In trouble too since trainers can't bet on their own horses. If found to be doing so the trainer is likely to receive a ban. So probably bollocks.
Dodgy
Nonsense Tarleton, trainers in the UK are allowed to bet on their own horses to win.
Harry Findlay is - I should say was - an owner and as an owner he was perfectly entitled to bet his own horses to win but he got in to trouble for laying his own horse(s).
Findlay's defence was that he had backed his horse to win more than his lay bets and that he was still a net winner if his horse had won but this fell on deaf ears with the BHA.
To be fair to the BHA there are good reasons why owners should not be allowed to lay their own horse even if it is a net winner.
1. Let's say an owner backs his horse early on the day of the race at a big price and forces the price down, the owner could then lay it back at a lower price and be on a bet to nothing and a cost to all the punters who are on at the wrong price.
Some could say but what if the horse drifts ? The owner is able to withdraw the horse if the move doesn't work.
2. Let's say an owner backs his horse for a future race in the ante post market.
The horse then gets injured anytime before the race or even just switches target, the owner could lay the horse back knowing that it was to be withdrawn.
The horse may still be a net winner for the owner but in reducing part or all of their loss, the would again be profiting at the expense of other less informed punters.
So there is good reason for owners not to be allowed to lay their own horses even though they are net winners as in the Findlay case but to be honest I still think the BHA were out to get Findlay and he certainly believes that to be so.
Sorry for giving you my life story Tarleton, perhaps I should have just said that trainers in the UK are allowed to bet on their own horses to win.
