- This topic has 742 replies, 131 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
GGD – would have to disagree with you re. the level of corruption in Premier League matches being comparable with Horse Racing. (I’ll leave aside Italian football).<br>The time of first throw-in type of bet has almost become extinct simply because of flagrant abuse by players.<br>I bet mostly on football – I seldom touch horse racing nowadays. Why ? Because day after day of studying racing "form" and then watching market moves on Betfair confirmed that too much (not all but too much nonetheless) of it was "dodgy".<br>I used to bet quite a bit of money on the gee-gees years ago. That nearly all goes on English soccer now. The transparency of the honesty of the game (gambling wise) is evident to those who watch the flow of money and the market percentages.<br>As for Fallon. I like the guy and hope he gets back his UK licence asap.
I wouldn’t mind betting there is as much corruption in the Premiership as in Italian football
Read the ex refs jeff winters biography, and appointment of referees in the premiership is carried out on a similar basis to that which came under scrutiny in italy
Certainly a couple of (rather pompous establishment type) premiership clubs have an interesting degree of influence within the FA
As I said I have beeb 25 years with racing professionals sovailly and NEVER witnessed or heard of anything seriously untoward. Ever. Half an hour in the company of Premiership footballers made my stomach turn.
Flow of money does not equate with cheating. Or even insider trading. As I said it doesn’t take a lot of working out a horse is going to lose if the ground is wrong, drawn badly, etc. So you have hundreds of people acting as bookies taking bets from mug punters who haven’t done their homework.
Nearly went wrong for the ones "in the know"on my only time on betfair though. I watched as Darsalam in the St.Leger drifted form about 22/1 to 1000/1. I knew how good he was, and I think if the race had been run to suit him he would’ve won. Did they know anything? Don’t be daft…they just thought he was crap.
I can honestly say that jumps racing is not only the most honest Sport, but also the most honest business I know. That isn’t to say it is perfect…but It is a damn site more honest than the teaching profession or the music business or politics….and certainly straighter than football.
If you want to get a horse beat I know a sure fire way of how to do it, most professionals would know how to do it, it would never be spotted. I have NEVER seen it used. That is why I know racing is beyond reproach; jumps anyway.<br>
- Total Posts 17716
Quote: from GreenGreenDesert on 5:03 am on Sep. 20, 2006[br]If you want to get a horse beat I know a sure fire way of how to do it, most professionals would know how to do it, it would never be spotted. I have NEVER seen it used.
Errrrmm, how can you say you have "never seen it used" if "it would never be spotted"?<br> No axe to grind; just curious.
Galejade /GG Desert.<br>The gaming laws were revised in May 1961 this allowed companies to open betting shops but there were many restrictions but the tote started in 1928 and the first meeting the tote was used was at Carlisle in 1928.<br>Before betting shops were licensed punters could always find someone to take their bets via the ‘bag man’ and in those days the on course market was in a much stronger position than it is today. One has only to read the bets the late William Hill took or the bets Alex Bird used to have.
Punters currently lose a combined figure of around 1billion a year with bookmakers and 10% of this total goes to the levy.<br>The bookmakers also pay (via losing Punters in the end) 30 million a year for the live picture feeds into the shops.
Sunday betting was not allowed until as recent as 1995 and I went to the Sunday meeting at Brighton when no betting was allowed. The crowd was around 800 and it was dead. If the no betting rule had not been scrapped Sunday racing would not have survived.
If you think that because you own a horse or have shares in a horse that you can decide where and when it will be trying you sound so much like Mr Angry aka Julian Wilson and his mates.<br>I am not so stupid to think that every horse ,every day will be attempting to run to its best ability but in the end with an attitude like yours its no wonder punters are turning their backs on horse racing and the bookmakers are constantly inventing new ideas for punters to bet on and to get punters away from racing.
Lets take the recent win of Fonthill Road last Saturday.<br>Yorkshire trainer Richard Fahey was asked about his horse and he said Friday ‘that he did not know why the horse had run so bad in its last 2 outings’ yet a day later after it had won he was quoted as saying ‘ We gave him a run at Ripon that was bad and we ran him next at Haydock and he was even worse so we called in John Patterson a well known expert with curing back problems and he found a vertebra out just behind the saddle and the horse was not even going to be declared to run but after treatment Richard Fahey was told ‘ to definately run him as he would be a different horse next time out’.<br>If the trainer had been honest before the race this hosre would have come into many calculations as it had the form to win the race but how many would have been put off by the trainers comments on the Friday?<br>This attitude shows utter contempt to punters.<br>i did not have a bet in the race so I am not ‘talking through my pocket’ there are of course trainers such as Paul Nicholls who seem totally honest when questioned about the horses they train.<br>
Agree with Seagull 100% about the Fonthill Road run ( I did not bet on the race ) as it is ludicrous that trainers should hide significant facts like this from the betting public. If the public did not bet on horses then flat trainers such as Fahey would be out of a job but some of them continue to show contempt to the punters. <br>Racing needs more openness and honesty from trainers and again I agree with Seagull when he quotes Paul Nicholls as a man who is always willing to give his honest opinion about his horses and his column on C4 teletext sets a great example. ÂÂÂ
The Fahey incident was highlighted in the guardian and totally agree that so long as trainers think that this sport is purely for owners whilts punters can go to hell, then it is heading one way only…
Could get away with that attitude when racing was the only kid on the block, but times have changed
Many many punters have for racing and Fahey perfectly illustrates why
For all this "jumps is more honest than teaching" (how? what? why?) the public simply doesnt belive it to be the case…
Frankly they now trust Steepledowns more than Cheltenham
Seagull,
I have never at any stage said that racing should not be as free from corruption as can possibly be. This benefits everyone , owners as well as punters and fortunately the interests of owners and punters coincide in almost every aspect
I merely pointed out that owners net pay into the sport is a factor of 2 -3 times what punters do in response to your post when you suggested that punters pay for everything. That is a fact which even your own interesting post has not disabused.
Accordingly for our sport to survive we should pay attention to keeping owners, as well as punters, and again I stress that to do so there is no place for corruption. I would also be happier if the severe draw bias at several tracks was addressed. Very often the programme book is like London buses – you look for a race and cannot find one. You wait 3 weeks and a horde of them come along. In the meantime you are forced at considerable expense to run on a track where you know your chances are considerably reduced the instant the draw is made or leave your horse eating its head off in the stable – which isnt much fun for owner or punter.
I merely pointed out that owners net pay into the sport is a factor of 2 -3 times
Really?
Does that include purchasing the beasts? Because if it does, that could be argued as being money that is merely recirculated…
Otherwise, i cannot believe that figure :)
Clivex,
I regret to tell you it is true.
BHB’s quoted average cost of keeping a horse in training is £16000 per year to which must be added insurance (4% flat horses or 10% NH) and weatherbys fees a grand total of around £18000.
There are almost 20000 horses in training giving a gross owners cost of £360 million.
This years prize money pool is going to reduce to £85 million with £67.5 million coming from the levy board.
Net owners cost is therefore 360 – 85 =£275million
Bookmakers levy at 10% of gross profits is +/- ( figure falling) £90million to which – as Seagull points out – must be added the £30million the Bookies pay for picture rights = £120 million
owner/punters contribution is therefore 275/120 ie 2.29 to 1
As I have stated elsewhere according to BHB the owner receives back some 21.9% of his costs ( my figures above are 23.6%)
This excludes the cost of purchasing the horse the sales median value last year being £15000.
You could regard this as having an element of recycling but in fact the average owner loses heavily on his purchase price because the rewards for owning a very good horse are disproportionate – ie its a lottery a very few lucky owners each year make a huge gain subsidised by the many making a loss.
I am not griping by the way. Those who enjoy the Sport and can afford it are big boys and know the cost. There is a general misapprehension put about that the Punter pays for everything ( I dont blame Seagull I blame the John McCrirck?’s and others in the media who prefer to appeal to the mass of punters rather than the minority of owners)
My ogre is the Bookmaker who is making a fortune from the sport. As you are aware this is a UK tradition since no other country allow off course bookmakers although some , eg Australia, allow them on course.
Cheers
Ok fair enough…. thanks for that
But…
With the competition there is, it is more important than ever to keep punters on board. Fahey clearly couldnt care less about that, but hes not alone….
The owner and trainer of a horse are entitled to keep all information about the horse private. Punters have no rights in this.
A typical owner (if there is such a thing) of an average handicapper can only expect to make a decent return by betting the horse when it is fit, ready to run to its best and well handicapped. To make a profit on these bets the connections must have and edge over the market and this is what they pay for. Providing the horse is being run within the rules they should not be criticised. Some trainers earn their living by producing horses like this every year.
<br>The subject of this thread is something completely different.
(Edited by Wallace at 4:47 pm on Sep. 20, 2006)
The owner and trainer of a horse are entitled to keep all information about the horse private. Punters have no rights in this.
Oh great attitude…
Shortsighted and contemptuous are the words that spring to mind :angry:
Punters are the customers here and any industry (and that means all representitives of that industry) that treats its clients with arrogance and contempt deserves to (and will ultimately) fail. A very very very basic business law…
An astonishing attitude in the face of so much competition for the betting £ too
Thnkafully trainers such as AOB, Tregoning and Paul nichols (notice the generation here and perhaps the consequent greater awareness of the 21st century) do NOT take that dismal attitude :)
If racing takes the attitude that for us punters its "none of our business" then the natural and logical reaction is fine…. and you can ****
off tooWallace is wrong with his statement and obviously knows little about horse racing. The following is part of the jockey club rules regarding instructions to trainers about their horses performance.
(ii) Introduced compulsory reports on improved and poor performance
a) Instruction H14 states: ‘The Stewards of the Jockey Club give notice that trainers must report anything which might have adversely affected the performance of any horse they train in a race.’
This is done by a trainer or his/her representative and is reported to the Stewards Secretary or a Veterinary Officer. It should be done as soon as possible after a race, but should evidence come to light later, it can be reported directly to the Jockey Club or via a Stewards Secretary or a Veterinary Officer.
All reports are made public. If made on the day, via the public address, otherwise on the Jockey Club website and the Racing press.
Therefore the trainer is not entitled to keep all information about their horse private.
<br>
The owner and trainer of a horse are entitled to keep all information about the horse private. Punters have no rights in this.
So on the Friday afternoon, when the Racing Post rang Richard Fahey for his thoughts on Fonthill’s chances in the most important sprint handicap of the season, punter’s weren’t entitled to know that the horse had been paying a visit to a "back man" and the stable were expecting a significant improvement in performance.
Because, on it’s 2005 form, it was entitled to finish very close indeed and therefore, the odds of the horse would have been shorter?
Interesting thoughts. I’m off to bet on golf. (Only kidding)
<br>
There are gambling stables where owners/trainers simply have horses "to land a touch" ( or so they hope).<br>An owner friend was advised to keep his money in his pocket as it was an "off" day. This is hardly info you could pass on to the punters, is it?<br>
SwallowCottage, EC, Maxilon 5 & clivex, you need to enter the real world of racing and not the view you would like to see. The reality and truth are had for some people to accept.
I have been involved in racing for over 30 years and an owner/part owner of 11 horses over the last 8 years. Horses being run wthin the rules and lined up to win a specific race are the lifeblood of racing and have been for years. If you don’t agree with this you should bet on other sports. Some of the best trainers in the country specialise in this approach with avergage handicappers and keep their owners coming back for more.
PS, I should declare an interest here as I own a share of a horse with Richard.
(Edited by Wallace at 8:14 pm on Sep. 20, 2006)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.