Originally posted by Dante@Dec 8 2007, 08:46 AM
Apparently, one of Colin Phillip's favourite racing journalists, Chris Cook in The Guardian blames everything on Betfair :laughing:
Did he? What he said (or my take on it) is that Betfair and it's much lauded audit trail hadn't succeeded in bringing about a successful prosecution (not really Betfair's responsibility) but that this will have damaged the exchange (through reputation), and to some extent vindicated non compliant high street bookies or other exchanges who aren't bound by the same memorandum of understanding. In many respects Betfair are also victims having trumpeted their procedures as a justification for their modus operandi, though to some extent in this case, they are also architects of their own demise, though not exclusievly so.
He does use the wording "Betfair are to blame" but only in the context that they supplied some spurious data. It's not as if any case (whether it be corporate fraud insider trading or tax evasion) doesn't generate huge amounts of complicated spurious data and testimony, and the onus is on the CPS to evaluate it accurately.
Betfair made a gaff in this respect, which was compounded by the CPSand CoL police who seemingly failed to understand what they were dealing with. This resulted inevitably in unsustainable evidence being presented. At one level the 'flagging' system worked, it's just that the prosecution didn't seem to understand what they had. It's possible of course that they did understand it? but that the enquiry had become clouded by Scotney's obssession by then? that can only remain a point of conjecture though - I don't know - but I do know then when you lose a sense of objective assessment, your judgement goes and mistakes follow.
It will be interesting to see how the WTA get on with Nicoli Davydenko, or UEFA with the 17 clubs recently reported for allegedly fixing European football matches. The biggest shock to me was the disclosure this morning that Lesley Graham is a Lawyer
Mind you, I'm not sure she told me anything by way of insight, that I didn't know myself with regards to where Fallon et al stand. And her animated attempts to sound indignant just didn't look convincing to me. Could there possibly be a more friendly looking lawyer in the land? I'd want my lawyer to be a hard nosed, barstool.
I thought some of CH4 team (the usual industry sychophants - or should that be sychophant) were equally remiss in aspects of their dismissal of the witnesses. Or to be more precise, the reasons why certain witnesses wouldn't turn out for the prosecution. As it stands of course they're right, and the justification invoked, can't be challenged, and therefore has to be taken at prima facie (albeit through slightly gritted teeth). I think there's probably aspects of the traditional 'wall of silence' or 'non-compliance' that is hardly uncommon in a prosecution of various different natures. Essentially, a complicated web of mutual self-interests, not to mention old favours, friendships and understandings permeates the industry, and if one cherishes one's place (and livelihood in a lot of cases) to being an insider, there was always a fair chance that the prosecution was going to have to rely on outsiders to make their case, with all the atendent risks that it involved. At least McCrirrick had the honesty to say on Ch4 news last night that he'd certainly witnessed incidents on a race course that made him suspicious from time to time.
As regards the damage done? racing has always attracted more than it's fair share of inuendo and allegations, and it's largely unavoidable. It stretches back centuries to the hermits of Salisbury Plain, to the painting of a white blaze on the face of an older horse and entering it in the Derby etc. This is the last episode, and I'm equally sure they'll be future ones. I'm equally sure that if you fling enough muck, some sticks, and regardless of the judgement, a stain will never be far away from a sport which is intrinsically about money, sharp practice in outwitting opponents, and naturally vulnerable both in terms of the people it attracts and the scope it accords.
Remember OJ Simpson was found not guilty, and so is innocent and we have to accept that verdict. I'd be interested to know how many people really believe it though, and I fear that however innocent Fallon et al were judgeed to be, there will always be a sizeable section of people who want to, and therefore will, believe things to the contrary.
but I don't remember quoting Chris Cook. I am rather taken with the idea that you remembered it though!!! :xmassign: 
(Warbler)
