- This topic has 113 replies, 53 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I’m already bored by the (predictable) dismissive responses to the program on here and Betfair, and from Greg Wood: from people who think that they, as fans of horse-racing, have to be diametrically opposed to anything that tries to portray horse-racing in a negative light (and therefore undermines their interest in the sport). And they always say the same lazy things: it was ‘boring’, ‘nothing new’ or ‘sensationalist’.
It wasn’t boring: we may have read about the case before but never heard the phone recordings; and there was a wealth of new material (personally I’ve never heard of Bennet before). It wasn’t sensationalist: it stuck to the facts, was clear and professional.
It’s staggering that the case couldn’t go any further; yes, you can’t prove that a horse has been stopped but when a horse wins and its jockey phones-up someone who has layed it and says ‘Damn! Sorry’, and then when a horse loses and the same jockey phones-up the same person and says ‘Yes! We did it!’… it’s pretty damning. It’s not a naive jockey giving his honest opinion about a horse’s chances is it?.
Mothercare vouchers?
It seems ludicrous that some of the jockeys who featured on it are riding today. The only positives to come out of it were that the evidence exists in the first place, and that the corruption does seem confined to a few thugs trying a scam.
I thought there we good bits and not so good bits.
Like previously mentioned on here, the way Betfair and other organisations monitor the markets for large sums of money being put on a horse, and also the procedures in place after that, i personally wasn’t aware of. I.e. phoning the steward at the races and telling them about the market move, or the size of money that has been placed on a specific horse that would seem ‘out of character’ (in terms of bet) for a backer.
I was a bit worried when the representative of the BHA was seemingly playing down the evidence of the BBC, when it was there for him to see pretty much crystal clear what had been going on, he seemed more bothered how the BBC had got hold of such evidence rather than the factual evidence that was presented to him by the presenter.
I do think some of the ‘in your face’ interviews were done in a bit of a ‘rogue traders’ style approach, and weren’t exactly completely professional, yes it was probably the best time to speak to the parties involved (Lynch et al), but it did reduce the professionalism of the programme in my opinion.
I thought it was quite a good program, although it failed to point out that its not only the punters that are being done over (if allegations are true). There was no mention of the owners, trainers or stable staff off the horses that may/should have won.
Perhaps it has also raised awareness of how the jockeys involved are not entirely to blame. Of course they were naive in the first place, but once involved (IMO) it is very hard for them to get out of the situation.The programme taught those who followed the case little, IMO. The evidence was still completely circumstancial, however much there was, and the blame for the case collapsing still lies at the door of whoever employed Ray Murrihy. Although I did find the deciphering of Lynch’s end of the mobile phone conversation interesting- I can’t imagine any of the old-time excuses being able to explain away the wording he used!
I was a bit worried when the representative of the BHA was seemingly playing down the evidence of the BBC, when it was there for him to see pretty much crystal clear what had been going on, he seemed more bothered how the BBC had got hold of such evidence rather than the factual evidence that was presented to him by the presenter.
Isn’t the point that, it wasn’t there for the BHA to see what had been going on. Evidence from the trial still hasn’t been made available to the BHA.
To balance it up a little more fairly towards Betfair why was there no mention that certain bookmakers such as Chandlers had in the past allowed some trainers ‘no lose’ accounts.
So a lady Newmarket trainer for example who fancied one of hers she be allowed to have a bet with her bookmaker and if her horse lost there was nothing to pay.
Is that corrupt?
Flameproof jacket on. Right, here goes…
I think betting on horses NOT to win in the UK should be stopped immediately. It is not allowed in America, and rightly so, in my opinion.
Call me naive if you like, but from a punter’s point of view, I’ve always believed that betting on horses is about backing winners. That is why I will never play the exchanges or lay horses to lose.
.Himself
Just because America doesn’t allow it is a bit of a flimsy argument. America has had its fair share of scandals, most notably in the late 70’s I think where hundreds of races across about 30 tracks were "fixed" implicating numerous jockeys.
America also allows at the moment certain substances that almost everywhere else would result in a ban. Are you insinuating that the UK should become more like America in all ways or are you just cherry picking the bits you want
Just because America doesn’t allow it is a bit of a flimsy argument. America has had its fair share of scandals, most notably in the late 70’s I think where hundreds of races across about 30 tracks were "fixed" implicating numerous jockeys.
America also allows at the moment certain substances that almost everywhere else would result in a ban. Are you insinuating that the UK should become more like America in all ways or are you just cherry picking the bits you want
I only cited America as an example of a country who does not allow betting on horses to lose. Nothing more, nothing less. That does not mean that I am holding them up as an example of how horse racing should be run. I most definitely am not. I am well aware of their previous track recored, if you’ll excuse the pun.
As was pointed out in the Panorama programme, it is so much easier to get a horse NOT to win than to win. That is why it is easier for people like Miles Rodgers to prosper, and that is one of the reasons I am against this form of betting – not simply because America has banned it. Give me some credit.
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
The programme referred to the night the Police were tailing Rodgers and others and said the police stopped their surveillance and made it known to the car in front that they were on to them because they feared for Fallons safety.
Came out different in court, Rodgers knew he was been tailed and turned poacher himself.
"AN UNDERCOVER police officer who tailed professional gambler Miles Rodgers for more than 140 miles as part of a surveillance operation yesterday told the Old Bailey how he pretended to be a drink driver after he feared his cover had been blown.
Detective Constable Robert Stirling, of City of London police, told the jury at the race-fixing trial involving six-time champion jockey Kieren Fallon how he followed a silver Mercedes driven by Rodgers from South Yorkshire to Cambridgeshire on May 26, 2004 before being involved in a cat-and-mouse chase with the vehicle through the dark lanes of the Suffolk countryside in the early hours of the following morning.
The court heard how Stirling’s unmarked police car encountered the Mercedes, which contained Rodgers and three other men, near the village of Cowlinge – where Fallon lived at the time – shortly after 1am.
The car, which is alleged to have been driven by Rodgers, and contained two of the other men facing charges on conspiracy to defraud, Shaun Lynch and Philip Sherkle, and a man the prosecution claim is Daniel Kinahan, was said to have turned off the Newmarket Road on to a country track when being pursued by Stirling, allowing Stirling to pass him.
Moments later, Stirling was aware the Mercedes was behind him, and when he himself left the main road and turned off his engine and lights, the Mercedes "came right up behind" him and sat for about "60 seconds" with its headlights on full beam.
Stirling told the court how he then headed back to Newmarket, where he informed a colleague of the incident. As he stood at the kerbside, he said the Mercedes drove alongside. "I could see Miles Rodgers," Stirling said, "he was driving the car."
The jury also heard how the silver Mercedes effectively blocked in Stirling’s car as it pulled upsides him, with the officer confirming the occupants were "eyeballing" him. When Stirling found the Mercedes was still behind him shortly after 1.30am as he drove along Newmarket High Street, he decided to take evasive action.
"I saw a marked traffic vehicle at a service area, so I purposefully accelerated over a mini roundabout on the offside and went at speed up the hill towards the racetrack."
Stirling said he was attempting to draw attention to himself so as to appear as if he was not a police officer, adding that when he was pulled over he asked the uniformed officers to carry out a breath test and check over his car. As this was occurring, he told the court he saw the silver Mercedes drive past. Asked who was at the wheel, he responded: "It was the same man. . . it was Miles Rodgers"- Total Posts 17716
The fact that the HRA arrange a seminar on inside information – purely for jockeys – says everything about whom they’d like to be the scapegoat for racings integrity problems.
Incorrect.
Yes, seminars have been held covering this subject, but they have been made available to the racing industry as a whole, not just jockeys.
That is not what the programme implied, and both the heads of the BHA and the Jockey’s Association have just stated that they are specifically aimed at jockeys.
Are they the only ones who have access inside information, or who can influence the running of a horse? I think not, but my concerns are with integrity as a whole, rather than cosmetic appearance.Just because America doesn’t allow it is a bit of a flimsy argument. America has had its fair share of scandals, most notably in the late 70’s I think where hundreds of races across about 30 tracks were "fixed" implicating numerous jockeys.
America also allows at the moment certain substances that almost everywhere else would result in a ban. Are you insinuating that the UK should become more like America in all ways or are you just cherry picking the bits you want
I only cited America as an example of a country who does not allow betting on horses to lose. Nothing more, nothing less. That does not mean that I am holding them up as an example of how horse racing should be run. I most definitely am not. I am well aware of their previous track recored, if you’ll excuse the pun.
As was pointed out in the Panorama programme, it is so much easier to get a horse NOT to win than to win. That is why it is easier for people like Miles Rodgers to prosper, and that is one of the reasons I am against this form of betting – not simply because America has banned it. Give me some credit.
And my point is America have the same problems without allowing exchanges. As you point out it is easier NOT to win than to win and that has always been the case and most probably always will be. The difference is now is that there are hundreds and thousands of people acting as bookmakers and not just the old privileged few. It wasn’t unheard of in past times for bookmakers to have "contacts" all over the place to try and give them an extra edge. Making money from horses not winning has been going on years before Betfair arrived and will go on years after if Betfair is scrapped. Its just a case of whose pockets it lines. All IMVHO
I well remember the bookies pushing out the price and continuing to take money on that doped horse of Dick Herns (i think) in the eighties
Remember McCririck going on and on about it live on C4
How did the bookies know what was going to happen?
And what was done about it?
Nothing…
What would happen now if a high profile doped horse was pushed out on the exchanges today (with the rats following suit..)?
I would be confident it would at the very least be followed up
i reckon specsavers have recently offloaded their whole stock of rose-tinted spectacles
According to the " Live News " section on the Racing Post website this evening :
RACING Post columnist David Ashforth is to appear on the Danny Baker show on TalkSPORT radio station tonight, at 8.15pm to talk about last night’s BBCTV Panorama broadcast entitled Racing’s Dirty Secrets.
TalkSPORT can be found on 1089/1053am throughout the majority of the UK. However, in some areas, talkSPORT can be found on 1071 and 1107am in Nottingham and Newcastle respectively.
The very nature of racing will mean that it will always be a target for criminal activity. It is also difficult for all but the most blatant of examples of fraudulent activity to be identified and evidence gathered to secure convictions.
In addition racing has a long history of such activity, stretching back to it’s infancy.
None of that should mean that we shirk away from the most diligent and painstaking work in order to unearth the perpretators. Never before have the nations gamblers had such a choice of events and sports to bet on. The more racing is seen as providing an opportunity for some conman or other to avail them of their hard-earned by cheating the more these punters will desert racing and the more the sport will be marginalised.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.