September 17, 2003 at 13:17 #92104
prove it. present an argument why what you say is right and what I say is wrong. RHSeptember 17, 2003 at 15:26 #92105
- It is not the names of layers who participate in unusual movements that are significant.
- What matters is their relationship to the layed animals connections, and that will, in times of nefarious activity, require a much more effortful investigation than sitting at a pc.
September 17, 2003 at 17:49 #92106
- To be honest, if your opinion accurately represents the Betting Exchanges concerns about backers protection being limited to paying the levy, shrugging ones shouldrers, and passing the reponsibility onto the JC then they deserve all the criticism they are going to inevitably get.
- I am sure what you say is correct but your interpretation appears to be the minority verdict, to many of us the exchanges reaction to this problem smacks of the bare minimum and does not convince.
- The impression created is that the exchanges are only interested in their profits and not how they are generated.
September 17, 2003 at 18:00 #92107
- A simple but poigniant example is Betfair: I can find no warning advice on this site about the consequences of using its facilities for criminal gain. I think, if for no other reason but for the spirit of sportsmanship, that something along those lines should be clearly visible.
September 18, 2003 at 16:08 #92109
- Rather than specific, I fear the problem is general.
September 18, 2003 at 21:25 #92111
- I wonder how long it will be before the bookies start offering laying odds.
tdk, what pray tell, gives you reason to think that there is 0.1% that it is not a platform for fraud.
a betting exchange is 100% a platform for fraud – and not just "major" fraud – but low level systemic fraud – which, when uncovered (as it will be), will completely undermine the public’s belief in the integrity of racing as a (primarily) honest wagering plaform and send everyone off to sports betting, FOBTs and virtual racing.
RHSeptember 19, 2003 at 10:25 #92115
Don’t you think perhaps that you should be reporting your suspicions to the JC?
No one wants to be the dobber or whistleblower but perhaps your intuition, tempered with the edge of cynicism, is what the JC needs to give it a leg up in bring this issue to a head.
rouge hommeSeptember 19, 2003 at 11:55 #92116No axeMember
- Total Posts 5
We have to accept that exchanges raise integrity problems. We also have to accept that this is not new but only an extension of the present problem presented by bookmakers (ie any type of laying allows someone to benefit froma horse losing). Most layers on exchanges are not using inside info and nor are most bookmakers. But there must be a percentage of both that are. The mere fact that bookmakers are licensed offers little comfort at present. There are around 3500 (correct me if I’m wrong) bookmakers in the UK – who knows who most of them are, what they are doing or who is really behind some of them? Going back a couple of days Gringo said that pitches are registered (re on-course bookmakers) but even if you or I found out what the bookmaker’s real name was I’m not surte what that would tell us. It certainly doesn’t tell you whether or not they’re on close terms with a rich blacksmith or a jockey.
Of course exchanges magnify the problem but at the end of the day the real question is one of adequate regulation. Both exchanges and bookmakers are under-regulated. That is not the Jockey Club’s fault and there is nothing they can do it about it.
The long term (and realistically only) hope of improving things rests with the Government’s plans for a new Gambling Commission. I don’t know if they have their own specialists or not but if they’re going to get this right then perhaps instead of just firing off angry messages to each other on this forum the more expert of you could offer them some practical suggestions for improving things.September 19, 2003 at 15:10 #92117No axeMember
- Total Posts 5
Thanks, Ian – I’ll wade through them. I tried to speak to someone at the Gaming Board a while back, but they really knew nothing about betting (not their fault as it is not part of their remit yet). If I can think of anything constructive the men/women at DCMS will hopefully understand what I’m going on about. Like TDK it will have to wait until I’ve been through the form for tomorrow.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.