- This topic has 113 replies, 53 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
The programme was much less sensationalist than previous efforts I thought. Strangely it seemed to give equal weight to jockeys telling their mates that they don’t fancy something they are riding to actually stopping horses.
Inside trading is a very difficult subject for racing. If you get a tip from a stable lad, is that inside trading? If a sub-editor at the Racing Post backs the Pricewise tip once he’s seen the page is that inside trading?
Maybe betting exchanges need to be more stringently controlled and the FSA should step in – if nothing else, shouldn’t people who back and lay on exchanges pay income tax on their profits?
Considering the number of suspicious races that betfair passed on to the authorities, does anyone think that betfair should have frozen or closed the accounts if they suspected that some customers were defrauding others?
Will be interesting to see how the Racing Post report this…the usual anti-BHA bollocks from Alistair Down no doubt.
- Total Posts 17716
Vulnerable is the word DJ, in more ways than one.
The programme showed about 20 races were horses were not considered "off", in none of them was the jockey seen to be at fault.
Why then, is no one asking why they weren’t considered ‘off’ in the first place, the only concern being that someone was actually told about it?I’ve never understood the concept of being able to back a horse to lose; seems to me right from the start it was always going to be and always will be open to corruption….
I cant accuse him of anything on here and not going to, but that conversation was interesting wasnt it?
Thought the programme was good overall. For the non betting public it explained things well, although i would have prefered to see some effort at context in terms of how few races are probably involved. Well….i hope so anyway
I’ve never understood the concept of being able to back a horse to lose; seems to me right from the start it was always going to be and always will be open to corruption….
I’m an expert at picking losing horses – especially on the flat – I have a better "strike rate" than those guys quoted in Panorama – should I expect a visit from the BHA
(sorry trying to inject some levity into the debate)After day one of the test match I would wonder if some England players hit the lay button on the England win market
That would require a certain degree of hand to eye co-ordination.
Would prefer Tony Soprano and a couple of his team to interview Bennett next time
Then i would laugh….
Considering the number of suspicious races that betfair passed on to the authorities, does anyone think that betfair should have frozen or closed the accounts if they suspected that some customers were defrauding others?
Yes
why if nothing was wrong why were the people invoved so against talking to the program makers.
Nowhere was it made clear that the transparency of Betfair’s markets make it easy for anybody bothered to take the time to see if a horse is seriously unfancied, and act accordingly.
That’s a very naiive attitude, or mabe you are right and drifters really do never win. Surely it is an unnaccepatble position that form students can end up in a position of backing a horse because it drifts to an ever more ‘value’ price, only for the reality of the situation to be, the bigger the price becomes, in reality the lesser value the bet is.
Good point Tenbob. Bit of a give away wasnt it? And if they had even the brain of a mouse, they would have just shrugged shoulders at the Panorama team and said nothing.
Nowhere was it made clear that the transparency of Betfair’s markets
They explained how Betfair monitor the markets themselves and pass on the information which is far more important than you or me doing so
why if nothing was wrong why were the people invoved so against talking to the program makers.
Small little thing called "legal advice". Any brief worth his salt would have told anyone connected to the ongoing enquiries not to talk to the press.
understandable if you have something to hide
I think the Panorama team did a good job and it was much better than their first production six years ago.
Why did the HRA not have the same access to police evidence as the BBC? Surely there is enough there for action to be taken against a few of those featured and warn them off for life?
Why did the HRA not have the same access to police evidence as the BBC? Surely there is enough there for action to be taken against a few of those featured and warn them off for life?
Let’s hope so Wallace, I’ll be surprised, disappointed, and disillusioned if Fergal Lynch is still riding in 12 months time.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.