Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
24 Oct 11
16:36
Joined:
Date Joined:
16 Jan 09
Undertsand "Paul Roy's" horses are registered in his wifes name?
can anyone confirm?
some questions?
1) Is this within BHA rules? as understood Anothony Ramsden got done for not registering Mickmacmagoogle corretly?
2) Can Paul Roy lay horses his wife "owns"
3) On Nov 1st new owner regulations come into force, can he then lay horses (or back the opposition to the hroses) from the Yards his wifes owns in
4) can the Trainer ring Mr Roy and discuss the chances of the horses his wife owns - or does the trainer need to have that conversation with the actual owner?
Be thinking about doing the same - and want to know where I will stand.
I have seven days to either sell two horses, or stop betting
can anyone confirm?
some questions?
1) Is this within BHA rules? as understood Anothony Ramsden got done for not registering Mickmacmagoogle corretly?
2) Can Paul Roy lay horses his wife "owns"
3) On Nov 1st new owner regulations come into force, can he then lay horses (or back the opposition to the hroses) from the Yards his wifes owns in
4) can the Trainer ring Mr Roy and discuss the chances of the horses his wife owns - or does the trainer need to have that conversation with the actual owner?
Be thinking about doing the same - and want to know where I will stand.
I have seven days to either sell two horses, or stop betting
Show More
His horses run under the ownership of ...
Mrs Susan Roy.
Mrs Susan Roy.
just moving away from your question, why is ED BALLS' wife known as YVETTE COOPER?
Don't think chompy will let you get away with this title!
mag the rules as they currently stand are:
92. Restrictions on laying to lose
92.1 In Paragraph 92.2, Listed Person
92.1.1 means any owner of a horse (see Rule 96), and
92.1.2 additionally, includes
92.1.2.1 where the owner is a Recognised Company, any director or Registered Agent of the company,
92.1.2.2 where the owner is a Recognised Stud Company, any director of the company,
92.1.2.3 where the owner is a Racing Partnership, the partners of the racing partnership who are notified to the Authority under Rule 65.1.2 and who are not Nominated Partners,
92.1.2.4 where the horse is subject to a lease, the lessor of the horse, and
92.1.2.5 where the horse is jointly-owned, is leased for one race only or is subject to any other lease or arrangement registered under Rule 75, any Person who, at or around the material time, played an active part in managing the horse.
92.2 A Listed Person must not
92.2.1 lay any horse he owns with a Betting Organisation to lose a race,
92.2.2 instruct another Person to do so on his behalf, or
92.2.3 receive the whole or any part of any proceeds of such a lay.
92.3 Any reference to laying a horse to lose includes any single instance of doing so, whether or not the single instance was, or was intended to be, one of a series of betting arrangements.
92.4 Nothing in this Rule prevents the laying of any horse owned by a Betting Organisation in the ordinary course of that Betting Organisation's business.
92.5 Betting Organisation means
92.5.1 any bookmaker,
92.5.2 the Tote,
92.5.3 any company offering spread betting on horseracing or person-to-person betting exchanges on horseracing, and
92.5.4 the employees of any such organisations
92. Restrictions on laying to lose
92.1 In Paragraph 92.2, Listed Person
92.1.1 means any owner of a horse (see Rule 96), and
92.1.2 additionally, includes
92.1.2.1 where the owner is a Recognised Company, any director or Registered Agent of the company,
92.1.2.2 where the owner is a Recognised Stud Company, any director of the company,
92.1.2.3 where the owner is a Racing Partnership, the partners of the racing partnership who are notified to the Authority under Rule 65.1.2 and who are not Nominated Partners,
92.1.2.4 where the horse is subject to a lease, the lessor of the horse, and
92.1.2.5 where the horse is jointly-owned, is leased for one race only or is subject to any other lease or arrangement registered under Rule 75, any Person who, at or around the material time, played an active part in managing the horse.
92.2 A Listed Person must not
92.2.1 lay any horse he owns with a Betting Organisation to lose a race,
92.2.2 instruct another Person to do so on his behalf, or
92.2.3 receive the whole or any part of any proceeds of such a lay.
92.3 Any reference to laying a horse to lose includes any single instance of doing so, whether or not the single instance was, or was intended to be, one of a series of betting arrangements.
92.4 Nothing in this Rule prevents the laying of any horse owned by a Betting Organisation in the ordinary course of that Betting Organisation's business.
92.5 Betting Organisation means
92.5.1 any bookmaker,
92.5.2 the Tote,
92.5.3 any company offering spread betting on horseracing or person-to-person betting exchanges on horseracing, and
92.5.4 the employees of any such organisations
thanks eleise...
seems you are perfectly entitled to Lays your wifes horse then....
seems you are perfectly entitled to Lays your wifes horse then....
The Harry F case might be of interest on this. The full verdict is on the link below but point 2 could be relevant in terms of your question;
2.The first occasion was alleged to be a breach of Rule 247 of the Rules of Racing; the second was said to be a breach of the modern equivalents in the new Rule Book either Rule (A)35.4 or Rule (E)92.2. Put summarily, these provisions all outlaw lay betting against a horse whether by an owner of that horse, or by a person who plays an active part in managing it if in joint ownership, or by a “service provider” to its owner.
http://www.britishhorseracing.presscentre.com/content/detail.aspx?ReleaseID=303&NewsAreaId=2
2.The first occasion was alleged to be a breach of Rule 247 of the Rules of Racing; the second was said to be a breach of the modern equivalents in the new Rule Book either Rule (A)35.4 or Rule (E)92.2. Put summarily, these provisions all outlaw lay betting against a horse whether by an owner of that horse, or by a person who plays an active part in managing it if in joint ownership, or by a “service provider” to its owner.
http://www.britishhorseracing.presscentre.com/content/detail.aspx?ReleaseID=303&NewsAreaId=2
The question is then,galbladder, does she still 'service' Mr. Roy?
roggrain
dont ruin the thread....
serious questions... to be answered
next week, I could get disqualifeid for 3 years,
dont ruin the thread....
serious questions... to be answered
next week, I could get disqualifeid for 3 years,
roggrain - No idea what constitutes a 'service provider' in this context. Maybe the BHA have used this terms because of its vagueness?
Well then,Magician, if you are serious why don't you ask the BHA?
I have asked the BHA.... waiting on the answer...
if you get anything other than the official line would you kindly post it or pm me please mag?
Apparently in a race earlier today there was a horse running (tho i haven't seen the race) that maybe today wasn't his day 
chris cook
"An eye-catching run from Traditional Bob," says commentator. Trainer is Graeme McPherson QC who often presents BHA case at disc. hearings
chris cook
"An eye-catching run from Traditional Bob," says commentator. Trainer is Graeme McPherson QC who often presents BHA case at disc. hearings
If you register a horse in a your wifes name you are hardly concealing it and clearly will be privy to inside information and thus banned (and now penalised) for laying. Abroad they often have very strict rules on who the owner is and have to prove they have the funds and are actually paying for horses in training. UK doesnt. Personally I say backing with inside info is fine, laying should be a blanket no-no. I think you know perfectly well the answers to your questions. How often does Sir Henry give direct updates to Abdulla or Noseda to Ogden, etc.
yer ma
actually I dont know the answer to my own question.... and niether does the BHA apparently because they currently cant answer and are still trying to formulate one...
so clearly it is not easy or black and white.... especially as it seems Paul Roys 'horse's' are in his wifes name....
actually I dont know the answer to my own question.... and niether does the BHA apparently because they currently cant answer and are still trying to formulate one...
so clearly it is not easy or black and white.... especially as it seems Paul Roys 'horse's' are in his wifes name....
The BHA are not exactly known for their prompt replies to e-mails. Im still waiting for ones sent 5 weeks,10 weeks and about 6 months ago.
Magician. To do with attendance figures. (I'm interested in comparing numbers for Sundays vs Mondays/Tuesdays as I feel flat racing is missing an opportunity by not staging enough racing on Sundays)
And, regarding blindfolds. There have been a lot of instances recently of jockeys struggling with them after the gate opens. I think,in addition to the frustration of seeing a horse you've backed standing in the gate while the jockey fumbles with the blindfold there is the inevitable event of a horse throwing the jockey while the jockey is fumbling,with the spectre of a blindfolded runner bolting.
I've asked them if there should be a rule requiring all blindfolds to be removed before the stalls are opened.
And, regarding blindfolds. There have been a lot of instances recently of jockeys struggling with them after the gate opens. I think,in addition to the frustration of seeing a horse you've backed standing in the gate while the jockey fumbles with the blindfold there is the inevitable event of a horse throwing the jockey while the jockey is fumbling,with the spectre of a blindfolded runner bolting.
I've asked them if there should be a rule requiring all blindfolds to be removed before the stalls are opened.
That will disappoint a few 'connections', roggrain ....
On the other hand - now that they don't have to bother using the whip - there's no need to fumble with the blindfold.
On the other hand - now that they don't have to bother using the whip - there's no need to fumble with the blindfold.
Yes,onloooker. The possible integrity issue had occured to me too.
I forgot, another thing I brought up with them was that it cannot possibly be within the rules for a runner to race
blindfolded and yet, the race is deemed to have started the moment the gate opens ,so any horse with it's blindfold still on is racing blindfolded!
Maybe that's what's taking them so long to get their heads around.
I forgot, another thing I brought up with them was that it cannot possibly be within the rules for a runner to race
blindfolded and yet, the race is deemed to have started the moment the gate opens ,so any horse with it's blindfold still on is racing blindfolded!
Maybe that's what's taking them so long to get their heads around.
does he lay horses at all on bf or any other exchange?
roggrain
Good luck with that... let see what happens...
are there trainers and connections that have had increase in the number of horses 'stuck' in blindfolds recently?
Good luck with that... let see what happens...
are there trainers and connections that have had increase in the number of horses 'stuck' in blindfolds recently?
oi mag u have the resources why not just meet the ****s in court get the whole lot down, a smart brief could really stir it up, i'll chip in a ton for the cause
Might well be for tax reasons.
If a person is deemed to be a professional [debatable in this case]he may be liable to pay tax on a horse he sells.
That's how it is in Ireland anyway and i imagine it is the same over there.
Which is why you see a lot of trainers run horses in their wifes or mothers name.
If a person is deemed to be a professional [debatable in this case]he may be liable to pay tax on a horse he sells.
That's how it is in Ireland anyway and i imagine it is the same over there.
Which is why you see a lot of trainers run horses in their wifes or mothers name.
Fat
when the new rule comes in in 5 days.... I will break the rule almost daily...
As will many other owners, via bets on BF Daq and ladbrokes etc.
BHAs only job in life will be rubbing out owners...
and I cant imagine Lads will be very happy about handing over thier punters to the BHA to exclude form racing....
when the new rule comes in in 5 days.... I will break the rule almost daily...
As will many other owners, via bets on BF Daq and ladbrokes etc.
BHAs only job in life will be rubbing out owners...
and I cant imagine Lads will be very happy about handing over thier punters to the BHA to exclude form racing....
are you following ADs thread about the how much worse can it get for the BHA
sadly yes....
going to be preety bad Nov 1st when they have 10-20-30 owners a day they need to rub out....
who is going to won all the horses?
Paul Roys wife?
going to be preety bad Nov 1st when they have 10-20-30 owners a day they need to rub out....
who is going to won all the horses?
Paul Roys wife?
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539