- This topic has 58 replies, 35 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Anyone stupid enough to be betting on the result of the stewards enquiry when it has been announced on course deserves no sympathy whatsoever.
Change that to:
"Anyone stupid enough to brag so publicly about fleecing unsuspecting punters, while in the pay of a third party whose constituency includes a substantial portion of those punters, deserves no sympathy whatsoever."
And you have my vote.
Change that to:
"Anyone stupid enough to brag so publicly about fleecing unsuspecting punters, while in the pay of a third party whose constituency includes a substantial portion of those punters, deserves no sympathy whatsoever."
And you have my vote.
I never said punters have a monopoly on stupidity
unsuspecting punters betting on the outcome of stewards enquiries,
why do you think betfair issue a warning about betting on these events,
instead of keep guessing, think, who are the guilty parties.
Perhaps C 4 Racing should issue a similar warning.
"Enjoy Channel 4 Racing but be aware that members of the team may try to catch you with your pants down while you pop off to make a cup of tea during an ad break."
That should just about cover it.
An interesting slant in this thread – allow me throw a question into the pot.
Had a similar situation occurred where a punter gained from using publicly available information before a bookmaker knew about it, would there be the same self righteous indignation?
I somehow suspect not – the punter would be considered a hero in most quarters!!
The betting ring is not called a jungle for nothing.
If you think that paul, have another look at getzippys thread.
Here is a chance for the man in of the moment to answer a few questions.
What race was it then?
Did other members of the C4 team profit from this information?
Do you think it was a mistake to boast about this in your national news paper column?
As Graham Cunningham wrote on page 13 in the Racing Post today
‘Is it time for Channel 4 to sink the Bismark after Barry Dennis admitted laying hefty bets on an objection when he already knew the result?
Yes off course it is!
CHANNEL 4 WERE NOT THERE
CHANNEL 4 DO NOT DO AINTREE
IT WAS WHATEVER CHANNEL BROADCAST RACING THAT DAY THAT DO ADVERTSIF YOU DONT FOLLOW ALL THE THREADS POSTED ON THIS SUBJECT DONT COMMENT
THIS WAS DONE TO DEATH ON THIS FORUM YEARS AGO
I SAID THEN IT WAS NOT CHANNEL 4
GET IT IT WAS NOT CHANNEL 4
ARE YOU ALL FOLLOWING
IT WAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CHANNEL 4.
somebody who knows how to retrieve previous threads please go back 2 years where this was explained
There will always be people in a position to profit from ‘insider knowledge’ in racing and there will always be a very grey line, greyer than the already grey one which exists in financial trading, separating what is fraudulent from that which is merely opportunistic.
Regarding the issue at hand. Was Alex Bird fraudulent when he won large sums betting on the outcome of close finishes when he was in possession of information that others didn’t have? What about the wholseale gambles which occur on handicap snips from some of the country’s biggest stables year in, year out?
I think the chances of Barry Dennis being convicted of any criminal activity in this case are a million to one.
There will always be people in a position to profit from ‘insider knowledge’ in racing and there will always be a very grey line, greyer than the already grey one which exists in financial trading, separating what is fraudulent from that which is merely opportunistic.
Regarding the issue at hand. Was Alex Bird fraudulent when he won large sums betting on the outcome of close finishes when he was in possession of information that others didn’t have? What about the wholseale gambles which occur on handicap snips from some of the country’s biggest stables year in, year out?
I think the chances of Barry Dennis being convicted of any criminal activity in this case are a million to one.
Especially as he has not committed any offence that I can see.
Those of us of a certain age will remember the days before we had digital cameras and in a photo finish there was usually a couple of minutes delay whilst they developed the film. Whilst waiting for the film to be developed there was usually a very lively betting heat on the outcome. 99 times out of a hundred the bookies odds were spot on.
Why? They had a spotter placed right on the line to judge the finish and they were bl**dy good at reading the result. In other words this is nothing new with bookmakers laying with knowledge the punters not at the course are not privvy to. It has always happened.
There will always be people in a position to profit from ‘insider knowledge’ in racing and there will always be a very grey line, greyer than the already grey one which exists in financial trading, separating what is fraudulent from that which is merely opportunistic.
Corm, I have to disagree with this, given that we now bet in a market environment I don’t see that there is any difference about me knowing that there will be a takeover happening tomorrow and buying up shares or that a horse is injured or not fit and will not win and then laying it.
To me there is no difference. Is there a definition of insider knowledge used by the BHA? Personally they would be better off classifying the types of information available and putting in place acceptable usage criteria.
somebody must be able to work out which channel it was, I cant remember,
McCririck interviewed me after Le Duc had won at aintree
Don’t see how what Barry did is any different to those who profit from the delay to "live " TV pictures. As long as there are markets, people will profit from having the fastest information- very different from profiting from inside information. There was nothing to stop any punter with a phone on course from doing the same thing. No case to answer. The ad break thing is a bit of a mystery though, as the only racing broadcasters with ads are ATR and C4, neither of which cover Aintree- might it be when the Beeb broke for news or to change channels as they sometimes do?
If there has been an anouncement then the result is public knowledge, therefore it was not "insider trading" or dishonest.
Barry has no case to answer, this "case" should be laughed out of court.
Barry uses his knowledge to make money, so what.
Anyone betting on the stewards enquiry knows the risk, especially if they do not have access to the course anouncement.
The only questions I have are:
When the anouncement is made surely that is the end of the market?
Shouldn’t Betfair close the market as soon as the result is made?
If Betfair have the same rules as bookmakers, surely for a bet to be a bet there must be a chance of winning as well as losing. When the bet was taken there was no chance of winning, therefore bets should be refunded.
e.g. When I got on to my bookmaker in the last couple of minutes before race time. The girl was slow in processing the bet. The winner past the post just after she said "your bet has been accepted". "No it aint" I said, she was quite adamant I’d lost my money. It was not until the supervisor came on I got my money back. As there was no chance of winning when the bet was struck.
If Betfair’s rules are the same, the bet should be refunded.
I do not see this is a case of Barry Dennis doing anything wrong, it is surely Betfair who should be in the "dock" for allowing the bet.
Mark
Value Is EverythingIf you’re going to bet it seems to me that you need to keep yourself as informed as possible. Seems Barry was better informed on this occasion.
As to which channel, wasn’t Aintree and McCririck on the original incarnation of ATR? Barry did say this was some years back.
Chris
EDIT: Yup, Le Duc won in April 2003 when all the courses were on the original ATR, before it all went to hell in a handcart in March 2004.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.