- This topic has 219 replies, 51 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
…Paul Ostermeyer, who has written an entertaining blog outlining his argument supporting his view that punters should have NO SAY in how racing is run.
Needless to say I am totally at odds (sorry about the pun) with Paul on this one but it’s an interesting debate.
Here are a few of Paul’s comments –
<i>”Do we really want losers influencing how the sport is run?”</i>
<i>
“Most bet for greed, looking for the elusive big win. They will bet on anything they think will give them the chance to win and even if they do fluke a big win, as sure as night follows day, they will lose it all again as greed prevails over common sense.”</i><i>”To those who say without betting there would be no racing, I would say you are wrong.”</i>
<i>”So I have no sympathy, no time, for the punter who thinks he has some God given right, by virtue of being a punter, to tell the sports administrators how to run the sport.”</i>
Typically strong stuff from Paul – but do you agree with him?
Here’s the link to the full piece –
http://osterbeast.blogspot.com/2011/11/punters-dont-rule-ok.html
…Paul Ostermeyer, who has written an entertaining blog outlining his argument supporting his view that punters should have NO SAY in how racing is run.
Needless to say I am totally at odds (sorry about the pun) with Paul on this one but it’s an interesting debate.
Here are a few of Paul’s comments –
"Do we really want losers influencing how the sport is run?"
"Most bet for greed, looking for the elusive big win. They will bet on anything they think will give them the chance to win and even if they do fluke a big win, as sure as night follows day, they will lose it all again as greed prevails over common sense."
"To those who say without betting there would be no racing, I would say you are wrong."
"So I have no sympathy, no time, for the punter who thinks he has some God given right, by virtue of being a punter, to tell the sports administrators how to run the sport."
Typically strong stuff from Paul – but do you agree with him?
Here’s the link to the full piece –
http://osterbeast.blogspot.com/2011/11/punters-dont-rule-ok.html
Some very good Pinzaesque quotes there David
They would look better in context
Actually I think the quotes are an accurate assessment of the average betting shop race by race punter. They deserve no sympathy and definitely do not deserve to have a voice.
Yes Paul – I agree the ‘losers’ one is a bit misleading. Quite happy to take it out if you think it’s unfair.
But I do think it captures the essence of the piece and I did want to spark a debate. It’s like setting fire to an early bonfire, you sometimes need a bit of fuel!
Agree but should we sift through the Ladbrokes, Betfair etc. winning accounts list and give them a voice?
I think giving losing punters a voice is no worse than giving trainers, owners etc. who seem fairly blind to simple economics a voice in racing.
"To those who say without betting there would be no racing, I would say you are wrong."
Without betting and the levy that contributes to prize money, surely most owners would not even bother?
Yes they already know there is limited chance of making a profit from ownership, but there is a chance, and that is the dream that most owners cling on to.
Surely no one goes into owmership thinking they will just have a bad horse who only ever finishes last, earns no prize money and has no prospect of landing a punt for those owners interested in having a bet?
Without betting (and the levy generated from it), racing as we know it would become an amateur sport, much akin to point to pointing.
I happen to agree with Big O – althought if it were possible to be represented by AP Racing or Glenn I would go for that.
But, and I realise Paul’s view is more complex than this, in reality as soley punters our relationship to the sport is via either bookmakers or exchanges – we are their customers and not racings.
In fact it could be argued that when I bet its not the gee-gees as such I’m betting on but rather just numbers and if my number goes to 1.01 first and then disappears – I win.
There are punters who have a very good deal to say on racing. Why shouldn’t they be represented, everyone else is.
Paul Struthers line of, we are punters to doesn’t wash with me.
Ialthought if it were possible to be represented by AP Racing or Glenn I would go for that.
Those were two names in my head!
Most punters are mugs and those should not get a voice on the BHA. However, all punters could and should be represented by someone who understands both betting and "racing" in general. It’s a shame Jim McGrath found it too difficult to continue in his role. Alan Potts would indeed be an ideal candidate. Even though I don’t agree with all of his opinions on racing politics, do feel he can be trusted to do what he thinks right for us all.
Value Is EverythingThe aim of having all punters represented is laudable. However, pulling together that widely dispirit bunch is the ultimate act of the impossible. Punters won’t get together because the majority of them couldn’t give a t***…, and it’s depressing to have to say that. The bookmakers know that and duly profit from it.
Paul’s comments are, I suspect, borne out of a rather world weary view of the racing scene and the betting public in particular. It’s worth reading the whole article and putting his comments in their context.
Pity I won’t be catching up with Mr Cormack until the end of the month. It would make a lively conversation on the road to Newcastle!
Rob
Yes Paul – I agree the ‘losers’ one is a bit misleading. Quite happy to take it out if you think it’s unfair.
But I do think it captures the essence of the piece and I did want to spark a debate. It’s like setting fire to an early bonfire, you sometimes need a bit of fuel!
It was a tongue in cheek response David
No leave them – as you say it encapsulates what I was saying.
I don’t mind if people slag me off having read the full blog
I’m afraid I no longer read blogs but for ‘punter’ should that not be ‘the public?’, are punters not part of ‘the public?’
It seems they already have a say in the way racing is being run, just of late, and rightly so I think, even if many of them are not aware of the representations on their behalf, or agree with the results of it. The public, that is, of which punters are just a part.
You don’t have to be an inveterate gambler to be part of racing, and this forum and it’s members should not automatically assume that everyone must be part of that experience, and that otherwise you are not part of the sport.
We all contribute in some way or another and therefore are entitled to have our voices heard. I believe the 2nd last fence at Cheltenham was eventually moved due to such public/punter pressure, as much as from those more intimately involved.
For many of us I would guess, perhaps a majority, that it is not all about the betting.
Paul, interesting blog, but your argument is flawed.
No-one is suggesting that punters should run or rule racing.
But like owners, trainers, jockeys, stable staff, vets, farriers, horse feed and bedding providers, racecourse staff, bookmakers, media providers, journalists, caterers and many other third parties etc, they have an interest in the success and running of the sport and its survival.They can rightly be considered a valid stakeholder like all the other parties and should be represented in the administration of the sport, especially when they make a serious contribution to the owner’s prizemoney fund despite your assertion that it is coming from the bookmakers, which is absolute nonsense. If the punters all bet on sports other than horseracing, how much levy do you think the bookmakers would then contribute to racing? Answer – Nil.
You suggest that prizemoney could still be maintained by sponsorship. Do you really think that sponsors would be so keen to support a sport with a dwindling audience and reduced media coverage?
The whole sport would implode without the direct involvement of the punter and their levy contribution with a disastrous effect on all the support and periferal services connected with horseracing, let alone those directly employed in it, apparently the 5th or 6th largest industry in the country.
By the way, the pig farmer is not his own master. He is subservient to various legislation and regulation, health and safety acts passed by government and the EU, elected by the public, some of whom don’t even eat pork. Fancy being told what to do by someone who doesn’t even buy your product or has no interest in its survival?
Paul Ostermeyer is correct: all punters are "losers" and should be barred from making any decisions regarding the future of British horse racing. Well, not all… I suggest he recruits Pinza and Ginger to form a supergroup ( the "Cream" ?
) and sit round any old table and save the world… of British horse racing ! We just know they have it in to make the necessary changes. Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
Paul Ostermeyer is correct: all punters are "losers" and should be barred from making any decisions regarding the future of British horse racing. Well, not all… I suggest he recruits Pinza and Ginger to form a supergroup ( the "Cream" ?
) and sit round any old table and save the world… of British horse racing ! We just know they have it in to make the necessary changes. The BHA already know they cannot afford me
Paul, you would probably be right if you had said that "most" or 95% of punters don’t deserve to be involved in the running of horse racing because they are not informed enough of the subject.
But that is only the same as other truisms such as 95% of CEO’s are incompetent and shouldn’t be running their companies or organisations….
…. or that 95% of the population are either ignorant or uneducated when it comes to politics, yet are allowed to vote in a General Election.
) and sit round any old table and save the world… of British horse racing ! We just know they have it in to make the necessary changes. - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.