FINDLAY IN AMAZING TIRADE AT BHA CHIEF. RACING POST FRIDAY 10 SEPTEMBER 2010

RACING POST REPORT BY DAVID CARR FRIDAY SEPTEMBER 10, 2010

“YOU’VE RUINED MY LIFE” OWNER TELLS COWARD IN PUBLIC OUTBURST.

RACEGOERS at Doncaster yesterday witnessed an astonishing outburst from gambler and Cheltenham Gold Cup winning owner Harry Findlay as he accused British Horseracing Authority (BHA) chief executive Nic Coward of “ruining my life”.


“Still angry at having been warned off for six months by the BHA disciplinary panel for laying his own horse Gullible Gordon, a punishment later reduced to a fine on appeal, Findlay confronted Coward near the parade ring and loudly called for his resignation, along with that of BHA chairman Paul Roy.


Findley, best known as part owner of Denman, was later seen in heated discussion with owners’ chief Paul Dixon at Doncaster sales over Dixon’s suggestion that Findlay’s initial six-month ban had been merited.


Coward refused to engage with Findlay, telling him this was “not the time or the place”, but he was clearly shaken by the incident.


Speaking to the press outside the weighing room a few minutes after the confrontation, Findlay said: ”I don’t care if I never own another racehorse in my life, all I want is my respect back.


“You can call me a bigmouth, you can call me a loudmouth, you can call me fat, but you don’t call me a liar. I haven’t lied for 27 years.”


Findlay promised to return to Doncaster today, when Black Moth – a colt he used to own – runs in the opening Flying Childers Stakes. “I am telling you now, they have picked on the wrong guy,” he said.


Findlay claims the BHA is pursuing a vendetta against him, and that its investigators had given him permission to lay other horses from Paul Nicholls’ stable.


FINLEY IN PUBLIC ATTACK ON BHA.

In June, Findlay asserted that, because of his “exemplary relationship with the BHA and Betfair” he was treated as a special case, where the laying regulations were concerned.


However, Roy was adamant in his rebuttal of the owner’s claims. “the BHA never gave permission to Harry Findlay to lay horses in yards where he had horses in training.” he said in a statement.


During yesterday’s outburst, Findlay told Coward: “You’ve ruined my life.”

Later he said: “Nic Coward said to me, ‘this is not the time or the place.’ He won’t speak to anyone. I’ve been waiting four and a half years to speak to him. I asked him, ‘Why have you tried to ruin my life?’ I really think Paul Roy has no choice but to go.”


Speaking after the incident, Coward said: ”Harry can make his point wherever he wishes to, but I deal with matters in the right way through the right processes. Dealing with things on the racecourse in that manner is not the right process.”


When Findlay’s accusations were put to him, he said: “You will have to speak to Mr Findlay , that is Mr Findlay’s business. Mr Findlay was dealt with through a disciplinary process in the right way. There was an outcome through a disciplinary panel and an appeal board and that is an end to the matter.


“You will have to speak to Mr Findlay about what Mr Findlay now wishes to say. You have seen repeatedly what we have said on this matter on the record.” END



COMMENT J Margaret Clarke for Turfcall.

PAUL ROY CHAIRMAN OF THE BRITISH HORSERACING AUTHORITY
AND NIC COWARD CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF SAME, USING METHODS FROM WAY BACK IN THE DARK AGES TO REGULATE BRITISH HORSERACING IN 2010. BULLY BEAUROCRACY TACTICS USED BY BLOODHORSE ILLITERATE HORSERACING REGULATION PARTIES, SUBJECTING PEOPLE TO ONGOING, CALCULATED PERSECUTION.


CALL IT WHAT YOU LIKE, SET UP, STITCH UP, VENDETTA, COLLUSION TO DEFRAUD. IS THIS REALLY THE BEST ALL THESE BHA PARTIES CAN DO? WHILST THEY CONTINUE TO ACCEPT HUGE PAY PACKETS FOR BLATANTLY RIPPING PEOPLE OFF IN EVERY WHICH WAY THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH, AND HAVE GOT AWAY WITH, AND REMAIN TO BE GETTING AWAY WITH.

BOTH THESE POMPOUS REGULATORS MUST GO, AND ALL THE REST LIKE THEM. OUT.

Britain is riddled with people as this:

British Courts riddled with same. ( British Legal Justice System)

British Political System riddled with same (British Political System)

British Horseracing Parties riddled with same (British Horseracing Authority)

British National Health Parties riddled with same

British Police Force riddled with same

British County Council’s riddled with same.

British National Health Service Parties all riddled with same

British Entrapment Policies, how they work, all riddled with same

British Church of England Parties all riddled with same

British Veterinary Surgeons all riddled with same


All tarred with the same brush. All riddled with the same bully beaurocracy.


British Horseracing repressed by Bloodhorse Illiterate Tyrant Parties using archaic tactics to punish and destroy peoples lives, to include the horses. Britain in the grip of archaic regulation stitch-ups by BHA bullies.



END





BHA DEFENDS HEREFORD STEWARDS OVER LACK OF 'AM I BLUE' INQUIRY



RACING POST TAKES ISSUE TODAY (10.09.2010)'AM I BLUE' INQUIRY BY GRAHAM GREEN

While the investigation continues into the background to last week’s successful gamble on AM I BLUE, the BHA has defended the competence of the Hereford stewards whose decision not to hold an inquiry infuriated on-course punters.


It was only when the regulatory body stepped in that a closer inspection of events was ordered after stipendiary steward, Simon Cowley, accepted owner-trainer Delyth Thomas’s explanation on the day for the filly’s improved performance.


BHA spokesman Paul Struthers said there were no grounds for taking disciplinary action against Cowley and the stewarding panel on duty as official procedure had been followed..


AM I BLUE , who had been tailed off 88 lengths behind the winning horse at Worcester 15 days earlier, and before that was beaten 75 lengths at Newton Abbot, was backed down from an early morning price of 25/1 to 5/1 before recording a 19-length victory in the 2m4f handicap hurdle under Richard Johnson , who was a late replacement for Dean Coleman.


The 5lb claimer has since admitted it was a lack of confidence, and not a puncture, that caused him to miss the ride. The gamble is estimated to have cost the betting industry a six-figure sum and represented a massive improvement by AM I BLUE, who had appeared to have lost her form having previously been placed three times for former trainer Tim Vaughan.


After being told by Thomas, who was visited by BHA investigators on Tuesday, that the filly had benefited from “some spinal therapy”, and a change of tactics, Cowley said: “It was not necessary to call a formal inquiry, because there was nothing suspicious to investigate. There was a change of jockey because Dean Coleman was unwell and that was straight forward enough.”


AM I BLUE, again partnered by Johnson, reappeared under a 7lb penalty at Newton Abbot on Monday and hacked up at odds of 5-6.


Asked what action was going to be taken against the Hereford stewards for not holding an inquiry, Struthers replied: “None.”


He said: “The procedures laid out compel them to hold an inquiry if a horse has never been placed. If a horse has been placed before, they can still hold an inquiry, but they do not consult with the handicapper on duty and aren’t compelled to hold an inquiry.


“Moreover in the absence of the stewards holding an inquiry and referring anything to us, it doesn’t preclude us from looking at previous races or indeed investigating, and that is exactly what happens, so they haven’t done anything wrong as such, and therefore no action will be taken.” END



COMMENT David Ashforth for the Racing Post

The BHA should tell the Hereford stewards that they made a serious error of judgemant in failing to call an official inquiry into the improved form shown by AM I BLUE on September 1st.


Yet the BHA proposes doing nothing, on the basis that official procedures did not compel the stewards to hold an inquiry and it was open to the BHA to initiate an investigation itself, which it promptly did. “They haven’t done anything wrong, as such,” said BHA spokesman Paul Struthers, “and therefore no action will be taken.”


But they did do something wrong. The stewards failed to use their discretion to call an inquiry that clearly needed to be called, which meant a lost opportunity to question the horses connections immediately after the race. It was also a decision guaranteed to inflame punters.


Here was a horse, transferred from trainer Tim Vaughan to Delyth Thomas, that had been beaten 75 lengths on August 2 and 88 lengths on August 17 . Yet 15 days later, backed from 25/1 to 5/1, she strolled home by 19 lengths. AM I BLUE’S handicap mark had slipped from 100 to 83, but that was an insufficient explanation. She appreciated the reversion to two and a half miles, but was that a sufficient reason? Then there was the late replacement of conditional jockey Dean Coleman by Richard Johnson to consider.


The stewards should have summoned Thomas, Johnson and Coleman and asked the questions that needed asking but Simon Cowley, the professional steward, didn’t think any questions needed to be asked beyond those he informally gave to Thomas. He told him that the explanation lay in spinal therapy conducted since AM I BLUE’S last run and a change to front- running tactics. “It was not necessary to call a formal inquiry because there was nothing suspicious to investigate,” said Cowley, naively. “There was a change of jockey because Dean Coleman felt unwell, and that was straightforward enough.”


No it wasn’t, since it wasn’t clear whether Coleman was suffering from the dentist, a punctured tyre or a lack of confidence.

An issue is not only the question of whether any rules were broken but the competence of the stewards.


A case like this undermines the betting public’s fragile faith in the system


Punters need to know that the BHA has instructed all stewards that, in a case such as this of AM I BLUE, they must hold an official inquiry. END


COMMENT J Margaret Clarke for Turfcall.

FAILED BRITISH HORSERACING AUTHORITY PERSONNEL PRACTICES (BHA)

Failed ‘Duty of Care’ working practices within Disciplinary Department

Failed ‘Duty of Care’ working practices within Regulation Department

Failed ‘Duty of Care’ practices burdened upon Licensed Trainers

Failed ‘Duty of Care’ practices burdened upon Owners and Breeders

Failed ‘Duty of Care’ practices burdened upon Professional Riders

Failed ‘Duty of Care’ practices burdened upon Apprentices

Failed ‘Duty of Care’ practices burdened upon all the young ones starting out and hoping to make their career in horseracing

Failed ‘Duty of Care’ practices used legally in all cases where handler/rider/horse issues are at stake. Rampant Bloodhorse Illiteracy the norm.

Failed ‘Duty of Care’ practices used within the Rules of Racing

Failed ‘Duty of Care’ miss interpreting the meaning of such rules within perspective

Failed ‘Duty of Care’ practices relevant to all handler/riders, all those who go to make up each and every licensed trainer teams.

Failed ‘Duty of Care’ practices burdened upon all handler/rider training and career structures

Failed ‘Duty of Care’ practices toward Punters

Failed ‘Duty of Care’ working practices on Racecourses.

Failed ‘Duty of Care’ within intelligence perspective practices

Failed ’Duty of Care’ Veterinary practices on Racecourses

Failed ’Duty of Care’ Veterinary practices whilst acting within licensed trainer establishments

Failed ‘Duty of Care’ Medical practices on Racecourses

Failed ‘Duty of Care’ political practices

Failed ‘Duty of Care’ within horsemanship practices

Failed ‘Duty of Care’ practices toward animals

Failed ‘Duty of Care’ practices toward people


RIP OFF BRITAIN TACTICS USED RIGHT ACROSS THE BOARD, BLIGHTING AND CONTAMINATING PEOPLES LIVES, AND THE LIVES OF ALL LIVING CREATURES INCLUDING THE HORSES.



END
Labels: ALL TARRED WITH THE SAME BRUSH. RIP OFF BRITAIN RIDDLED WITH

PUNTERS’ WOE AS SARISKA REFUSES TO START.

RACING POST REPORT AS PUBLISHED ON FRIDAY 20 AUGUST 2010 BY BOB SMITH AND JON LEES

RACING FROM YORK ON THURSDAY 19 AUGUST 2010

Rob Smith and Jon Lees reporting for the Racing Post
“THE BHA last night refused to countenance a review of the rule book despite backers of Yorkshire Oaks favourite Sariska being left high and dry when she failed to come out of the stalls.


J. Margaret Clarke reporting for Turfcall.
Typical shoddy attitude from BHA.


Rob Smith and Jon Lees reporting for the Racing Post
“Last year’s duel Oaks winner 85-40 market leader for the Darley-sponsored York Group 1, left connections and supporters bitterly frustrated when refusing to budge under Jamie Spencer.

“Several bookmakers, including Paddy Power and Boylesports, refunded stakes, but as Sariska had entered the stalls she was deemed to have taken part in the race.

J. Margaret Clarke reporting for Turfcall.
SARISKA took no part in this race, as neither did she misbehave in any way whilst standing quietly in the stalls. That she was left to stand in the stalls for a very long time, may well be why she lost interest. As Richard Hughes pointed out recently on The Morning Line at least four further (‘Bloodhorse Literate’) Stalls Handlers are needed on all tracks as a matter of some urgency. This incident only goes to prove this to be the case. No runners should be left for long periods of time standing in the starting stalls.


Rob Smith and Jon Lees reporting for the Racing Post
“No rule 4 deductions could be enforced and the vast majority of bookmakers refused to return stakes to Sariska backers, despite howls of protests.


“BHA spokesman Paul Struthers said: “We have had no approach from anyone asking us to change the rule. The rule is clear and it is part and parcel of racing, however frustrating it is for those who backed her.

J. Margaret Clarke reporting for Turfcall.
Paul Struthers is talking rubbish as usual. And this is a rubbish rule. Who would bother to waste their time attempting to approach the BHA? Who authorised such a ridiculous rule as this to be passed in the first place/?

BHA spokesman Paul Struthers said:
“We’d consider reviewing it only if Racing For Change or the Horsemem’s Group approached us. We like to have the rules as clear as possible, even though it was a horrible situation for the owner, trainer, jockey and punters.”


J. Margaret Clarke reporting for Turfcall.
How can ‘Bloodhorse Illiterate’ parties as Paul Struthers ever expect to keep any rule as clear as possible.


Rob Smith and Jon Lees reporting for the Racing Post
“Paddy Power claimed they would be giving back more than £200,000 in loosing bets, while also refunding were Skybet, Jenningsbet and Betterbet.

“A spokesman for Jenningsbet said:”People have moaned about these rules before.
We decided punters didn’t get a run for their money, so we are refunding.”

“Championing the stance of most firms, William Hill spokeswoman Kate Miller said: “Sariska’s stubbornness is disappointing for punters but, as per the rules of racing, we have chosen not to refund bets. We review each situation individually, but won’t be taken to task by competitors .”

“Many of those who posted comments on racingpost.com were critical of firms not refunding. There were also calls for a rule change, others thought it would have been unfair on Midday backers had the rules allowed for deductions to winning bets.

“Spencer – whose mount in the following race, Zarebiya reared up and hit her head on the stalls, forfeiting any chance and completing a miserable 40 minutes for the rider - said of Sariska:”What can I say? She was in the stalls a long time. We were waiting for Midday and then Barshibe. It’s disappointing, but no one died, did they?”

“Sariska has raced at York three times before, winning twice and finishing runner-up in the Yorkshire Oaks a year ago.

“Trainer Michael Bell said: “It’s very worrying, but I can’t say what we’re going to do because we’re in a state of shock.

“She moved beautifully to the post but knows her way round the Knavesmire very well and the stable entrance is bang next to the stalls. She’s cute, she’s bright, and whether that’s the reason, I don’t know.

“It’s very disappointing. I need to talk to Carol (Lady Bamford, owner- breeder) and Hugo (Lascelles, racing manager) and get our heads round a plan.

“She has a little bit of a quirk and we need to reflect. She was in for a long time and I suppose she’s been slow into stride, but she has always jumped out.”

“Something for punters to ponder on Sariska’s next start is that she will not have been the subject of a compulsory stalls test.




“Stewards’ secretary Tony McGlone explained: “She will be logged as unruly, for as she refused to race, but will not have to have a stalls test as she was not badly behaved in them.”

J. Margaret Clarke reporting for Turfcall
But SARISKA was not unruly in any way, just bored stiff, left standing in an entrapment starting stall for so long.


Rob Smith and Jon Lees reporting for the Racing Post
“Should all bets be refunded when a horse refuses to race? Have your say in Question of the Day on racingpost.com”

J. Margaret Clarke reporting for Turfcall
Yes, all bets should be refunded for whatever reason a horse is unable to race.
If and when this happens in the future no further alterations should be made involving any other runner.

Racecourses using man made clattering shattering starting stall machine, totally alien to thoroughbred racehorses. Causing all too often bad experiences for the horses.

Its good to note that many bookmakers did refund all bets on SARISKA.

All ‘Bloodhorse Illiterate’ BHA parties take runners and riders lives for granted.



END

Bloodhorse Illiteracy Trashing British Horseracing Regulation

The British rules of horseracing

The sport needs to have a specific set of rules to be followed for those taking part on the track and daily carried out in each licensed trainers establishment.


Bloodhorse illiterate parties.