- This topic has 59 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
For the past 2 years we have read every day of the oppinion by many that the racing game has deteriated as far as integrity is concerned. and the reason is the ability to lay horses to lose.
Could some one take a simple task of calculating the % of favs that win during a year. and compare that stat with the one for similar years before exchanges were introduced.
Cubone
I’m sure some masochist could, but I don’t see what it would "prove".
My own view is that racing’s as bent as at any time since pictures became freely available, some 15 or so years ago. But I could be wrong, and I certainly think that blaming exchanges for this situation is simplistic in the extreme.
(Edited by Prufrock at 1:06 pm on Feb. 28, 2005)
prufrock so you are saying that when the actual races where seen on a tv.the honesty was reduced. <br>And are you therefore saying that when horses went behind the hill at Warwick in the 1900s and no one knew who was going to come out in front. racing was more honest.:biggrin: <br>
The dark night are you saying that horse were never backed from 20/1 down to 7/2 fav prior to 2000.
The difference were that the man in the street was in the dark until the next day.
I assume that at some time perhaps when it was 5/1 the penny droped.
:biggrin:
prufrock  so you are saying that when the actual races where seen on a tv.the honesty was reduced. <br>And  are you therefore  saying  that when horses went behind the hill at Warwick in the 1900s and no one knew who was going to come out in front. racing was more honest.
No, I’m saying the opposite. I think that racing became more honest when tv pictures became available (I used to go racing a lot immediately prior to this happening) but that it has slipped back a long way recently. Without having been around in the 1900s I am sure as I can be that all sorts was going on then. It sure as hell was at Carlisle and Hexham and Leicester etc etc in the late-1980s.
One thing I will say is that all of the strokesters from 1700. through to 2000. would not have been very happy if exchanges had existed.
The Dagenham Coup.<br>The Franscascal scam<br>Ringer Barry <br>The Danesbury Plotters<br>All the dopings of the 40/50<br>All the knock out jobs of the 60/70s
Even Barney Curley would have had difficulty tying a Yellow ribbon to an old oak tree.
Every one of these would have still happened possibly but the public would have known it would therefore have been more difficult for the scams to have been worth while.
On top of that the JC would have had there card marked by 12.0
There is no way that Cats can be kept in the bag like the old days.
So is that good or bad. your choice.
Cubone
Rather than deciding whether it is a good thing or a bad thing, I’d rather just accept that it is a thing. Exchanges exist: racing should cope with it.
It has been stated numerous times elsewhere that cheating is easier now than it used to be. I disagree. Cheating may be more tempting, and it may be potentially more remunerative, but actually pulling a stroke remains in the hands of the same small number of people as before in the vast majority of instances. With increased security measures and more transparency in the betting market, their chances of being detected are actually increased.
How straight is racing ?
IMO, about as straight as the M25 – but I doubt it’s ever been very different. The whole game revolves around money, one way or another, so it’s bound to attract sharp practise.
Why has soccer become so honest.??
Less that hundred year ago a man was improssoned for 5 months for attempting to bribe English full back Jess Pennington to make West Brom lose or draw against Everton.
:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:
How unlucky was he..
Beore the second WW. scottish international Archie "Punch" Kyle helped his team Hamilton Aceemicles lose against Leith Athletic.<br>A game that they were 4/11 on.<br>The captain Willie Moffat blew the wistle so to speak and the police were called.<br>Kyle received a sentance <br>On the saturday guess what the odds on team got beat anyway.
After the skulldugary in the 60s of Bronco Layne Peter Swan and Tony Kay who were found guilty of betting against there own team for £100 each.
I beleave that it was more involved than just one team but the end of crooked fotball was brought about with the discovery of Jimmy Gould the brains behind it all.
Attempts to bung referees have taken place and in 1960 leading ref Arthur Ellis disclosed that he had been offered £35 to make sure that Preston NE won there cup tie against Stoke.<br>In the same year 5 players from a popular nothern club <br>began naming each other when one of them reported a sting to the police.<br>One ex player stated that he had offered £500 to players of the Chelsie v Everton to help rig the game.
It would appear there has been no shickanary sinse then??????????
If that is the case Why is Soccer now 100% straight and Horseracing is not?
Cubone
I don’t see the immediate relevance of the question, but "money" is one obvious answer.
The BHB, which has been as vocal as any at times in their criticism of betting exchanges, are the ones who gave us banded racing, in which sphere you can in theory either make a guaranteed few thousand by bunging a race on a short-priced one or take your chances in a straight race for a pittance in prize money and jockeys’ fees. Even lower-division footballers are not faced with such "temptations".
There is also the small matter of its being more difficult to fix a football game involving 22 players and a referee than it is to ensure that one horse runs badly.
There is, furthermore, the craven attitude and downright ignorance of the racing authorities towards the individuals who might be corrupting the sport. However, there are signs that things might be improving of late on this front. Let’s hope so.
I once saw a tug of war contest were they bet 4/7 6/4..and all it required was one out of the 18 to gaurantee the winner.
Cubone.:biggrin:
Most professional footballers couldn’t have anything like that much influence on a game, even if they wanted to. :biggrin:
I do not wish to be argumentative on the point. my friend but are you saying not even a goal keeper ??<br>Ive seen goalkeepers that have been trying make a difference to a game so I cannot say that your oppinions have been thought out completly.
Cubone<br>
Why has soccer become so honest.??
I was working on the assumption that your above quote was an accurate one. And one obvious difference between football and racing is that the rewards for staying straight are greater in the former than the latter.
I follow football only in passing and am nowhere near so interested in whether it is straight or not as I am about the same issue with horseracing. Is soccer straight, as your above quote states, or is it not?
I also suspect that a top goalie could throw a game once or even twice (though I’m not really sure why he would), but that he’d be out of his well-paid job before he’d reached the changing room if he tried it on with regularity. By comparison, a jockey need only hoodwink the stewards (easily done) and move on: the spectators have no voice and don’t count, and employers (trainers) are ten-a-penny and might even be complicit in the jockeys acting in such a way.
<br>
(Edited by Prufrock at 8:11 pm on Feb. 28, 2005)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.