prior to the hearing which occasioned a significant reduction in salary. It felt that some credit should also be given to him for his admissions albeit that they were not full and cogent acknowledgements of his position. With only the aggravating features to consider, the Panel would have imposed a disqualification period of 12 months but, in all the circumstances, the Panel determined to disqualify Leach for a period of nine months commencing on 27th March 2009 to 26th December 2009.

NEIL ALLEN

In respect of Allen the Panel noted the guidance given in the Guide to Procedures and Penalties in respect of the breaches. The range for the offences he had breached was three months to ten years and the entry points were between six and 18 months. The Panel considered that there were very serious aggravating features in respect of Allen’s case. In particular Allen had completely failed to co-operate with the Racing Authorities in respect of investigating this matter and Allen had not been willing to attend the enquiry. In the Panel’s view, Allen had deliberately set out to obtain Inside Information by encouraging Leach to think of him as a friend and then providing him with reward. The Panel considered that such behaviour should be marked with a serious penalty. The Panel therefore determined to exclude Allen for a period of five years commencing on 27th March 2009 to 26th March 2014.

STEVE GOODWIN

13. The Panel accepted that Mr Goodwin’s behaviour was not intentional and acknowledged that this was his first offence. It also noted the large number of testimonials from individuals whom he had introduced into racing and how positively they spoke of their experiences associated with Diamond Racing. The Panel also noted his extremely difficult personal circumstances during the relevant period and felt it fair that Mr Goodwin should be afforded some degree of latitude in respect of the manner in which he attended to his personal administration during this time.

14. The Panel concluded that in all the circumstances, a fine of £3,500 was the proper penalty for this case.

WILLIAM HINGE

Before the Panel Mr Hinge claimed that he had not thought he was in breach of the Rule due to the fact that he stood to lose substantially more than he would have done if the horse was beaten.

In the circumstances, the Panel found that the Rule had been breached in that Mr Hinge had layed a horse he jointly owned to lose. The fact that he did not intend to profit from this action on account of the substantially larger back bets on the horse on both occasions, did not negate his culpability.

However, the Panel felt the BHA’s advice on penalty which proposed an entry point of 6 months disqualification with a minimum of three months, was unduly harsh in the view that the lay betting activity in these races could not have been profitable. The losses on his back bets far outweighed the profits on his lay bets. There was also no suggestion made that the horse had not been allowed to run on its merits or that there were unusual betting patterns in either race. Furthermore, the addendum to Rule 247 which clarified the Rule beyond doubt was published after the races in question and that the lay bets were on just one of the many horses that were owned by Mr Hinge.

The Panel therefore took the view that a financial penalty, rather than a period of disqualification, was more appropriate in the particular case and imposed a fine of £1,250.

LEIGHTON BROOKES

Having considered the evidence, the Panel found Mr Brookes, who did not attend, in breach of Rule 247 in that he risked a liability of £3,000 to win £200 on MAN OF GWENT (UAE) on 23 August, 2008, risked a liability of £1,441 to win £149 on 10 September 2008 and risked a liability of £990 to win £55 on 4 February 2009 and he also risked a liability of £2,562 to win £205 on TRIMLESTOWN (IRE) on 23 February 2009. The Panel did not accept Mr Brookes’ explanation that he shared his Betfair account with a friend and it was the friend who had placed the lay bets on MAN OF GWENT (UAE) and TRIMLESTOWN (IRE) without his knowledge. He was also found in breach of Rule 241(i) in that he had failed to provide any reason for refusing to produce his telephone records.

The Panel therefore disqualified Mr Brookes for a period of 3 years commencing on Friday 4 December 2009 until 3 December 2012 inclusive. The fact that the Panel decided on a specific period rather than to make Mr Brookes disqualified for an indefinite period, should not be taken as any indication by the Panel that it would be appropriate, all other things being equal, for Mr Brookes to be permitted on the expiry of the period to take up or to resume any registration with the Authority.

COLIN CRAIG

DANIEL CRAIG

TIM CONNOCK

EDWARD TOLLER

8. Accordingly, the Panel ordered that, with effect from Thursday 22 April 2010, Mr Colin Craig and Mr Daniel Craig be excluded from all premises licensed by the Authority for a period of 2 years (until 21 April 2012) and that Mr Tim Connock and Mr Edward Toller be excluded for a period of 12 months (until 21 April 2011).

MICHAEL PHELAN

DECLAN PHELAN

18. The Phelans did however co-operate with the BHA Investigators and it is for this reason that the Panel decided to drop below the entry point penalty and to impose a disqualification of 12 months from Friday 8 May 2010 until 7 May 2011 inclusive.

HARRY FINDLAY

20. The Panel imposes a disqualification of 6 months to come into effect on Friday 11 June 2010 until 10 December 2010 inclusive. The effect of this decision, in the light of Mr Findlay’s admitted direct involvement in the ownership of the horses currently registered in his mother’s ownership, is that horses registered in his mother’s name cannot race while she remains owner or part owner. Administrative arrangements for transfers of interest will need to be agreed by the Findlays with the BHA.

You English? Sweatie on duty today.

"WHY WAS MY THREAD REMOVED AFTER 24 HOURS?"

Disregarding the capitals. My guess is. You is small bank material. Getta bigga bank you feckin k n o b.

mginvest Joined: 19 Feb 02
Replies: 417 13 Jun 10 19:17   
Also if people actually read the report they will see that when he claimed to make the lay bet last, to reduce his liability on the win bet, it was due to him disagreeing with the trainers riding orders to hold the horse up. Does he seriously expect people to believe that as a significant owner to his trainer, he could not over ride those orders? If you disagreed with riding orders you'd soon let the trainer know surely? Especially if you'd had a very large bet on it.

that was his claim - but befair confirmed to the BHA the lay bet happened first..... so he changed his sotry to say it was laid by accident

you be the judge if you can believe the seocnd story after the first was shown to be ficticious

Frog, what a rogues' gallery that is.

It must be the case that there is no restriction on taking the bets of a warned-off person. Otherwise bf's spokesperson has made a mistake in saying that bf wd gladly continue to keep taking Harry Findlay's bets.

Sawyer

I agree with the BHA also.... the rule is there and could argue he should have got 18 months.

what I dont agree with is the robust support Betfair give him, and now depsite being silent on this rule for years, suddenly say it is flawed - and they will not support it or ban people that break it

askari

it 'seems' there is now restiriction on bookies accepting bets frmo warned off people.

that I find shocking in itself

There is some appearance that Findlay (not a naive punter) thought it a less serious offense to lay off some of a back bet to reduce liabilities than to try to make a market for his own selection by moving the price 'his way' in thin volume.

The BHA, though, considered the first theoretical offense a bad breach of the rules; and figures in the BHA not sitting on the panel thought that submitting a bet in error was a plausible explanation of HF's sequence of bets and a technical offense only i.e. not that grave.

Luckily the panel seemed more clued-in about betting.

magician, no restriction?