- This topic has 65 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
predictably I am with tdk, and tooting on this – particularly the later’s measured postback to Alan.
nore has made a dummy run that ended no where and distracted us from the real issues.
What gets me about this is that this guy didn’t get caught until he got too greedy (and/or too many people started to be aware of his activities and "joined the train") and there were a couple of extraordinary drifters in the market – not because it was difficult to find "backers" for them – but the "layers" (really "against backers") were prepared to take, or offer, any price because they knew it couldn’t win.  This raised alarms that couldn’t be ignored.<br> <br>In my opinion, the real problem comes with low level fraud, and it is is fraud, where someone with inside knowledge just grafts a few dollars (or hundreds) by betting "against a runner" – no one is suggesting that the betting exchange lacks integrity in respect to the negotiation of bets – but rather the bettors who use the platform exploit it because it, for the first time, allows someone to "bet against a runner and win without having to bet on the winner".  <br> <br>This is a real problem because, one day, the the betting exchange audit system will pick up the scent and unravel the whole sorry tale. <br> <br>In this regard the betting exchange’s integrity is arguably its own worst enemy – it creates the problem and then solves it – but it would be better if the door was never opened in the first place.<br> <br>This "farrier O’Sullivan" thing’s tentacles are going to reach all over the place and will damage racing’s integrity – and there will be more – and each time one of two things will happen.  Punters will loose faith and stop betting, or punters will accept that its systemically corrupt and do their best to get in on the act.  As it polarises it becomes self defeating – those that jump to the "dark side" struggle because there is less money in the "pool" and eventually "jump ship" and you have a death spiral.  <br> <br>I must say that that British Racing already leans to the "dark side" – which is perhaps why some think they can get away with anything. ÂÂÂ
Non-triers (where trainers a playing am accepted "game" with the handicappers (and punters) to get a horse weighted right for a "plunge") are rife in the UK.  This is not the case in most other racing jurisdictions (like Australia for one) – which is perhaps why our regulators have come down so tough on betting exchanges.<br> <br>The Australian Governments’ Task Force has clearly found that the facility afforded by betting exchange to "against back" is an unacceptable threat to the integrity of racing (for that matter any sporting event) and therefore should be banned on that issue alone. ÂÂÂ
They also found that there were other major points; the funding of racing; the proper payment of government taxes; and the increased risk of problem gambling and general harm from encouraging ordinary punters to bet "odds-on" exposing them to much higher losses for low, if not negligible returns.<br> <br>Betting Exchanges may well fall into that category in history "great idea BUT".  Bit like the Titanic really – hailed as the safest ship ever – sunk on her maiden voyage, not because it hit an iceberg but because of simple design flaws with its bulkheads.  The Titanic may have become the greatest ship in history if it hadn’t hit an iceberg.<br> <br>Farrier O’Sullivan is just the tip of the first big iceberg – and Betting Exchanges have hit it!  But that was inevitable when you sail into an ice field at full speed.
rouge homme
(Edited by redman at 9:55 am on July 15, 2003)
There’s an interesting piece in the Daily Express today by Rolf Johnson regarding the exchanges. I’m always keen on what he writes, but on this occasion I reckon he’s got it right.
A couple of paragraphs:
‘….we no longer need intelligence services to track unusual transactions when the exchanges have the technology to tell the blacksmith the last time he banged his thumb.<br>The difference between the opening of the exchanges and the twilight world of bookies is something the exchnages can publicise day-in, day-out. Immediately a horse takes a silly walk – walk? Flying leap – in the market the whole betting world is alerted.<br>When the Jockey Club gets up to speed such scams can be stamped on immediately.’
Of course we may have to wait a while for the latter, going on previous evidence!
The final paragraph reads:
‘At least the recent scams, which have come to light so quickly, show we have got the sport’s bad eggs on the run.’
Rob
<br>Gentlemen,
I’m not suggesting that there isn’t a problem, neither am I ‘shrugging my shoulders’.
I’m just pointing out that you’ve all apparently decided the farrier did it, when the evidence is flimsy to say the least. All we have is the unsupported information provided by the Post based on unidenitifed sources, presumably within Betfair.
At the moment, we have no solid proof that anyone ‘did’ anything to actively bring about the defeats of Hillside Girl and Nimello. We only know that the betting patterns were highly suspicious and indicated that one or more persons were certain these horses wouldn’t win.
I have to say I’m still unconvinced by the tale that the farrier lost £100k laying a horse in a Wolverhampton seller when the SP was 14/1. Where the hell did he find the backers? Or have I missed something and are the outsiders in AW sellers regularly attracting more business than horses at the same sort of price in big handicaps?
AP
What makes this thread so interesting is The Dark Knight’s assertion well before the off that Nimello was most unlikely to win the race and this, presumably not from the racecourse but from off-track!
If abnormalities in betting patterns like this can be spotted by the ordinary punter pre-race then surely alarm bells could be sounded straight away sufficiently loudly to alert JC security and have the animal thoroughly examined and, depending on the outcome, withdrawn. Or is that too sensible a solution?
Toodle pip!
James
I agree with you.
I really wish that racing would wake up and realise what stiff competition it faces for the betting pound (and, on a more general level, the leisure pound).
If a person believes that racing is bent, then betting on football would be a far smarter option. At least you know that that sport is on the level.
More and more, people are turning to sports betting or giving up betting altogether.
Personally, I believe that this trend is the biggest danger to our sport and must be addressed.
I would sugest that the most important weapon in fighting the trend is demonstrating and maintaining the integrity of the sport.
When I saw the Panorama so-called "expose" of racing, my though was "Man, racing must be even straighter than I thought. They’ve had to go back 10 years to find some dodgy races."
It’s important that more ammo isn’t given to racing’s knockers. And that means dealing swiftly and powerfully with those who undermine the sport’s integrity.
Will the JC do this?
Well .. they didn’t notice what so many others noticed at Salisbury. And when a trainer was caught talking about laying his horses on the exchanges what happened?
Steve
This certainly isn’t a problem which has just recently arisen.
Granted the ability to lay horses has in recent times highlighted the issue.
However as Ian correctly (IMO) points out, the option has always been there for the more dubious connections.
By owning / training a horse, that for whatever reason (which is not always as straightforward as it simply being ‘stopped) will not win a good %age of the book can be taken out.
Leaving those in the know free to clean up by betting against their own runner.
The question I have to ask myself though is, while this is a nightmare for you average punter (myself included), if I had a horse entered in a race but was aware it would need the run / disliked the ground etc. would I take advantage and bet against it.
Of course I would but in reality is this such a bad thing ?<br>As for not running the horse, I’m sure that if the only horses that ran each day were fully fit with conditions deemed to be, at least, suitable we’d be down to walkovers and matches for 50% of the cards.
Would this really help racing ?
At least with the introduction of the exchanges those of us previously kept in the dark can see the negative vibes and avoid the horse in question, just as I’m sure TDK did with Nimello.
Lee
Pre-Salisbury, Nimello’s overall fast ground (gf/frm) record was:
  150049904
Again pre-Salisbury, Nimello had finished 4th (btn 8.25l’s) at Hamilton on g/f grnd and 11th at Musselburgh (beaten 80+l’s). He was rated 74 on the day of the Salisbury race. There were 5 other horses rated 70 or higher.
Given that he was very likely to under perform on the g/f ground, it’s was understandable that people laid the horse to finish out of the top three.
Incidently, Mamore Gap was the only horse rated 70 or higher that made the top three. These higher-rated horses running in claimers so often have problems (physically or mentally in Naviasky’s case). There must be a few people who like to lay them.
One question I raise though is why Nimello’s connections ran the horse on ground he doesn’t like. He’d reportedly been hurt at Musselburgh so what does the trainer do? Run him on fast ground next time at Hamilton and, after two sand wins, run the horse on fast ground at Salisbury.
I question the thinking of anyone who backed Nimello at Salisbury (win and/or place) and the thinking of the trainer/owners for running the horse in that race.
Quote: from thedarkknight on 1:54 pm on July 15, 2003[br]Even with Nimello’s unimpressive stats (which also don’t take into account the grade of race the horse is running in) he still had won one in nine on fast ground and come 4th twice. Why the hell would anyone want to lay 25-1 a place in a claimer?
Presumably becuse there is a fair amount of evidence that says he doesn’t act on fast ground, or it hurts him or both. <br>Note that thefast ground win was his first run on the ground.  Despite his win, maybe it hurt him that day. It’s reasonable to assume that he had, or has developed, some physical problem which stops him putting it all in on ground with any jar in it. Of course that begs the question, ‘What the hell does the trainer think he’s doing running Nimello on the ground?’, but then we’ve been there.
Rob North
(Edited by robnorth at 2:30 pm on July 15, 2003)<br>
(Edited by robnorth at 2:31 pm on July 15, 2003)
Rob
Your assumptions about Nimello’s favoured conditions may well be correct, but it still doesn’t explain laying the horse TO PLACE  at well over 20/1. I am 100% convinced that logically it couldn’t have been someone simply taking an opinion on the form book, although I’m not saying that the blacksmith was definitely the culprit. As Alan stated there isn’t hard evidence for this but someone is certainly guilty IMO.
<br>Nick,
You say ‘someone is certainly guilty IMO’.
But guilty of what? Are you saying that Nimello was deliberately stopped? Are you saying that the Berry yard ran Hillside Girl whn they knew it was lame, or that Berry ordered the jockey to pull the horse up.
Or has the farrier conspired with the jockeys to have these horses stopped?
Isn’t this exactly the problem the JC face – difficult to obtain a conviction if you can’t even specify the exact nature of the crime.
<br>AP
Quote: from Nick Hatton on 2:45 pm on July 15, 2003[br]Rob<br><snip><br> I am 100% convinced that logically it couldn’t have been someone simply taking an opinion on the form book.<br><snip>
Why not?
Rob
Alan
I did cover myself to some extent by saying IMO. I will however give an honest answer to each of your questions …..
Guilty of what ?
Guilty of laying a horse with the knowledge that it would not win.
<br>Are you saying that Nimello was deliberately stopped ?
Beyond all reasonable doubt I am saying exactly this.
<br>Are you saying that the Berry yard ran Hillside girl when they knew it was lame, or that Berry ordered the jockey to pull the horse up ?
Almost certainly and it disgusts me that I am convinced of this being correct.
<br>Or has the farrier conspired with the jockeys to have these horses stopped ?
Possibly.
My answers are based not only on my opinion but the opinion of Don Butler, a recently retired bookmaker who is highly respected and has spent a lifetime in the game.
In his opinion laying slightly over the odds is a case of someone taking an opinion but someone laying many times the tissue price (to proper money) is a crook.
I am not 100% certain but I am 99.99%+ certain that Nimello was stopped. By who though I couldn’t say.
Nick
Nick
You are entitled to your opinion, but I believe there’s no more than hearsay to back it up.
I stand by the evidence of the form book and Nimello’s previous record.
Rob
Scary ~ that some of the cynical punters among us can’t smell a rat over the Nimello affair. The only alternative is that some moron with more money than sense happened to get lucky. No genuine punter/layer would have opposed the horse at the prices on offer, even if he thought the horse was a dodgepot.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.