- This topic has 116 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 17 years ago by
.
- Posts
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.Just because proof is difficult to find does not mean those with information can use that as an excuse not to come forward. As far as I am concerned those who do not come forward bear some responsibility for the coruption that does exist today.
Mark
Value Is Everything
- Total Posts 17716
Ginge .
You say reducing runners wouldn’t cost anything.
How do you work that out?
Before you can say that you would have to know the following.
If for examle a maximum allowed was going to be 10 runners.
How would that effect the normal initial entries expected for that race.
Surely because of the restriction the numbers would be affected?
Do you know how much it cost to enter a say a 10k race and where does the money go?
How much more does it cost to declare as horse as runner and where does that money go?
What has the average number of decalred runners in sprints been over the last decade.
What would the average number be if it were limited to 10 and non runners from high number continued.
How would it affect gates with a reduced amount of runners on show and less competive racing.
I doubt you know the answer to all these questions but I bet they do and that’s why they won’t change things. They will do what’s best for racing and in this case theywill let sleeping dogs lie IMO.
Can’t add any more Fist, already answered the questions in previous posts.
Mark
Value Is EverythingWit,
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?
Hi Glenn
In the scenario you outline I think the critical question is whether the contract of wager is a “consumer supply contract” within the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/2083):
http://www.bailii.org/uk/legis/num_reg/ … 92083.html
which implements EU Council Directive 93/13/EEC
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/policy/de … t01_en.pdf
If a wagering contract is within those Regulations, the practical effect of Section 335 Gambling Act 2005 (“The fact that a contract relates to gambling shall not prevent its enforcement”) is that since 1 September 2007 doubt can be cast since then on many of the unilateral decisions that bookies had until then been used to making in dealings with punters.
The list of “Indicative and Non-Exhaustive List of Terms Which May Be Regarded as Unfair” in Schedule 2 of the Regulations suggests that the kind of get-out you highlight might well fall foul of the Regulations in terms of fairness and therefore not be binding on the client.
It is a big question though – and as far as I’m aware as yet untested – whether a contract of wager would fall within the Regulations.
If it doesn’t, I think the punter is pretty much without legal recourse. (The Gambling Commission has power to void a bet that it is satisfied is “substantially unfair” under section 336, but I doubt that would be extended to this kind of case.)
“Financial services” for some purposes specifically are outside these Regulations, but wagering doesn’t seem to come within that term here.
The question may turn on whether a bet could be characterised as a “supply of services” within the Regulations.
However, note the sting in the tail even if the Regulations do apply (or the bookie – maybe looking for the kudos of being a leisure activity supplier – chooses not to dispute that they apply):
This is that the punter has to be a “consumer”, defined as “any natural person who, in contracts covered by these Regulations, is acting for purposes which are outside his trade, business or profession .”
This may be the basis of the recreational / non-recreational distinction then sought to be introduced by some bookies as you have indicated.
best regards
wit
That was an intriguing post on the legal definitions of dishonesty, Wit. I nearly understood some of it.
Think I’ll go back and have another crack at it after the hangover recedes
Hi Paul,
How’s it going old friend? My pathetic snipe was more to do with your general refusal to accept conspiracy theories we all know be true rather than your position on this issue in particular. You do still claim that there hasn’t been a conscious effort to decrease the number of four place handicaps, don’t you?
On the subject of Chester sprints I noted the jockey of today’s winner reminisce on his winning comeback ride on Elliwan in an interview today. I have asked you before about this win and whether I was searching correctly on your website for the inquiry into it’s dramatic improvement following umpteen runs where it dwelt. Surely there was one.
Whenever I type in Elliwan into your stewards room search I get ‘no results to display’. Where am I going wrong?
Hi Glenn
Sorry for the delay in replying – nothing personal but wasn’t around at the weekend and didn’t have time yesterday. And if anyone thought my response was uppity I apologise – it wasn’t intended that way at all. Brickbats do come with the job as should plenty of criticism that’s justified and/or reasoned, but I’ll draw the line at personal. I have no illusions of grandeur at all and don’t ever view my rare postings on here as ‘treats’ for those that read the forum – it’s common courtesy that the regulator should try and respond and I would love to post on this forum with more, not less, but having the time is a huge factor and posting personal opinions would be unprofessional (and irrelevant really) so is a no-no.
Regarding your point about my general refusal to accept ‘conspiracy theories we all know to be true’. If my memory serves me right – and if it doesn’t I’m sure you can correct me – you alleged that we (BHA) wanted fewer 16 runner handicaps and were actively trying to achieve this through policy. As far as I’m aware, and from all the Board papers etc that I’ve seen, this simply isn’t the case, so how can I accept that it’s true? As a punter myself and with a fair amount of exprience on both sides of the betting shop counter, it’s a no-brainer that 8 runner races and 16 runner handicaps are what punters want, and you'[d assume by default what bookies don’t want. But I have not seen any evidence whatsoever of BHA attempting to reduce their number through policy.
As for Elliwan, I’m sorry if you asked me before about it and I haven’t seen it or have forgotten. If you’ve searched the website you’ll know there wasn’t a Stewards enquiry, and the horse wouldn’t have been referred under Instruction H19 because of it’s previous run. Happilly get those previous runs looked at if you like, as we would with any complaint.
Paul
Paul,
Are you not aware of this board paper where the implementation of 14 runner maximum fields is discussed?
http://www.britishhorseracing.com/image … Racing.pdf
It was officially canned after media uproar, principally from John McCririck. However, those at the BHA/BHB seem to have implemented these limits on the courses over which they have influence, such as Ian Renton at Southwell and Peter Savill at Plumpton. Moreover, when saftey limits are reviewed I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the man sent to oversee the review was the report’s author’s retained jockey! Needless to say said retained jockey seems to invariably come to the conclusion that sixteen is at least one too many.
Since the report was published four place handicaps have dropped from circa 20% of races to circa 5% of races. This is a remarkable coincidence in a period where mean field sizes have remained steady wouldn’t you say?
The reasons forwarded vary from course to course (can’t fit the new stalls across the course at Chester, stabling limits at other courses, ground saving at Plumpton, no reasons forwarded at Kempton for implementing the report’s recommendations to the letter etc) but they all seem to have one effect: to unofficially implement a policy that was officially canned.
Paul,
Are you not aware of this board paper where the implementation of 14 runner maximum fields is discussed?
http://www.britishhorseracing.com/image … Racing.pdf
It was officially canned after media uproar, principally from John McCririck. However, those at the BHA/BHB seem to have implemented these limits on the courses over which they have influence, such as Ian Renton at Southwell and Peter Savill at Plumpton. Moreover, when saftey limits are reviewed I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the man sent to oversee the review was the report’s author’s retained jockey! Needless to say said retained jockey seems to invariably come to the conclusion that sixteen is at least one too many.
Since the report was published four place handicaps have dropped from circa 20% of races to circa 5% of races. This is a remarkable coincidence in a period where mean field sizes have remained steady wouldn’t you say?
The reasons forwarded vary from course to course (can’t fit the new stalls across the course at Chester, stabling limits at other courses, ground saving at Plumpton, no reasons forwarded at Kempton for implementing the report’s recommendations to the letter etc) but they all seem to have one effect: to unofficially implement a policy that was officially canned.
Glenn
I remember this – I was in a very different job at the time – but was aware, as you say, that it was canned.
I can’t speculate on Plumpton, Kempton etc nor on whatever the terms of picture rights deals are between racecourses and bookmakers – we aren’t involved in that at all so to get a racecourse perspective on this issue you’d need to speak to them – I can’t talk for anyone other than BHA, or as I did in the past HRA and Jockey Club.
Field Size Limits (stabling limits) were introduced by the HRA strictly based on welfare and integrity reasons, and the belief that a horse should be assured of a stable on days racing. I was actually at the meeting and no other factor played a part and I’m pretty sure that BHB even cautioned HRA against it. The limits are based on the overall stabling capacity at a given racecourse and are there to decide on field sizes if the number of runners excede stabling capacity. They are different to Safety Factors – take for example the 7f handicap at Newbury on Saturday – has a Field Size Limit of 17 (if stables are full) but a safety factor of 20.
If you want some more info on safety factors at various courses and I will try and find out for you.
Paul
Hi
just to reply on the withdrawals due to the draw bits has anyone keep records or can access the information about the record of the withdrawn horses. For the conspiracy theory to hold up they would presumably have a high next time out strike rate otherwise there would seem to be little point in withdrawing them. Any takers??- Total Posts 17716
i was rading at Beverley horse thay have run well in Handicaps fromvery low draws have a high strike rate in their next run away from the course.
But in some survey it revealed in handicap sprints only 6 out of 348 runners drawn in the lowest six stalls won at Beverley.
I have a good idea! Close the dump down
Hi
just to reply on the withdrawals due to the draw bits has anyone keep records or can access the information about the record of the withdrawn horses. For the conspiracy theory to hold up they would presumably have a high next time out strike rate otherwise there would seem to be little point in withdrawing them. Any takers??Why? All it demonstrates is that connections don’t want to run with an effective x lb penalty. Some have suggested that it at least shows connections would have been trying to win but it doesn’t even demonstrate that – nothing scuppers a laying coup more than a draw that makes your charge unlayable!
Why? All it demonstrates is that connections don’t want to run with an effective x lb penalty. Some have suggested that it at least shows connections would have been trying to win but it doesn’t even demonstrate that – nothing scuppers a laying coup more than a draw that makes your charge unlayable!
Well Glenn I think all your reply demonstrates is that you will let nothing get in the way of a good conspiracy theory. I really can’t believe why you bother will horse racing at all
Hi
just to reply on the withdrawals due to the draw bits has anyone keep records or can access the information about the record of the withdrawn horses. For the conspiracy theory to hold up they would presumably have a high next time out strike rate otherwise there would seem to be little point in withdrawing them. Any takers??Why? All it demonstrates is that connections don’t want to run with an effective x lb penalty. Some have suggested that it at least shows connections would have been trying to win but it doesn’t even demonstrate that – nothing scuppers a laying coup more than a draw that makes your charge unlayable!
Surely every horse is layable, the draw is just factored in to whether each horse is a good lay bet, a good back bet or no bet. It does not make it unlayable. Connections of all horses are trying to win whether they are drawn well or poorly. May be I don’t understand your meaning here Glenn.
Mark
Value Is EverythingPlease advise here, maybe I am a little naive but I know that horses have only so many races in them per season. It takes a lot of owners money to get them fit to race etc. When a horse is fit and ready to do the owner justice the owner would want the maximun return for his outlay yes/no. If he enters in a race where there is a likelyhood of not getting the
maximum
return and value
ie bad draw, another horse in the race didnt come out like expected, ground , the list is endless. would you agree that the owner has the RIGHT to put his horse in or out of any race he chooses. After all he is the only one who is paying the bills. Everything else is secondary providing he keeps to the rules. Currently there is little to stop him from doing as he pleases with the vets certs. or self certification. This makes everything possible for the owner to get the best from his horses and I am afraid I would have to agree that if you try to clamp down too hard here and tie their hands the owners will subside and racing will be the ultimate victim.
…..would you agree that the owner has the RIGHT to put his horse in or out of any race he chooses. After all he is the only one who is paying the bills. Everything else is secondary providing he keeps to the rules…..
for sure that’s the case now.
question is:
– whether it ought to be so; and
– whether racing would in fact suffer if it were otherwise and the position of the owner were made secondary to the integrity of the actual racing.
do fewer horses and less racing inevitably mean a lesser sport and lesser turnover ?
very different arena i know, but in HK it is the integrity of the racing that overrides owner interests: folk queue up to be owners, prize money is high.
in HK, this from Murray Bell in today’s SCMP:
————————————–
……next season will see the introduction of a new rule regarding trainer responsibilities and if the new-look panel of stewards pursues a trainer under the provisions of this rule, we could see the first suspensions of trainers under merits charges.
Just a few weeks ago at Happy Valley, we saw a horse with natural early pace strangled from a wide barrier and given no earthly chance in what was always going to be a slowly run race.
Short of pursuing the jockey – a rather unfair thing to do because the rider was merely riding to instructions – the stewards’ hands were somewhat tied.
But next season, that trainer will become eligible to be charged with providing instructions that were actively against the best prospects of the horse winning or obtaining the best-possible placing.
——————————————
it would require a huge culture shift by the various ruling / funding interests to change the current trajectory of British horseracing.
the profile could be otherwise, but do the various interests who have it in their power to make it so, want it in any agreed direction?
going back to zorro’s original question, the current HKJC rules are here:
http://www.hkjc.com/english/racinginfo/ … _instr.asp
trainer responsibilities in Rules 49 – 53; corrupt practices in Rules 150 – 154.
best regards
wit
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.