- This topic has 27 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 16 years ago by
.
- Posts
Story here…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/ap … ng-betfair
No evidence of contact between the layers and the jockey although by implication the BHA seem to think there has been given the following statemnet by Paul Struthers…
“That said, this has all the hallmarks of bets being placed with inside information with the suspicion that it was coming from the jockey in question.”
The layers wouldn’t produce phone records, their probably not required to. But have the BHA checked the phone records of the suspected jockey, as a licensed individual is he/she not required to produce them?
Some things dont change at all …wonder what Mr Street and his happy gang make of this
this does not look like a well balanced outcome
But then again its British Racing
Ricky
I totally agree. Refusing to give evidence or to co-operate in an investigation is not a sign of guilt and if they haven’t got enough evidence to charge a jockey, then how can these men be banned?
Ah, the fateful error of not laying in enough moody races to reach the premium charge ‘markets bet in threshold’. Sorry boys, but you need to pay your tributes if you don’t want to be considered expendable. Better pick a more prolific jockey next time.
They will all have a long time to ponder the error of their ways. Every time on of their dogs barks they’ll be reminded of the prison they’re in. No taking that dog for walkies on Newmarket Heath for a long time boys!
I totally agree. Refusing to give evidence or to co-operate in an investigation is not a sign of guilt and if they haven’t got enough evidence to charge a jockey, then how can these men be banned?
I’d argue the opposite…
If these punters are innocent then why have a problem with co-operating and providing records. The refusal to co-operate says they have something to hide to me.
I say well done to the BHA on this one.
- Total Posts 17716
Someone like to enlighten me on why the article finishes about Godolphins 2000 Guineas entries?
Last bit obviously just a tag-on story with no relevance Mr W, it does look incongruous though.
I struggle with this. How can they ban them without evidence of wrong-doing? I suspect the answer is that the authorities simply require reasonable grounds rather than teh definite proof that might be required in a court of law.
Also, if, as seems clear, they suspect the persons of fraudulent activity involving collusion with a jockey (and, given that one of the persons involved worked as a jockey’s driver, that would be an obvious conclusion) surely the whole affair has criminal ramifications and, in such case, surely the police could have sought and retrieved phone records? Were the police involved in this inquiry?
………just a shame that they couldn’t actually identify and prosecute any licensed professionals who could be proved to have been involved……..everyone who follows racing knows it goes on on a daily basis but weeding out the culprits seems close to impossible.
Cormack do you seriously think the Police will want to get involved in another race fixing enqury?
banned from racing, whats that mean? probably never been on a racecourse in their life.
just start again, another uncle or aunt with a credit card, job done easy.
banned from what for crissake.
BHA no teeth.
Yes you are quite right Barry,i suppose it at least highlights the fact that wrong doings go on every day in racing and these guys are being used to set an example to everyone else,it just keeps all on their toes!The BHA must feel like a school caretaker trying to sweep autumn leaves from the playground,with a toothbrush!
So does this mean that if I come up with a rigid laying system whereby I focus on just one particular jockey because I’ve heard that his style of riding is weak in a tight finish, and my theory is proven correct, resulting in me winning regularly to the extent that Messrs. Betfair will report me to the BHA and, if by chance I have a relative who worked/works in the said jockey’s yard and I refuse to co-operate with a kangaroo court, I’m automatically warned off? Doesn’t seem a fair judicial process IMO. Sounds to me as if Betfair only approve of consistent losers.
Has the BHA published an account of this event?- Total Posts 17716
Corm
Since when is it ‘fraud’ or ‘criminal’ to pass on information, or to bet on information received? Justice Forbes laughed that one out of court a while ago.
The only real fraud in all this is sending out 5 horses that weren’t out to win but, – no surprise – there’s no hue and cry from the BHA about the root cause of the problem, not even a question raised
Once again, they have shown their interest is not in stopping corruption, rather in covering it up.interesting that nobody’s even thought to mention the Gambling Commission (latest tag-line "keeping gambling fair and safe for all"), set up at no little expense supposedly to deal precisely with this kind of thing.
already written off in folk’s expectations, or was nothing much ever expected of it ?
Reet , my sentiments as well ,The Bha are as Barry has said are toothless , and the reason is they are mega scared of any more scandal to blunt the RFC message about the Wow factor racing promises ….., but now more than ever surely people with no involvement must be sold on the idea that racing is corrupt
This latest episode is just another sorry example of how they operate , and our racing becomes the laughing stock of the world again
Change …you are joking
Ricky
BHA and its predecessors have always been toothless on the betting angle.
Their powers to insist are, and have only ever been, what they can write into their contract terms with the people they licence.
In a situation like this, the BHA should be able to insist on the jockey’s phone records, but for the unlicensed others the most the BHA can insist on is that the people they do licence should have no dealings with those unlicensed persons – which seems to be what they’ve done.
For the rest the BHA relies on voluntary co-operation.
Its the Gambling Commission that, with much fanfare and cost, has been given the teeth to address the betting angle.
But, at least in the reports so far, it seems conspicuous by its absence ? The watchdog that hasn’t barked ?
On the BF forum the ‘Magician’ has taken a case to the GC, I can’t be bothered to look for the thread but it will be in General Betting, so cannot be exact about the details.
But, iirc it involved him backing one of the horses that Leighton Brooks had stopped, anyhow to cut a long story short it took him about six months to get BF to release to him confirmation that he having backed the horse was matched by a lay from Brooks et al. With this information he went to the GC. They rejected his complaint, without investigation as it was not made until 18 months after the event and not within their set time-limit (either three or six months).
In the above case the complaint couldn’t have been made any earlier as it took the BHA 12 to investigate and BF 6 months to release the information require to bring the complaint.
Quite why the GC have imposed time-limits I don’t know but I would suggest if they are not prepared to act in the above case – where a complete paper trail had been provided to them by a determined and knowledgeable person, then there is little hope of them taking it upon themselves to investigate such matters.
It’s worth looking for the thread if your interested.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.