Comply Or Lose Your Licence!

G

Guest_

At the Start
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
14,178
Location
Ireland
Anyone else read the story in the Racing Post today..the reaction of the trainers is hilarious! BHA sound pretty adamant though!
 
Don't know why no one has the suggested the obvious way to remove corruption, just ban betting exchanges.

Jockeys, owners, trainers all being closely monitored is wasting money and all it does is get alot of people too scared to say stuff incase they feel they are out of line.

The removal of betting exchanges is the only way to defeat corruption.

They won't do that however because Betfair spend so much money on Sponsorship each year.
 
Plenty have suggested that Chris. It's completely illogical to single out exchanges though - the only way of removing corruption is to ban all betting.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong though Gareth but apart from paying mass fee's to set yourself up as a bookie, how is there any other way of laying a horse despite using exchanges.

I know what you will say about the bookies knowing, they have their spies and all that rubbish, but all exchanges have done is bring about trouble, I need betfair as not many firms let me bet with them, but fi every time an owner lays a horse its getting monitored because that think you may know something, its completely out of line. I'm sure some people wouldn't be able to go to toilet without being monitored.

I know they want to catch culprits and all that, but someone needs to address the situation and realise that the only way to remove temtation is elimination. Telling trainers they cant give an opinion to an owner about the performance of their horse is simply stupid.

It wouldn't bother me if betting exchanges were shut down tomorrow, I just hope bookies would then start to take bets again.
 
I think the debate on whether betting exchanges should stay or go has probably been discussed before. I'm not sure what the RP article was on, someone might enlighten me, but on Betfair I think it is highly unlikely that it would ever be banned on the grounds that it is not regulated by any horse racing authority and the Financial Regulator would not be interested in banning it for the same reason as it won't ban hedge funds which are causing so much grief in financial markets. The area where they can do something is in policing (as the financial regulator is doing re insider trading in the City). In Ireland for example, I know the lad who polices it for the turf Club and he is more or less on his own. Not enough resources put into it and there is no possible way he could find the trends etc etc. He would argue differently but in my eyes his job is of no benefit unless there are more resources put into it. It is purely window dressing to makes us all feel like there is a police force patrolling the exchanges. Unless this situation is addressed, the exchanges will always be a threat to the integtrity of racing as it is open to everyone from stable lads to farriers, work riders to lorry drivers.
 
Awwwwwwwwww. God love those poor little racing insiders having temptation put in their way by the bad betfair. While we're at it, let's ban those bad airline companies to remove temptation from terrorists.

If berfair would shut down offending accounts (and carefully monitor high staking new accounts) instead of keeping them open and relaying the information to the clowns at the hra, that would be half the battle.
 
It would also help if there was a horse racing watchdog that looked after horse racing integrity. It's a bit silly when you consider the hra paymasters the BHA are mainly made up of owners who think concealing a horse's true ability so as to land a coup is fair game.
 
chrisbeekracing said:
Don't know why no one has the suggested the obvious way to remove corruption, just ban betting exchanges.
Click to expand...

If it were the case that there was absolutely no corruption in raacing prior to the advent of exchanges then you might have half a point there.

Unfortunately, it has been going on since people started betting on horse-racing, by any means.
 
chrisbeekracing said:
Don't know why no one has the suggested the obvious way to remove corruption, just ban betting exchanges.
Click to expand...

The logical inference from this suggestion is that corruption didn't exist in the days before betting exchanges, which is clearly wrong, so banning exchanges is illogical.

From what I've read, Betfair is doing a lot more than a lot of other 'interested parties' when it comes to weeding out corruption.
 
Desert Orchid said:
From what I've read, Betfair is doing a lot more than a lot of other 'interested parties' when it comes to weeding out corruption.
Click to expand...

If I was betfair I'd like to be giving this impression too as it is a huge business worth a lot if IPO'd. But image is everything. How much they actually do compared to how much goes on, well we will never know. If I was them I would rat out a few big players and hope it all goes away. There are always going to be people taking advantage of the exchanges, from their perspective they need to be seen to be making an effort to stop it but really, it hasn't stopped anyone using them so can't see how big an interest they would really have in it. It's not as if racing is their only earner.
 
Absolute bollocks suggesting that removing exchanges removes corruption. There are other ways of laying horses you know - if you have more than two braincells to rub together that is.

How do you think the corruption existed before Betfair????
 
I couldn't agree more with Honest Tom on this. Both of his posts were logical and well informed.
 
Shadow Leader said:
Absolute bollocks suggesting that removing exchanges removes corruption. There are other ways of laying horses you know - if you have more than two braincells to rub together that is.

How do you think the corruption existed before Betfair????
Click to expand...

Dom I'm not disputing that there was opportunities for bookmakers to speak to jockeys and lads and give the odd brown envelope for an accidental unseated in the past, but there is a difference now.

Common people are approaching people left right and centre wanting to lay on the exchanges and looking for ways and means. If you don't think exchanges has increased this opportunity then I'm slightly surprised.

Bookmakers are regulated aren't they, and surely if a paper fav, is 2pts bigger with a firm, then they should be question for why they wanted to get it and so forth if that is the case here. Fact is exchanges don't help matters. Maybe big layers should be banned by Betfair, but I'm sure they enjoy their commision and unless they have monitored the suspicious ones how can they prove it.

For me the BHA sitting down trainers and their staff explaining the do's and don'ts of inside info is pretty stupid. Box 7 which says that staff and trainer shouldn't openly speak to owners regarding horses wellbeing that could be deemed in a corruptive nature. Thats pretty much saying if you think your horse is not 100% but your still going to run, you can't tell the owner. Pretty stupid in my opinion, I know I wouldn't run but some would still if they had booked a box and all that.

There are things that need addressing but all this inside info seminars and that are a waste of peoples money. The lads, trainers, owners and jockeys know what they can and cant say and the fact of the matter is most will ignore what they say and still talk to people. The fact is most jockeys and lads have 3 , 4 or 5 mobiles, mainly payasyougo ones, near impossible to trace.

The BHA have already proven that they have not been acting on this properly. After Fergal Lynch's confession which has been broadcasted on television, why is he still riding ?, it beats me thats for sure.

If you don't think the exchanges are a major issue in corruption I find that hard to believe. Bookmakers did used to says to jocks drop it out for a envelope and all that and yes im sure some jocks would have done it but the fact of a bookie taking a few quid out of a horse on track is nowhere near in the same relation of someone taking 30, 40 or 50k out of Betfair because they had the horse on side.

When I fancy one of my horses, I feel snookered if Matt Davies can't ride as I would struggle to find many jockeys that I would trust to put on my horse. Big jockeys aren't interested in a little race round Wolves and the majority of Apprentices don't listen to orders. You get the same offers all the time from agents and believe me I wouldn't trust them anywhere near my horses.
 
I didn't say exchanges had nothing to do with corruption Chris - I said that your statement that if you removed exchanges you'd remove corruption was, not to put too fine a point on it, rubbish.

Did corruption not exist until Betfair opened then?

There are other ways to lay horses and, as a serious punter I'm sure you're well aware of that.

That is just one of many reasons why if you remove exchanges you stil won't remove corruption.
 
Shadow Leader said:
I didn't say exchanges had nothing to do with corruption Chris - I said that your statement that if you removed exchanges you'd remove corruption was, not to put too fine a point on it, rubbish.

Did corruption not exist until Betfair opened then?

There are other ways to lay horses and, as a serious punter I'm sure you're well aware of that.

That is just one of many reasons why if you remove exchanges you stil won't remove corruption.
Click to expand...

Not technically legally there isn't but yes if a big player contacted a bookmakers pr and offered to stand some of the liability on a said horse, if they thought the connections was worth it they would do it, but that isn't technically legal as far as I'm aware and wouldn't interest me.

I would rather look for the winner of the race if I didn't fancy one. Okay sometimes taking out the obvious may seem as good but I would rather study the race and look for something with value. I would be surprised if my Betfair record had more than 5% lay to turnover, and it seems when I do lay one they win !!
 
There's little doubt that exchanges increased the potential rewards. The problem was that when they came along the game was already instututionally corrupt with 'fooling' the handicapper by not trying given tacit approval by the clowns in charge. Suddenly everyone thought they might as well make a few quid out of the ones that wouldn't be trying anyway and, once they saw how easy it was, the number of non-triers boomed. With insiders being used to getting away with whatever they wanted the JC/HRA took a few clowns by surprise by applying for phone records. Having got something right for once in their existence they then undid it all by either slapping the guilty on the wrist or letting them off scot-free.

They will never catch anyone out via phone records again and are effectively finished unless they change the rules to allow them to act on betting records alone combined with the balance of probabilities. If someone has successfully laid 70% of a stables runners it's pointless sentencing the layer to wear a false moustache if he wants to go racing within the next year. It's the trainer who should be banned, even if he/she claims it was all down to a telepathic groom. Can't see it happening though (these clowns probably think the improvement Prescott runners show in their first handicap run is coincidence) which is why betfair need to take unilateral action and make it known that they are doing so.
 
Shadow Leader said:
Did corruption not exist until Betfair opened then?
Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct but look at it another way. Is it easier for the smallest person involved in racing to make money now than in the past. Take the lorry driver. Now how on earth would he make a few bob in the past (pre Betfair) if he knew a horse was not fit to run. Go to a bookie and tell him. It's practicallly challenging for all sorts of reasons, not least trust. but what is stopping him throwing a few drops of something in the bucket of water, getting onto betfair and laying the horse. Job done. What is the famous saying about shares and the shoeshine boy? Well when the smallest person in racing can make a good few bob out of laying then it's time to sit up and recognise there is a problem. So to answer your question, yes it existed before Betfair, it's just easier now!!
 
You make some good points Cantoris but do the stable staff really know what's going down? Any I've had "information" from clearly didn't have a clue. Would the jockey even know whether he was going to be instructed to try until the parade ring?
 
I think in this scenario all they need to know is whether the horse is fancied by the public (read the newspaper). Than they insure the horse doesn't win.
 
Chris, you're missing my point slightly. I'm not talking about skullduggery involving clandestinely laying a horse through a large bookmaker. I'm talking about effectively laying your horse through other means.

It might be cumbersome, but if you own, say, an odds on favourite that you don't fancy you can back everything else in the race against it, thus effectively laying your own. In small fields this is even more easy since you could cause something else to be forced into favouritism whilst yours drifts like a barge. Or of course you can wade in heavily on the second favourite, knowing that yours isn't off or can't win for whatever reason.

I'm not arguing that exchanges don't make it easier for people to lay horses - of course they do - but the idea that if you get rid of exchanges you'll get rid of corruption (as you yourself said early on in the thread) is nonsense.

Of course, as has been proved with more than a couple of these corruption cases, there is also a paper trail left by laying horses which can be difficult to cover up completely in most cases.

The whole idea of forcing trainers to go to these pointless seminars is frankly ridiculous and I can see why so many trainers are refusing to go. The seminars are a complete waste of time and exceptionally condescending to boot.
 
Not forgetting they aren't cheap to set up either. The money they have wasted on this could have gone towards something far more constructive.
 
Honest Tom said:
You make some good points Cantoris but do the stable staff really know what's going down? Any I've had "information" from clearly didn't have a clue. Would the jockey even know whether he was going to be instructed to try until the parade ring?
Click to expand...

But the stable staff are not tipping horses to win, they are providing information that a horse will not win as they have either administered something or have other information (horse unfit, in bad form, overworked by work rider etc etc). I would much prefer this info which has a high chance of success to info on a potential winner which has a much lower chance of success. I actually think it is much harder for jocks to do anything as while they are in charge, everyone is scrutinising their every move which must make it difficult.
 
Back
Top