- This topic has 20 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
For anyone interested, Boycie has written an interesting article on his blog relating to the Gullible Gordon incident:-
Requiring them not to lay horses is a small price to pay for the other advantages they enjoy
Not in some cases it isn’t (a small price)!
I struggle with the logic that owners should be allowed to back but not lay. Surely in BOTH cases there is potential for them to use information from outwith the public domain to gain an edge on other market players. Is it just that laying is ‘easier’ (to execute and deliver on) than backing? I think, philosophically, backing and laying are one and the same thing – aren’t they (from the perspective of controlling owner’s betting rights)?
On the credit issue – I’ve never understood why betfair should be any different to any other business and should be able to decide themselves whether to offer credit or not. Isn’t whether or not beftfair extends credit an issue for betfair? In the event that someone defaults the loss would lie with betfair would it not? What is different about betfair extending credit for someone to gamble with as compared to, for example, Ladbrokes or Corals?
If the issue is lack of transparency over credit arrangements I’d agree they should be under no obligation to provide credit details on specific individuals but I’d also agree with SB that they (betfair) should be a bit clearer when outlining their general policy.One final thing –
As the industry regulator I believe the BHA should be able to interrogate any betfair account at any time without waiting for Betfair to report anything they (betfair) deem to be suspicious. As SB points out, betfair have
potential
conflicts of interest influenced by commercial considerations when it comes to ‘shopping’ people.
Some of the BHA security budget should pay for a resource which does nothing else (than interrogate betfair accounts).
As the industry regulator I believe the BHA should be able to interrogate any betfair account at any time without waiting for Betfair to report anything they (betfair) deem to be suspicious.
The Memorandum of Understanding Betfair has with various governing bodies (and it’s a long list these days) allows for information to be passed to and from governing bodies.
"…your Personal Information may be disclosed to any regulatory or sporting body in connection with policing the integrity or enforcing the rules of a sport or game and/or prevention and detection of crime and with whom the Group has agreements (Memoranda of Understanding or “MOUs”) from time to time for the sharing of such data and where the Group considers that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that you may be involved in a breach of such rules or the law, have knowledge of a breach of such rules or the law or otherwise pose a threat to the integrity of the relevant sport or game. Those bodies may then use your Personal Information to investigate and act on any such breaches in accordance with their procedures."
Anyone signing up for a Betfair account agrees to this.
http://www.betfair.com/aboutUs/Privacy.Policy/Typically thoughtful piece from Sean, though.
Yes NN, but what I’m talking about is taking betfair OUT of teh loop on this and allowing BHA
direct access
to accounts in order to police for suspicious activity rather than, as is the case now, betfair doing this and then reporting the suspicious activity.
Where would you draw the line?
Direct access to "bookmaker accounts" or to "bank accounts"?
I don’t think you would get this past the "The Information Commissioner" and I certainly would not like the "BHA" acting as a private police force.
Regards
Indeed. You’d like to see some evidence the BHA actually know what they are looking for for a start.
- Total Posts 17716
The BHA don’t need immediate access to online betting accounts, just a means of identifying suspicious activity. Were they to implement a computer system that used clearly defined and pre-agreed rules (that is, make agreement to the rules a necessity of obtaining a license) to compare the betting habits of Betfair customers and online bettors against a Weatherby’s database of registered owners, there would be no need to needlessly invade anyone’s privacy; potentially damaging activity is flagged and the identities of those involved instantly revealed.
The system could also be used to identify patterns in the betting habits of people working on behalf of licensed individuals (someone that always lays a particular yard’s horses successfully, for instance).
I’d be very uncomfortable with the BHA having access to my account with Betfair- not because I have anything to hide, but because if I act within the rules, what I back and lay is none of their business. How could you guarantee the security of such sensitive information? A complete non-starter if you ask me.
Imperfect as it may be, I’d be happy to rely on Betfair or any other exchange operator informing the relevant authority of any wrongdoing.- Total Posts 17716
What happens if and when Betfair are floated, Carv? Will they sacrifice shareholder dividends to maintain the integrity of horse racing? Will they risk the wrath of their investors to shop corrupt high-rollers?
I doubt it.
As I said before, the monitoring process could be entirely confidential until such time as the BHA’s attention is required. Even if analysts were able to assess individual transactions in real time, they don’t need to be able to see who is responsible until certain preset criteria have been satisfied.
Ban owners from laying horses to which they have either a direct or indirect connection, permit them to back only their own horses in races in which they are involved and allow a computer to monitor exchange/bookmaker activity according to a set of rules agreed to by every licensed individual as a condition of obtaining that license.
Trends and patterns are easily formed and analysed, suspicious activity can be investigated immediately and the evidence produced would be irrefutable.
What’s all the fuss about
armchair, interesting you used option, IF and when betfair float, seems in doubt.
Latest whisper is that launch will be announced in September.
Betfair is no longer a debt free operation and the lackluster leadership for what could have been a perpetual money machine has been sorely lacking in recent years.
In recession free Oz, despite the breakthrough into Tasmania, debt support reported from Crown alone has increased this year from $7.7M to $11.7M and Crown alone have lost $5.7M on their backing deal.
Betfair agents though report rising Betfair business whilst the deserted TAB agencies are pulling out fast. So the product remains good but maybe well past its sell by date and many might get stung if they buy in now at a price based on what it might have achieved in the past.
The BHA
do
employ people to analyse Betting Exchange accounts in real time but with access only to a unique ID number, no personal details such as name, address or phone number are disclosed without a whole host of hoops being jumped though.
They also use an automated database of connections linked to the access they have to the betting accounts.
Spot on Tictac. Greg Wood gives the lowdown here:
Security chief Paul Scotney tells Greg Wood that racing’s corruptors now have nowhere to hide
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2007/au … ing.sport1
As a postcript, one of the layers of the corrupt jockey mentioned at the end was last seen ‘hiding’ in the York winners enclosure follwoing the Ebor.
Glenn,
You’ve been around long enough to know that the name Greg Wood must be written with the prefix ‘the excellent’, in a similar manner to the name of the ex Charlton striker ‘Big’ Carl Leaburn.
Who am I to argue with him? – the excellent Greg i mean, not big Carl.
The warned off owner of the Ebor winner was registered through Ireland and his application to be an owner in the UK was being challenged by the BHA, according to the, er, excellent Lydia Hislop.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.