- This topic has 88 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 21 years, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
Having been away from here for a few days I think I’ve missed the bus.
I’d just like to point out that the contention, made much earlier, that "350 races out of 8500 in a year is only 0.4% of races" is wrong by a factor of ten and to add my congratulations to Ian Davies (and to thedarkknight) for some telling observations.
I do agree, however, with Jim’s essential point that the authorities should be detecting the skullduggery in the first place (and acting on it thereafter), rather than leaving it to a member of the public like Ian Davies to read races for them, no matter how shrewd a judge he happens to be. ;)
Richard, you are a gentleman. :clap: respect!
<br>Prufrock,
I do agree, however, with Jim’s essential point that the authorities should be detecting the skullduggery in the first place (and acting on it thereafter), rather than leaving it to a member of the public like Ian Davies to read races for them, no matter how shrewd a judge he happens to be.
Along the lines what I was trying to say, thank you!
<br>Now I won’t say anything else on the matter and I’ll spare you all my Hamilton report but some of you "corruption detectives" may have spotted something if you looked closely enough, I’ll leave it with you. ;) <br>
I find no joy in studying a race at length, only to see a total farce played out in front of me, where it is quite clear that criminals have taken the ordinary punter to the cleaners.
Why on earth would you bother to study the form of a class E race in Lingfield? I’ve given up parting with my cash in these type of races, I’ll only have a bet in competitive handicaps with decent prize money or Group/Listed races.
From my sentiments,above, I have proven Ian and TDK’s point. However it seems bizzare people would bother to back a horse in lower grade races. They are very shady affairs IMO! But TDK I have to ask why would you bother studying these races, when you know as you have said they are dodgy. For sure, clean the game up, but I won’t be having a bet until I know it is cleaned up.
I couldnt agree more John, class C+. You just know your on thin ice dipping into class D’s and it gets thinner the further down you go. Prize money worth working towards or prestige has to be the safest route.
It may be the safest route to stick to decent races but IMO the problem with these is that it’s virtually impossible to make a serious profit from betting them, as with horses running to form the layers don’t tend to make many ‘ricks’.
Over the last couple of years I’ve personally done far better in the low grade events, almost always without any ‘inside information’. The bookies make more mistakes and if you can spot the odd one here and there you’ll come out firmly in the black.
I believe the trap punters fall into is to try and solve these low grade events using traditional form and/or speed figure methodology. A fair bit of lateral thought and an alternative strategy is required.
(Edited by Nick Hatton at 2:33 pm on June 25, 2004)
I just love to go against the hype in top class Nick, and horses putting in a whoooshka SF in say a 3yo class D maiden(more so if its a blanket finish) and coming up the ranks, how many winners can you get out of a couple of those? Priceless!:cool: They’re about finished at this time of year though. Maybe grab a couple of 2yo’s and a couple of others I’ve been waiting for, and thats about it. Thats my season over anyway.<br> No rush!:biggrin:
- Total Posts 17716
<br> My English isn’t so hot, but I believe we have a dichotomy.<br> On the one hand TDK looking for everything that is wrong, and on the other CPG looking for everything that is right.<br> Wonder which one does the best?
:biggrin: Nick if you only knew. I was having a great time, Gatwicks maiden did me proud, had a couple of other nice touches. Then I just got a bit too cocky for my own good and started looking for things that werent really there. I took a pull about a week ago to stop all the fruits of my labour going down the drain. I’ve now seen the error of my ways. I wont be having a bet until I’m really doing the wifes nut in about one, or phoning my Mother and telling her to slap some down. Thats the plan anyway:biggrin: I "bet" you I can be disiplined enough:biggrin:
- Total Posts 17716
<br> I see that the leading betting shop jockey is at it again. (Paul Haigh, today’s Racing Post).<br> His ‘brilliant’ plan is to put the lunatics in charge of the asylum, a masterful ploy to give the clueless even more excuses for their own ineptitude.<br> Will they ever learn to pee with the c*** they already have?
Betting shop jockey here – even though I can’t remember the last time I went near one and have no intention of going near one in the future.<br> My suggestion is that since, by examining betting patterns, exchange punters now seem to be able to predict, for example, that certain horses will be slowly away, it might be a good idea for their vigilance to be harnessed by the Jockey Club as it tries to make life more difficult for those who hope to profit from such regrettable occurences. If you don’t like that, reet hard, would you mind explaining why.:cool:
It’s a nice enough idea but I fear totally unworkable.
What I suggest is professional stewards and a rule-change whereby people can be found guilty purely ‘on the balance of probability’ instead of ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’
Much heavier fines and longer suspensions too ! :cool:
Great idea Zorro. I think I’ve just seen my first twenty pointer of the afternoon.;)
The problem with Zorro’s penalty points idea is that it assumes points are an alternative to a conviction whereas points are only endorsed on a licence after conviction, either by way of a guilty plea or being found guilty after a trial. His article rightly points out the difficulty of obtaining the proof needed to secure a conviction and that isn’t going to go away.
There isn’t an easy solution to this problem. My guess is that the Jockey Club after years of complacency are now treating the issue with appropriate seriousness but the only approach to take is a long-term, drip-drip, one. Information provided by betting exchanges, bookmakers and private individuals should be – and, it seems, will be – treated seriously as should the sort of analysis apparently being hawked by the likes of Clive Reams (who may or may not have his own agenda but it doesn’t mean there’s nothing in what he says). Patterns are bound to emerge and as certain names – jockeys, trainers, owners, stable staff, punters – come up more than once or twice we may all be a little wiser as a result. What the Jockey Club needs to do is to hold enquiries into as many of these incidents as possible and publish their findings even when those findings are inconclusive.
Who knows, those within racing who are straight – and I’d like to think that that’s the majority – might start to shun the individuals concerned on the ground that to be the subject of one enquiry might be classed unfortunate but to be the subject of more than one is, how you say, a bit dodgy. As long as the Jockey Club publish only the established and accepted facts there will be no comeback on them.
Finally, Zorro was right earlier in the week about Roger Buffham. I’ve not been very complimentary about him in the past – and I still find him personally quite a disagreeable type – but he was clearly barking up the right tree and I too owe him an apology. Whether Phipps would have been the disaster his public persona suggested we’ll never know while Scotney says the right things but only time will tell.
- Total Posts 17716
ZORRO<br> Paul Haigh’s plan would be a licence for every ne’er do well in the land to complain every time they backed the wrong horse. <br>That would only magnify a situation that is played out every day, in every betting shop, where A " wasn’t off an inch" and B "is a bent b******, who never wins with an odds on shot", right down to Z. Add to that the fact that the ones who complain the most are invariably those who understand the least, and you have a recipe to make the whole of racing a total laughing stock.<br> It takes little imagination to see where there would be 1,000s of calls a day, 99% spurious, no doubt sifted and investigated by others with an equally poor grasp of the situation. If that scenario doesn’t bring racing into disrepute, and eventually ruin the game completely as a betting medium, then it hard to visualiise one that would.<br> Racing has its problems, the truth is that they are probably now less than they have ever been, but asking the chickens to catch the fox isn’t the answer.
The argument against professional stewarding always used to be that it would be too expensive. If you had a vast army of professional stewards from which a team would travel to each and every race meeting (as seemingly suggested by Ian Davies above) that is almost certainly what it would be.
However, we now live in an age of sophisticated telecommunications and there is no need whatsoever for this to happen. All there needs to be is a rolling panel of experts monitoring the day’s racing from the comfort of their own homes and liasing through a nominated leader with the small number of amateur stewards who would still turn up at the course to interview those involved and mete out justice if necessary.
Video-conferencing/web cams should be part of this process.
If this sounds vaguely familiar it is because the first part of this process—the expert monitoring of the racing, including for evidence of non-triers—is in effect what the BHB’s own team of handicappers already do (when, that is, they aren’t dragged off to some race meeting or other for largely cosmetic purposes). The second part of the process—liasing in real time as a matter of course with the stewards at the course—surprisingly doesn’t. This is almost certainly due to the antiquated notion that the Stewards have that they are the dog wagging the tail rather than the other way round.
The BHB are quick to lecture others on the "integrity" issue and to tell us all precisely how British racing should be modernised.
Perhaps they could start by modernising the way the BHB interacts with the Jockey Club on this fundamental and yet very important matter.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.