- This topic has 74 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
I know what you mean BC.
I backed a horse today that I had spotted being absolutely strangled on a previous run (purely my own subjective reading of the run of course!).<br>Unfortunately it appears that today was not the day either, as the handbrake seemed to me to be fully engaged once again!<br>Personally I don’t feel that I’ve been robbed, merely that I’ve possibly misread the signs and I remain confident I’ll get the horse right at a future date.
I used the term ‘victim’ as what is alleged in the cases in question is a crime and there are alleged to be victims of that crime who have (as a group at least) been cited in the criminal charges.
I would still maintain though that there is a difference between a horse ‘not being off’ because it is being prepared for a future target and a horse with a clear winning chance being stopped from obtaining its best placing specifically, and with the sole intention, of taking money from those backing the horse.
Wit’s point is a good one as part of the political logic that has seen the set up of the Gambling Commission and the Gambling Act 2005 is ostensibly at least to modernise the law in this field and increase accountabliity and consumer protection.
Whether failing to run horses on their merits for the purpose of improving a handicap mark and disguising ability for a future coup constitutes cheating at betting is an interesting debate.
Seems to me we’re at a stage where the adminstrators of the sport and the legislators are all playing catch up with the rapidly changing reality of a game that new technology has created.
Hi Sean,
you are a man who both looks at these things independently and gets badgered by miffed members of the public along the same lines, so what did you make of the performance of Papillon De Iena at Worcester this evening?
PM me if you’re concerned about libel laws :biggrin:
Sean,
My point was not just, as we agree, that the HRA should do its own policing but that the way it has acted in this case undermines the acceptance that they are the " Statutory Authority" which could lead to chaos.
In the Gary Carter case ( as I understand it ) no local stewards noticed that Carter was not riding a horse on its merits but when evidence of unusual betting patterns became available from Betfair the HRA conducted a full investigation retrospectively and came up with a list of 11 -14? races in which he had not apparantly allowed a horse to race on its merits. He was invited to discuss same and subsequntly was warned off as were the co conspiritors. I have no argument with that which is exactly as you would expect of a Ruling Body charged with overseeing the integrity of racing.
Compare and contrast with the Fallon case before the HRA passed their file to the Police.
Again the local Stewards spotted nothing amiss. Again Betfair signalled races with unusual betting patterns. If something was wrong in the races it could only be conducted by people licenced by the HRA so it was open to the HRA ( a la Carter ) to review the races thoroughly and in particular to see if any of their licenced jockeys had acted improperly. This does not require enormous resources we are talking of about 18 to 80 races as I recall and only a few suspicious horses in each race as indicated by Betfair.
Did the HRA review same ?
<br>If they did (and I seem to remember Press Comment that videos were being sent to an Australian expert) they did not follow their normal practice of informing the Public that various jockeys were being invited to comment on their rides in particular races.
Perhaps they reviewed the races and found no problems ( one implication of the failure to interview various jockeys) . Gosh I hope they are not forced to admit this in Court but surely they would not subsequently have passed the file to Police if this was the case?
Perhaps they reviewed the races and found that certain jockeys did appear not to have run their horses on their merits. Can this be the case because to pass the file on to the Police before they had interviewed the various suspects would not only have been an abdication of their duties to police racing but pretty unfair to their licenced jockeys.
Horror of Horrors do you think they did not review the races at all? This would certainly be a complete abdication of their responsibilities and would give rise to a who governs racing debate which threatens total chaos in racing. Lets all go to court if we do not like HRA’s decisions or lack of same!
I believe it incumbent on the HRA to have publically made clear their position on the races with unusual betting patterns, and disciplined as necessary the licenced agents for whom they are responsible before they passed the file onto Police to consider other matters which are outside the scope of the HRA and am filled with dread at the implications of this case to the day to day administration and policing of Racing.
Hello Rory.<br>Long time no see – hope you’re well mate.
Races like that one are very difficult. It’s a very low class selling race so you have to consider what each of the horses is doing in that grade. You also have to consider the fact that Papillon de Iceni’s form over fences seemed to be degenerating.
In other words there are very sound reasons for taking on a horse like that.
It is also important to remember that the market is heavily influenced by what prices exchange layers are willing to offer about short priced runners like this and it is possible for a momentum to gather with layers competing to ‘get’ a horse which can start a drift which gathers it’s own momentum.
Last night I watched a horse that had been backed into 4/1 in the morning drift to 10/1 on course and to a high of around 20/1 on Betfair. That horse won.
The question I always ask in these cirumstances is ‘what is a reasonable price at which to lay the horse, if I’m keen to oppose it?’
Personally I think you’d have to be crazy to lay a horse who is so clearly superior to its rivals on all known form at the kind of prices that were available there unless you had further information which encouraged you to expect a poor run.
The trouble is that this is only my personal opinion and everyone is entitled to lay horses at whatever price they want.
I agree it looks terrible when something like this happens but unless you can see that the jockey is clearly not trying, or jumps off the thing, it’s very tough to determine that there is anything amiss and to link the drift with events in the race and it is of course more than possible that there is no link between what’s happened in the market and how the horse has run.
Not sure what the answer is. Personally I steer well clear of such horses in such circumstances but that’s no solution clearly.
A market drift does not always indicate that a poor run is imminent and as we saw last night, horses can drift dramatically and win but such a pronounced drift followed by such an abject performance is clearly going to raise eyebrows and understandably so.
What could or should be done though? If the stewards are satisfied that the running and riding are not in question what can we do other than note it with a view perhaps to spotting any trends regarding similar performances etc?
Any bright ideas?<br>
Evening Galejade and welcome to the forum,
I agree I think (it’s been a long day!) with much of what you’ve said.
I’m not sure though that I agree that involving the police necessarily undermines the idea of the HRA as the statutory authority dealing with the governance of the sport. The jockeys that you mention have been warned off under the JC rules rather than being charged with criminal offences.
Fallon, Williams and Lynch have been charged with criminal offences in cases brought not by the JC but by Betfair and the JC.
As I’ve said elsewhere and frequently. let’s wait and see what the real details of these cases are and how the court cases go before passing judgement.
I wonder if there is some sense in which the chat I’ve just been having with Rory highlights the Jockey Club’s predicament at that time.
As the hour is late let’s speculate for a moment. Let’s say you were running a sport and you had concerns about some of the participants. You never had anything with which to challenge those people – no clear evidence of them breaking your rules.
You then discover that your concerns are shared by a third party who has concerns not only about your group of participants but also about a group of their own members and that there seems to be a link between the two groups activities.
Individually neither of you can take action against your members but together you think you may have something. In fact you may have the beginnings of a case that a crime has been committed.
More importantly you feel that by joining forces and going to a higher authority you may be able not only to root out some wrongdoers but actually make a significant step towards protecting the long term interests of your sport.
Imagine too perhaps that previous attempts to discipline some of your own sports members have backfired specatcularly causing you huge embarassment and encouraging others to feel that they can beard your authority with impunity.
As I say, pure speculation on my part.
All I would add though is that I personally (and it’s only a personal view and no, I won’t produce evidence to back it up) believe that we were in very real danger a few years back now of reaching a stage where a growing number of individuals were beginning to feel they could treat the rules, the laws and the consumer with absolute contempt. Had that been allowed to continue the consequences would have been disasterous.
Galejade I do not think it was the HRA that employed Ray Murrihy to review the races, it was City London Police.
http://www.racingpost.co.uk/news/cuttings_library.sd
Do a search on Murrihy. the article is 22/10/04
(Edited by bluechariot at 9:30 pm on Aug. 1, 2006)
galejade,
Carter was warned off  for  three  JC rule breaches:
– 243, which prohibits the provision for reward of private information about a horse
– 220(iv), because he associated with Christopher Coleman, whom he knew to be an excluded person at the time of the eight races, about horseracing matters
– Rule 220(viii), because he was said to have tried to mislead Jockey Club investigators at various stages of their investigations into the eight races.
<br>It is true that as an alternative to the 243 charge he was charged with breaking Rule 220(i), for allegedly assisting Christopher Coleman and others in organising a corrupt betting operation, in which they laid Carter’s mounts to lose in the eight races with the benefit of the inside information Carter provided to Christopher Coleman.  ÂÂÂ
But, in the words of the JC tribunal, since he was found to have transgressed  243 (ie the provision for reward of private information)  "It is not therefore necessary to consider the alternative case of breach of Rule 220(i) that was advanced in relation to each of the races."
<br>I don’t know (do you?) whether the Carter case  was or was not also reported to the police.
<br>I do know that if the JC saw evidence of a corrupt betting operation, they had a duty to report it to the police, rather than carry out their own procedures first as you suggest.
<br>Crimes are offences against the state – they are not something to be resolved by private legal tribunals or by agreement between individuals.   In fact its illegal to try and do that.
The JC report of the Carter case simply does not back up that the JC did what you apparently suggest should be the HRA role of suppressing reporting suspected crime until it has first completed its disciplinary procedures under the Rules of Racing:
http://www.thejockeyclub.co.uk/news/new … hp?URN=290
As soon as the HRA has a basis for suspecting crime, at law its not a matter of choice for it whether and when it reports it. ÂÂÂ
best regards
wit
(Edited by wit at 8:29 am on Aug. 2, 2006)
<br>Forget my hypothesising, as they say in US comedies, ‘err yeah, what he said’!
As usual Wit gets straight to the heart of it and says in a few short paragraphs what I’ve failed to articulate in a few hundred words!
Thanks for that I can now go to bed and sleep sweet dreams where Pagan Sword slices through his field to win going away.
Wit,
Thank you for correcting my ignorance – you obviously know what you are talking about. I had not realized that if the JC saw evidence of a corrupt betting operation thay have a duty to report it to the police rather than carry out some at least of their their own procedures.
I note that in the Carter case he was " as an alternative said to be in breach of 220(1) for allegedly assisting … in organising a corrupt betting operation" but the JC felt able to state that it was not necessary to consider this alternative case. As you rightly surmise I have no idea whether the JC reported and discussed the Carter case with the police but I guess we must assume they did review this matter fully with them or otherwise their confidence that it was not necessary to consider the corrupt betting operation would not sit easily with their duty to report to the police such evidence as they had seen to enable them to mention the said corrupt practice
Equally I have no knowledge when the JC realised that they might have evidence of a corrupt betting operation in the "Fallon " case. Obviously Betfair forwarded to them unusual betting patterns in certain races but I would be surprised if the JC could or should consider this evidence of a corrupt betting operation without some form of investigation. I guess my surprise is that this investigation does not include any discussion with such of their licenced personal who could assist. I thought that they had interviewed Berry over the Hillside Girl affair and taken some action – but it is late at night and I must be mistaken. I have no memory of them talking to any others of those either originally investigated or now charged but again it is late at night.
I trust and hope that you are correct and that none of the HRA’s actions or lack of same are cause for severe criticism in Court
<br>Sean
I enjoyed your late night speculation. I cannot recall any spectacular failures of the HRA or its forerunners in enforcing their rulings – but memory fades with increasing age
Bluechariot – thanks. You are of course absolutely correct.
<br>Obviously we all await " The Trial" with bated breath to which I was adding the fond hope that whatever the result the HRA emerge stronger rather than weaker.
Galejade
You’re right that the JC did look into the Hillside Girl affair:
http://www.thejockeyclub.co.uk/news/new … earchText=
But note :
a.  the timing of this decision  – 30 September 2004,  the first set of arrests having happened on 1 September 2004, but the arrest of Berry and Sullevan at that point not yet happened – they took place 1 December 2004:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.j … xhors.html
<br>b.  the JC statement on 30 September 2004 (paras 4 and 6) that it had either withdrawn or not made findings "as to whether or not the conduct alleged amount to a corrupt or fraudulent practice"  <br>(which – rightly or wrongly –  i would read as the JC backing away from involvement in anything they anticipated might touch on a criminal investigation); and
c.  concentrating instead on specific JC Rule breaches.
<br>As to when and how the JC involved the police:
http://www.thejockeyclub.co.uk/news/new … earchText=
<br>As to who was or was not interviewed in the police investigations – who knows  (outside of those with access to the full papers).  Maybe time will tell.
<br>best regards
wit<br>
(Edited by wit at 3:30 am on Aug. 2, 2006)
Wit you say "I do know that if the JC saw evidence of a corrupt betting operation, they had a duty to report it to the police, rather than carry out their own procedures first as you suggest. "
Where do you draw the line between speculating about a corrupt operation and hard evidence. <br>Say Betfair tell the HRA about suspicious betting patterns surely they have to do some investigations before informing the police as a lot of the evidence will be circumstantial. Also do Betfair and the other exchanges have the same obligation to inform?<br>Where do Bookmakers fit in with all of this as they will not disclose anything unless the courts order?<br>Thanks<br>
hi bluechariot
interesting questions.
most of the current legal impetus to report to authorities – which of course is far  wider in its scope than just racing – is coming from the recent statutory rather than the more venerable common law side of things.
the breadth of definitions in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and the Moneylaundering Regulations 2003 mean that its entirely possible for folk in many areas now unwittingly to commit an offence simply by carrying on activities which for years may have been regarded as part of their normal business.
in certain cases you don’t even actually have to know or suspect  – its enough that a court decides that objectively there are/were reasonable grounds so that you should have known or suspected.
The basic scheme of the legislation seems to be to define as many folk as possible as being involved in "moneylaundering"  (a term that covers anything upwards of paying a window cleaner in cash where you suspect he might be committing the crime of under-reporting his income to the Revenue) – and then to give those a let-out from being punished for such "involvement" if they write to inform the authorities of their suspicions.
http://www.soca.gov.uk/financialIntel/disclosure.html
Through encouraging what some might call a national "nark" culture, and leaving it to each individual to determine when he/she feels uneasy enough about something to report it, the scheme is clearly weighted to encourage maximum, self-protective, reporting.
Then there’s the "regulated sector" where obligations are greater than on the public at large.  Under the 1993 ML Regs, the regulated sector was restricted to mainstream financial services.  By the 2003 ML Regs, the regulated sector had expanded considerably to include (among others) casinos and those dealing in cash in various ways. ÂÂÂ
To the extent not already within the regulated sector (and most exchanges seem to take the view they do regard themselves as within it), bookies and exchanges are not too far off being next on the list for inclusion.
Against that background, for your specific questions, IMO:
–  the authorities don’t give guidance on what they regard as "reasonable" (understandable from their perspective) but legally the line is drawn at the suspicion level of an individual (with some kind of objective minimum standard), so there are expectations of receiving reports long before the hard evidence stage – circumstancial is not a problem.   report early, report often is the watch-word – they haven’t yet complained of being inundated.
–  since there are a number of ex-police around HRA integrity these days, one assumes that in practice the test there is when those noses start twitching
–  the exchanges presumably have gone to the JC/ HRA to date under a  mixture of their co-operation agreements and maybe also an element of seeking to shuffle off  responsibility for further investigation.  <br> I  gather some exchanges use quite sophisticated software tracking:  I don’t know how much they then put into filtering what that produces before they go to the HRA with it, but in a commercial operation profits aren’t made from volunteering to spend resources overly on policing.
–  whether or not technically exchanges are specifically in the "regulated sector" for ML purposes, many of them behave as if they are in their conditions of use, and they are at the least under the same reporting obligations as the rest of us, so absolutely legally there are obligations on them to go themselves (even if in practice they may feel happier going in tandem with the ruling body of the particular sport)
–  technically I think bookies are still outside the regulated sector – but the NCIS in its previous annual reports did made mention of looking forward to their inclusion. ÂÂÂ
Since the obligations to make these kinds of report can even override legal professional privilege, legally the obligations are certainly strong enough to override Data Protection Act, contractual confidentiality, and whatever other counter-obligations bookies may feel themselves subject to .    ÂÂÂ
Offhand, I don’t know if the ML regime has been challenged under any human rights angle yet. ÂÂÂ
best regards
wit<br>
Wit<br>Thanks for your detailed reply
<br>This is the man!
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/s … 70,00.html
(Edited by bluechariot at 2:14 pm on Aug. 2, 2006)
some of the australian press is a bit more forthright in its terms:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
WORD is out that a tongue-tie may be applied to Ray Murrihy, the Racing NSW chief steward, about the media and serious issues. Some are disgruntled that Murrihy is heard on radio and television discussing pending inquiries and being too gabby with the press.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
http://www.smh.com.au/news/max-presnell … 13017.html
best regards
wit
Wit it is nice to listen to your expert oppinions.it has been some time..
As this topic is very important to the UK better, can I ask a few questions.
For a person to be charged with fraud against a betfair customer. I can assume that there must be a paper trail and telephone conversations. that will be the mainstay of evidence that a jury will consider.
Watching a horserace to see if a breech of rules took place is impossible for a jury, matters not how experienced they are to find without any shadow of doubt.I watch many taces during the year and you could never say with out doubt that a horse was stopped for financial gain just from watching the race.
Telephone conversations and tape recordings of conversations. a little more simple for a jury to understand however history shows that jockeys are renound for spiving. tipping horses that they ride themselves or others. may be against JC rules now but not serious enough to be warned off for life.
Now then a paper trail of money and cheques that is a lot easier to understand by 12 just men and true.
So those who say impossible to convict anyone of a very serious crime will have to wait for the full evidence to be uncovered.
Cubone
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.