dishonesty in racing?

[Anonymous]

Geezus you’re a touchy fella Ginge. I never for one minute suggested you were naive did I. I was referring to anyone who would believe it as it is total BS. If I hadn’t read your post I couldn’t have known what you said could I?

Getting a vets certificate is way too easy and there is vitually no way of checking if they are for genuine reasons or not. BTW I am not guessing they are easy to get I owned 3 horses and ran with a trainer and personal friend for years.

Fist,
Not touchy mate, never thought you were suggesting that. Just can’t see what you are finding so difficult to believe. Because as far as I can see we agree.

Neither myself or the vet dispute that it is easy to get a vets certificate. My earlier post indicates

why

it is so easy to get one. Am sure some trainers take advantage of the fact some horses are intemitantly lame. Trainers know it is difficult for a vet to refuse because of the possible consequences if they do refuse.

Your idea of giving punters less than one hour to work out a race, at a time when there is other races going on; is a joke.

Mark

Oh come on the draw can be posted and known to all at 10am if need be. Most horses have left for the course about 5 to6 am and sprints can be moved to the last race on the card.

You should learn to use your brain mate before telling people their posts are a joke.

If you believe what that vet said is 100% true then you are naive. It is noo doubt true in many cases but what happens very often in reality is the trainer phones up the vet, he’s paying fortunes to in fees all year and says I need a vet certficate. our imagnation what happens from there on in.

The only way to eliminate any wrongdoings, where the draw is involved,is not to let them have it until the day of the race. The a vets certificate not issued by te course vets is not acceptable.

Other than that if you can’t come up with a better idea I suggest you drop the subject and stop telling me whois at leasttrying to make a suggestion my post is a joke.

Ok Ginger Baby?

[Gingertipster]

It could easily be done in secret the night before and displayed in the relevant places 1 hour before the first race. Trainers may complain they can’t discuss tactics with their jockeys if they don’t know the draw in advance but that would be an attempted cop out IMO.

I can not see the future Fist, can only comment on your idea put forward in an earlier post. The post suggested keeping the draw secret untill 1 hour before the first race.

You have now moved the goal posts to 10am. Better granted, but still too late for many punters.

I have told you my idea of a solution, well partial one anyway. If after trainers have been warned about non-runners in disadvantageous draws, there is no change in their behaviour. Best we can hope for is to reduce the number of non-runners. That can be done by reducing the field sizes of course and distances where this is a problem. It is pointless having these field sizes, if connections are constantly pulling horses out. Better to reduce the runners to a level where there will be few non-starters, so allowing them to run elsewhere. Same horses, running the same number of times; just in different races.

Mark

Value Is Everything

[Nor1]

Nor1 wrote:

Corrupt practices we would all presumably agree on are:

Instructions to jockeys not to be placed;
jockey paid to win whilst others within same race paid to lose;
jockeys fixing a race between themselves;
knowingly running an injured or unfit horse;
medicating an horse on banned substances;
Entering horses in a race knowing there is no intention on running them.
etc.

So Nor1,

Have you personally overheard particular people involved in racing say they have done all of these things? But you have absolutely nothing you can give to the authorities?

Were you the only person around at the time? If there were others around, they may be able to give authorities proof so you should tell the authorities.

Were all these before or after the event? If before you could have come forward even without proof, the authorities could have looked in to it.

How do you know jockeys have fixed a race between themselves?

Or is just heresay? Or what Fist would describe as BS.

Mark
_________________
value is everything

Gingertipster

– sorry for the delay, just consulted my solicitor.

Before I begin could I ask you a question?

Are you telling me that you know none of the above ever happens?

So, in list order:
Yes- from the jockeys before/after the race. Would never say in court, have livelihoods to protect, and where is the written evidence?
Yes- as above.
Yes- as above.
Yes- from stables and the media.
Yes- but only from the media
Yes- from stables.

[equus]

A horse is running tomorrow. His trainer has ran him 6 times over wrong distances in soft He s been tried at home and is a proper grade 3 3 hurdler. A good jumper and loves good/firm ground. He s in a seller ( class /6 )and is 50/1 shot. . He s fit, got everything in his favour so ….. Is his trainer being dishonest when it wins.
Horses are very difficult to win with I think that only one in every 83 horses actually get to win a race. Does a covering of the truth make the trainer dishonest. If I was an owner I think I would be tempted to lay one out for a big price.
Barney Curley ( the master) was never dishonest in his gambles …he just used the system and made a fortune from it. He d never let anyone know when ,where and why. Fair play to him.
Does anyone else think the same /

[equus]

Now then Lads … theres a big difference in actually fixing a race say jockeys sorting the winner….. and some trainer who knows his horse will win but decides to keep that info to himself even tho he has ran it in wrong distances and ground but knows its now ready.
If a trainer knows his horse has been got ready he is not guilty of any crime even if he has a major bet on it. ok he ran it knowing it was his wrong distance ,ok he ran it on wrong ground, the horse was" trying" to win even when it couldnt thats the difference. You could never accuse the trainer of any crime …. keeping information to yourself is not a crime so what happens when the trainer tells the owner, is that a crime and what if an owner tells his best mate, is that a crime and if his best mate tells his mate and so on , are they all committing crimes?

[Gingertipster]

Nor1 wrote:

Corrupt practices we would all presumably agree on are:

Instructions to jockeys not to be placed;
jockey paid to win whilst others within same race paid to lose;
jockeys fixing a race between themselves;
knowingly running an injured or unfit horse;
medicating an horse on banned substances;
Entering horses in a race knowing there is no intention on running them.
etc.

Gingertipster

– sorry for the delay, just consulted my solicitor.

Before I begin could I ask you a question?

Are you telling me that you know none of the above ever happens?

So, in list order:
Yes- from the jockeys before/after the race. Would never say in court, have livelihoods to protect, and where is the written evidence?
Yes- as above.
Yes- as above.
Yes- from stables and the media.
Yes- but only from the media
Yes- from stables.

The only coruption that I know has gone on is what is already in public domain. Of course, where there is money involved there is a certain amount of coruption. However, racing in Britain is I believe 99.9% straight.

Before I go on I must say most stable lads, trainers and jockeys are good people.

I have been told by stable lads that this or that won’t be trying, but can see through them. They just want you to believe they are more important than they really are. If they know about all this coruption they can surely make money at it, so why are they still stable lads? It is always when the conditions do not suit the horse and are unlikely to win anyway.

Many owners go in to the game wanting a good punt. If such an owner approaches a trainer to purchase / put a horse with him; he is far more likely to get those owners if coming up with stories of skulduggery. Trainers and jockeys bend the truth a little, it makes their own importance seem greater.

In the past there probably was more skulduggery but it is far harder to get away with these days.

If you consider what you’ve heard to be the truth before the race then why did you not go to the authorities?

The proof could be found by looking at the race; and others who are also in the know may have that proof anyway. It does not have to be written evidence, it may lead to something. If you heard two men in a pub talking about a rape they’d committed, would you not go to the police? You should have gone to the authorities. By not doing so Nor, you have yourself contributed to the problem.

Mark

Value Is Everything

[Zorro]

And how might these opportunities for deception be reduced?

[Anonymous]

It could easily be done in secret the night before and displayed in the relevant places 1 hour before the first race. Trainers may complain they can’t discuss tactics with their jockeys if they don’t know the draw in advance but that would be an attempted cop out IMO.

I can not see the future Fist, can only comment on your idea put forward in an earlier post. The post suggested keeping the draw secret untill 1 hour before the first race.

You have now moved the goal posts to 10am. Better granted, but still too late for many punters.

I have told you my idea of a solution, well partial one anyway. If after trainers have been warned about non-runners in disadvantageous draws, there is no change in their behaviour. Best we can hope for is to reduce the number of non-runners. That can be done by reducing the field sizes of course and distances where this is a problem. It is pointless having these field sizes, if connections are constantly pulling horses out. Better to reduce the runners to a level where there will be few non-starters, so allowing them to run elsewhere. Same horses, running the same number of times; just in different races.

Mark

I would disagree 1 hour before the first race is not ample time to study a race that would be the last onthe card and surely that if moved to 10am and the last races (the sprints on the card ) being 5or 6 hours away wouldbe a big hassle to anyone.

Yousay reduce the size of the fields which would do what? How much revenue would be lost dong that? Who would want to enter knowing that if only 10 eg were going to be allowed to run.

They could go along the lines that if 10 was going to the max allowed and 16 were left in then they could make two division. Might work for the course and form students but you have the publics time schedules to consider. Public transport times would have to be chanced ect. It would end up a real mess.

I think my idea is would work better than simply reducing the size of fields which is ill thought out. All courses would prefer to have more runners to not less. If they can get the horses to the course only an idiot would pretend the horse was un fit to run after paying all the cost.

If a trainer makes all his arrangements to run then gets balloted out because only 10 are allowed to run, he wouldn’t be a happy man. To ensure numbers were kept up we would probably have to allow reserves as numbers 8,9 and 10 might say stuff it we ain’t running. Who pays the reserves to go to a the course knowing they might not get a run?. I don’t know if the course have to in Ireland but if that is the ruling wethen have a cost no one wants.

I think we have to face the fact as long as there is going to be a loss of revenue then they will do absolutely nothing. I suppose they might scrap self certification but all that will do is put a smile on vets faces.

[wit]

And how might these opportunities for deception be reduced?

By inculcating the standards of the BHA:

that is to say, the Beacon Hill Academy:

==============

Integrity is the foundation for any positive relationship, both at home and at work. At BHA, we do not tolerate dishonesty, cheating, or any behaviour both inside and outside of school that goes against a high moral character.

Our desire is that students will take these values deep into their character, and thereby take these values into their future families and employement, thereby strengthening the fabric of Sri Lankan society.

===============

http://www.beaconhillacademy.org/policies.html

There is a strong societal aspect to this – would Chris Munce have ended up in pokey had the events been in the UK ?

Consider this from a paper on the lack of a black-line definition of dishonesty in English law:

================

In the real world conduct passes by degrees from the completely honest to the blatantly dishonest and somewhere in the middle a grey area obtains calling for fine judgment.

These borderline cases cannot properly be dealt with in advance because they are invariably complex on their facts.

Thus the law ought to leave these cases to the trial court or jury. These know the facts and can therefore properly measure such cases against the moral standard.

Such cases are in moral terms doubtful. The law cannot be more precise than the morality it reflects without becoming artificial and remote.

And if the law serves moral values which are artificial and remote from ordinary standards, imposed, for example, by exhaustive definitions of moral concepts such as dishonesty dreamed up by a commission of academics, the law itself will fall into disrepute.

It may appear that such a proposal for borderline cases renders the law uncertain and, indeed, this is so but the uncertainty is that of the human predicament itself and cannot realistically be legislated away.

In any case if the law is as I have described it, it embodies the common teachings of morality and

‘everyone is required to live up to such common moral principles. He who knowingly skates on thin ice cannot reasonably complain that no sign-post marks the precise spot at which he may fall through. Those who disregard the common moral teachings do so at their peril’ [ Per Lord Morris, Knuller v D.P.P. [1972] 2 All E.R. 898, 910]. ‘

In practice, however, where the immorality of conduct is a matter of reasonable doubt it is unlikely that a jury will be unanimously or almost unanimously of the opinion that the accused was sufficiently immoral to justify his being punished and the genuinely borderline case will result in an acquittal.

================================

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~lawf0013/dishonesty.htm

best regards

wit

[yeats]

[quote="Gingertipster" That can be done by reducing the field sizes of course and distances where this is a problem. It is pointless having these field sizes, if connections are constantly pulling horses out. Better to reduce the runners to a level where there will be few non-starters, so allowing them to run elsewhere. Same horses, running the same number of times; just in different races.

Mark

Isn’t that what happens anyway courtesy of the non runners?
I must admit I’m a bit puzzled by this obsession with a few horses withdrawn because of the draw at Chester, there are a far greater number of non runners every week because of 48 hour decs, I refer you to Nottingham last Saturday or the Ormonde on Friday yet no one seems concerned about that.
48 hour decs would also scupper the barmy idea to have the draw on the day as all such matters apparently need to be done at least 48 hours prior to the race to enable foreigners to bet on our racing.

[Glenn]

Wit,

Maybe I can seek your advice on unfair terms and conditions. It kind of ties in with the title of this thread.

Corals are currently doing a 10% cashback offer on losses, credited to your account on the 5th of the month. A nice counter to the dreaded Wednesday lunchtime clawback, but the t&c’s seem to give them carte blanche to take their ball away.

I give you the worst clause 4 since Neil Kinnock ran Labour:

4.Customers whose account becomes closed prior to the date of Cash Back credit (on or before the fifth day of each month) will not qualify for the offer

So you’re sitting there on Coral Eclipse Day, looking at oodles of cashback coming your way. Then Corals unilaterally decide that your bad for business and decide that it is a case of Died on the 4th of July for your account.

How would this t&c stand up in court, in your opinion, with the recent legislative changes to gambling?

[Tuffers]

Wit,

Maybe I can seek your advice on unfair terms and conditions. It kind of ties in with the title of this thread.

Corals are currently doing a 10% cashback offer on losses, credited to your account on the 5th of the month. A nice counter to the dreaded Wednesday lunchtime clawback, but the t&c’s seem to give them carte blanche to take their ball away.

I give you the worst clause 4 since Neil Kinnock ran Labour:

4.Customers whose account becomes closed prior to the date of Cash Back credit (on or before the fifth day of each month) will not qualify for the offer

So you’re sitting there on Coral Eclipse Day, looking at oodles of cashback coming your way. Then Corals unilaterally decide that your bad for business and decide that it is a case of Died on the 4th of July for your account.

How would this t&c stand up in court, in your opinion, with the recent legislative changes to gambling?

Glenn, if you are looking for unfair Ts & Cs then may I point you in the direction of the country’s financial institutions. Every mortgage in this country is repayable on demand ie anyone with a mortgage could be asked to repay it tomorrow and if they don’t the lender can sell their house from under them.

I suspect Coral would make the same excuse as the banks that although the right exists they have no intention of exercising it. IMHO if you’re not going to exercise a right then it’s pointless being in the agreement to start with.

[Glenn]

The trouble is some bookies

do

excercise these sorts of t&c’s when it comes to concessions and free bets. For example, the likes of sportingbet and bet365 have clauses that say that these offers are only available to recreational punters. These clauses are then used, often retrospectively, to deny the advertised offer.

[Tuffers]

The trouble is some bookies

do

excercise these sorts of t&c’s when it comes to concessions and free bets. For example, the likes of sportingbet and bet365 have clauses that say that these offers are only available to recreational punters. These clauses are then used, often retrospectively, to deny the advertised offer.

Presumably their definition of ‘recreational’ is ‘unsuccessful’?

[Anonymous]

"yeats":1qrjp6mm wrote:

Isn’t that what happens anyway courtesy of the non runners?
I must admit I’m a bit puzzled by this obsession with a few horses withdrawn because of the draw at Chester, there are a far greater number of non runners every week because of 48 hour decs, I refer you to Nottingham last Saturday or the Ormonde on Friday yet no one seems concerned about that.
48 hour decs would also scupper the barmy idea to have the draw on the day as all such matters apparently need to be done at least 48 hours prior to the race to enable foreigners to bet on our racing.

Barmy idea it may well be Yeats so here’s another one.

The fault doesn’t lie with the trainers it lies with the courses or course designers.

If this is such a major problem and is unnacceptabled what any other governing body does. Make a law and eliminate the problem

Let’s say it’s impossible to alter the courses so they are fair. Then simply eeem them unsuitable and ban them from having sprints. Have races of 1mile and above only.

There are plenty middle distance and staying horses to fill the gaps so what’s the problem with doing that?.

[Nor1]

Gingertipster

Most jockeys do as they are told if they wish to continue race riding and would deny any corruption even when confronted with evidence.

Read the HRA reports on their enquiries and you will see:

Jockeys mislead and give false answers to the investigators.
Witnesses stating they know jockeys were paid to lose etc. are not believed.
Internet, phone, and betting records, verifying constant contact between jockeys and associates do not conclude guilt of improper riding even when betting patterns indicate this.

Penalties from these HRA enquiries may ban jockeys from race riding for a period but some are still allowed to continue working within the industry. Upon their return, these jockeys are often readily supplied with rides.

Why?
I think it might just be kindness, or perhaps because they kept quiet by not dropping anyone further up the ladder in to the mire.

[Gingertipster]

It could easily be done in secret the night before and displayed in the relevant places 1 hour before the first race. Trainers may complain they can’t discuss tactics with their jockeys if they don’t know the draw in advance but that would be an attempted cop out IMO.

I can not see the future Fist, can only comment on your idea put forward in an earlier post. The post suggested keeping the draw secret untill 1 hour before the first race.

You have now moved the goal posts to 10am. Better granted, but still too late for many punters.

I have told you my idea of a solution, well partial one anyway. If after trainers have been warned about non-runners in disadvantageous draws, there is no change in their behaviour. Best we can hope for is to reduce the number of non-runners. That can be done by reducing the field sizes of course and distances where this is a problem. It is pointless having these field sizes, if connections are constantly pulling horses out. Better to reduce the runners to a level where there will be few non-starters, so allowing them to run elsewhere. Same horses, running the same number of times; just in different races.

Mark

I would disagree 1 hour before the first race is not ample time to study a race that would be the last onthe card and surely that if moved to 10am and the last races (the sprints on the card ) being 5or 6 hours away wouldbe a big hassle to anyone.

By 10am a lot of on course punters will be on the way to the races or getting ready to go, and I suppose it is just tough luck on the people who work 9 to 5 for a living. Are they not allowed time to see the draw? And as Yeats says it does not help the foreign market, so would lose revenue that way as well. What about C4 TV schedules, they probably can’t cover the final race of the card, yet more revenue lost.

Yousay reduce the size of the fields which would do what?

Isn’t it obvious, trainers take out horses when poorly drawn, by reducing field size trainers would have no need to withdraw horses.

How much revenue would be lost dong that?

None, the horses unable to run because of field size would probably be non-runners anyway. And would run elsewhere anyway, as I said "same horses, running the same number of times, but in different races".

Who would want to enter knowing that if only 10 eg were going to be allowed to run?

With fewer runners, and less of a chance of a disadvantageous draw, I’d suggest more connections would like to run.

They could go along the lines that if 10 was going to the max allowed and 16 were left in then they could make two division. Might work for the course and form students but you have the publics time schedules to consider. Public transport times would have to be chanced ect. It would end up a real mess.

No, I am against dividing of races, those who could not get in can run elsewhere. Although one idea could be a fourth day of Chester the following week (untelevised by C4). With new races; where top weights are those unable to run during the three day meeting.

I think my idea is would work better than simply reducing the size of fields which is ill thought out. All courses would prefer to have more runners to not less. If they can get the horses to the course only an idiot would pretend the horse was unfit to run after paying all the cost.

My idea is ill thought out you say? I think you are in a minority of one with your idea Fist. Of course courses want more runners, but they don’t turn up anyway. And one courses loss is anothers gain. Nobody believes all of the non-runners are truly unfit to race, but as I have said, no vet can take that chance, what about those injured in transit?

If a trainer makes all his arrangements to run then gets balloted out because only 10 are allowed to run, he wouldn’t be a happy man. To ensure numbers were kept up we would probably have to allow reserves as numbers 8,9 and 10 might say stuff it we ain’t running. Who pays the reserves to go to a the course knowing they might not get a run?. I don’t know if the course have to in Ireland but if that is the ruling wethen have a cost no one wants.

The trainers don’t want to run in stalls 11, 12, 13 anyway, that is why (allegedly) there are so many non-runners. So why would they be unhappy? No point in reserves, trainers don’t want to run from those stalls.

I think we have to face the fact as long as there is going to be a loss of revenue then they will do absolutely nothing. I suppose they might scrap self certification but all that will do is put a smile on vets faces.

Trainers, vets, the BHA are all doing their best Fist. We may not agree with their methods but they are all trying.

I am not that bothered about these non-runners myself Yeats, just thought I’d look for an at least partial solution to others woes.

Mark

Value Is Everything

[Author]

Posts