- This topic has 1 reply, 2 voices, and was last updated 18 years ago by
.
- Posts
Under the headline "IBAS brings new blood on board" in the Racing Post on 12/05/08, chief executive of IBAS, Chris O’Keeffe, states:
"We’ve been trying for some time to get a greater cross-section of people to come on the board and participate in policy-making…..We’re opening a new chapter for IBAS. It’s a time of greater accountability….."
To what degree has IBAS ("the betting industry’s preferred disputes settlement organisation") been "trying" to get a greater cross-section of people to come on the board? I have not seen any adverts or any pleas from the organisation for well-connected individuals with experience in betting matters to throw their hats into the ring.
I have plenty of respect for the two non-permanent members of IBAS I have worked with in the past. But the organisation has suffered from a lack of transparency and a perception that it gives far too many home-team decisions.
Ushering in a trio of superannuated industry mandarins behind closed doors is not the way to solve the problem. IMO.
You’d like to see the case law, with rulings published, but as they take mutually exculsive stances on who is right (the betting operator of course!) on the same event for different betting operators, you wouldn’t think it would do much good.
Who gets to decide the betting adjudicator anyway? If a punter takes a case to another set of independent adjucitors is the bookie expected to co-operate?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.