- This topic has 45 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 16 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Thedarkknight as you well know the K60 will stay in the layers pocket as it does with your employer and any other bookmaker when they lay a horse having received information from one of their snouts that it won’t win.
But I am sure you think it is ok for a bookmaker to profit from inside information.Cormack there would not be enough evidence to build a fraud case in the criminal courts. You must remember that the BHA are Prosecutor,Judge ,Jury and Appeal Court. If anyone is charged by the BHA it is money down the drain defending yourself because if they think they have enough information to charge you it follows they will find you guilty.
No – you are putting words in my mouth, Firefox.
I am making a general point that if you want to steal, say 50k, then laying horses on a betting exchange is one of the best ways to go about it.
No-one has ever had any unfair winnings taken back (as far as I know anyway) and no-one has ever been sent to prison. The worst thing that has happened to anyone is that they have been warned off. If you are an unscrupulous owner (i.e your livelihood doesn’t rely on the sport) then that really isn’t much of a deterrent.
However does at least one of them deserve to lose his livelihood, placing the quality of life for his wife and children at risk?
Ah, well, in that case best not punish anybody if it might affect their livelihood which might then affect the quality of life for their family – let everyone out of prison so they can get back to their jobs and bring some more money back into their households….
Apart from the fact it’s technically theft which should mean a court case and criminal conviction, nobody is stopping him from doing any other work, racing is just saying we don’t want bent people in our business because it’s both illegal and bad for our business
4 years and 2.5 years is a let off, in my opinion, if they are guilty – it should be for life
4 years and 2.5 years is a let off, in my opinion, if they are guilty – it should be for life
Correct SB. Couldn’t agree more. If we are serious about ‘cleaning up’ the sport we should be taking serious action. There should be no place within teh sport, now or in the future, for people who have behaved as these two apparently have.
Slimmy Snare the PR director of a large bookmakers has just issued this press statement.
”Punters who use our shops or have an Internet account with us will be content to know that the not one of our customers lost a penny over this corruption.
We have maintained all along that if the betting exchanges were banned that all punters would be better off.
We know what prices horses should always be and we ensure the punters get these prices as we attend many race meetings and ensure that the prices we determine will be returned as the official S.P.
All our staff are fully trained to ensure that punter visiting our shops enjoy the experiance and we have put in place limits to what sums punters can stake.
The reason for this of course is that if they should win we would not want other customers becoming upset when one punter collects a large sum of money.
We have installed FOBT machines into every available space this is to ensure customers who have no interest in Horse Racing are still able to feel welcome.
We will continue to offer punters the chance to win major sums every few seconds either by winning the jackpot on the FOBT machines or by finding one of the many big priced winners that happen almost every race on the virtual races we run.
Our customer surveys tell us our punters would rather bet on virtual racing than races such as they hold at Royal Ascot as some of our punters struggle to read the form after coming in from the local pub.
This is the reason we show no form for our virtual races but the commentators we use often point out what virtual jockey has just ridden a double. This is to help them with the selections in the next race which goes off 6 secs later.Once our directors can get ‘Industry S.P’. prices in place for every race we know that no one will ever wish to spend hours at home studying form and placing bets on the exchanges.
They have to watch the race alone on a television set when they can come into our shops and join in the swearing and shouting when a favourite gets unplaced.
This also goes down well when someone who has lost everything starts smashing the FOBT machines at the same time.’
Is it right a man should lose his livelihood for 4 years (and effectively end his career) because he has been involved in a plot to defraud?
I seriously think you should read that again and think about what you’ve written. If you genuinely believe that fraud doesn’t qualify for a 4-year ban, I’d suggest you take a long hard look at yourself.
Correct SB. Couldn’t agree more. If we are serious about ‘cleaning up’ the sport we should be taking serious action. There should be no place within teh sport, now or in the future, for people who have behaved as these two apparently have.
A view not shared by the BHA as:
70. *In respect of Blockley the Panel contemplates that there will be relief from the usual effects of disqualification so that his ability to continue to live in his present house is not effected. It also indicated that as and when he makes an application in accordance with paragraph Q to Appendix S (to work in racing stables) the Panel’s provisional view is that he should be permitted to be employed by an appropriate licence holder in his yard.
Perhaps he might get a job with Gosden.
May I stress I am not trying to condone fraud, I am merely trying to but some perspective on this and question whether the punishment fits the crime. Is it right a man should lose his livelihood for 4 years (and effectively end his career) because he has been involved in a plot to defraud? Will rendering him on the financial scrapheap not mean he may be forced to seek further ways of making money possibly through dishonest means?
Fraud is quite rightly a serious criminal offence. Deano and Fatso can count themselves lucky that they were ‘tried’ in the unreal world presided over by the BHA resulting in no more than a stern kicking into touch, and not by the real world’s criminal justice system which would in all likelihood have seen them deprived of their livelihood by being banged up at Her Majesty’s Pleasure
Furk the lot of them
What always angers me with these corruption cases is the deplorable attitude of racing insiders to stick by their own and give these low lifes a sympathetic ear. What we need is some exemplary justice, life bans should be the norm with heavy fines. No doubt Mckeowon will pop up in five years as if nothing happened and insiders will welcome him.
Seeing R Winston on the Morning Line was shameful and disgraceful a few weeks ago with Tommos doling out compliments, absolutely nauseating.
Thommo, himself, is thought by many to be guilty of fraud.
Tipping line, anyone?
Colin
If you read through the full ruling and it does take some reading, you can see why Whiting received the biggest ban, McKeown a lesser punishment and Blockley an even lesser punishment, as they have been deemed to have differing levels of culpability.
Having said that I believe the punishments should have been much longer.
Certainly Clive Whiting comes across as a really nasty piece of work and he should, I believe, face a life ban.
I believe McKeown should have received a ten year ban to fully ensure his career is ended.
Blockley should have a five year ban but it should be a full ban and he should not be allowed on any licensed premises during the time of the ban.
Someone asked earlier what a disqualified person can and can’t do as to whether Blockey’s wife might take out the licence. (can’t be bothered to go back and find the message and hit quote!)
From the Orders and Rules of Racing (these are currently being rewritten I believe so where it says HRA, read BHA):
A disqualified person, so long as his disqualification lasts, shall not:-
205. (i) Act as a Steward or Official at any Recognised Meeting.
205. (ii) Act as an Authorised Agent under these Orders or Rules.
205. (iii) Except as provided by Rule 181(iii), enter, run, train or ride a horse in any horserace at any Recognised Meeting. If any entry made by a disqualified person be mistakenly or inadvertently accepted, the same shall despite such acceptance be void and the horse shall not be qualified to be entered or to start.
205. (iv) Enter any premises licensed by the HRA subject to Sub-Rule (v) below.
205. (v) Except with permission of the HRA be employed in any racing stable.
205. (vi) Deal in any capacity with a racehorse (for example, but without imposing any limitation on the absolute prohibition by this Rule, by selling or placing shares in a horse). Any horse found by the HRA to have been dealt with in contravention of this Rule shall be automatically declared to be disqualified from all future racing until such time as the HRA are satisfied that the horse has been sold on the open market to a purchaser having no previous connections with the disqualified person concerned, whereupon the disqualification shall be removed.
Blockley has been banned before and come back – I assume the same will happen again.
Failing that, perhaps he can get Russ Wilman to resurrect his training career.
I wonder if a few Betfair punters got together if they could take a civil case against the layers of these horses? Would be an interesting test case!
The BHA hearing is just a tribunal. Its findings would be almost worthless in a proper court.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.