Owner guilty of laying not penalised by BHA

A RACEHORSE owner found guilty of laying one of his own horses to lose has escaped a disqualification, after the BHA accepted he could not have profited from his betting activity.

William Hinge placed lay bets on Spoof Master, of which he was joint owner, to lose two races in which the horse finished second last year, but lost money because he staked more substantial sums in bets on the horse to win.

A disciplinary inquiry last week heard Hinge placed 27 lay bets on Spoof Master to lose a race at Southwell on February 7 last year on Betfair, with a liability of £3,004.70, for a potential profit of £597.
He also placed nine bets on the horse to win, including £2,000 with Victor Chandler, £1,000 with Totesport and £3,000 with Eden Bookmakers, which resulted in a net loss of £5,657.80.

When the horse ran again a week later at the same track he staked £19.20 for a potential profit of £6 on Spoof Master to loseand two bets on the horse to win, £800 with William Hill and £8,000 with Victor Chandler.

Though owners are barred from laying horses they own, Hinge told the inquiry he had not thought he was in breach, becausehe stood to lose substantially more than he would have done if the horse was beaten. But the panel found this did not negate his culpability.

The offence carries a minimum penalty of three months disqualification but the panel found the sentence would be "unduly harsh in the view that the lay betting activity in these races could not have been profitable".

It said 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", and Hinge was fined £1,250.

Hinge's solicitor, Christopher Stewart-Moore, said: "Mr Hinge had a fair hearing. He was unaware of the ‘absolute' prohibition on laying and, as the panel found, was on both occasions a very substantial net backer of his horse Spoof Master.
"He had not properly understood the rule at the time - he now does."

That was interesting, must say, this game has many twists and turns.
Must get another thread going on interesting gambling stories again, we had a few classics in the past.

So does this mean owners can back their horses and then take some back,without fear of a ban?

I think it says he "understands" the rule now, if he had just been laying he may have been fined.