- This topic has 105 replies, 34 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
Seems to me that it is not the laying per se that is the problem – as anyone who remembers the era of Man Mood, Little Owl etc will aver – but that backing with a bookmaker is not so attractive financially as laying, even if the latter comes with the threat of exposure.
Some of the stuff that went on in the 1980s and early 1990s – long before exchanges (and mostly before pictures were so widely available) – was every bit as rancid imo, TDK.
I do agree, however, that it is wrong that people who have been found guilty of corruption have got to keep the money. Presumably it would take a class action or an individual to pursue this matter in the courts. Or for the Gambling Commission (who I wrote to on this matter recently) to do something just for once.
As it happens, the numerous Dean McKeown rides with which I was not happy over the years either did not carry my money or did not show up in the BHA’s list of corrupt rides, so that seemingly rules me out.
In all fairness Reet, Cunningham cant accuse trainers of not trying over on Betfair any more then we can on here. I agree with his general sentiments though.
TDK – Supply the evidence to the authorities. 95% of my betting is backing, so when Corals open a back only 102% facility with a user friendly interface and decent liquidty I’ll be your first customer.
There is a rumour that a Grand National winner in the murky past sneakily missed out an entire circuit in very misty conditions, although I can’t for the life of me recall when that was.
That was Caughoo, who went in – by fair means or foul, depending on what sources you read – at a whopping price in 1947.
gc
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
There is a rumour that a Grand National winner in the murky past sneakily missed out an entire circuit in very misty conditions, although I can’t for the life of me recall when that was.
That was Caughoo, who went in – by fair means or foul, depending on what sources you read – at a whopping price in 1947.
gc
100-1 was the price. I have a book by Bill Curling now long out of print called the Illustrated history of The Grand National which has loads of photo’s of the races up to 1972. In 1947 Caughoo can be seen jumping Becher’s on both circuits. I believe there was a bit of a fracas between his jockey (Eddie Dempsey) and someone who accused him of the fiddle.
When you have a 20 runner race, paying out 3 places at 1/5 of the odds, the only way forward is laying.
When it is easier to be beat than win, the only way foward is laying.
When the first 4 in the betting have average odds of 3/1, the only way forward is laying.
—————————-
There is insider laying in every race. It’s now the norm.
Nearly every races however, is fought out by the worthy. Three cheers for that.
Backing two runners is the relentless pursuit of value. Backing each way is a shortcut to the poor house. Only 7% make a long term profit.
- Total Posts 17716
The ‘theft’ that exchanges facilitate aside, surely unsuspecting owners have a case to bring against the jockey and/or trainer given that they aren’t receiving the service they have paid for? I don’t doubt that some owners are involved in the business of non-triers, but for those that aren’t keeping a horse in training is expensive and I can’t say that I would be overly happy if I discovered that I was paying £15,000 a year (or more) for someone to ensure that my horse didn’t win.
If owners were proved not to be party to any particular incident, could they take legal action against those identifed by the BHA? Could action by exchange users stem from this? How would this effect people who placed bets through regular bookmaking channels – would they also be due compensation?
I have mentioned on TRF in the past that I know of a trainer who, despite knowing that a horse in his care was ready to win, told his jockey to make sure he finished well out of the frame so that a series of (massively lucrative) bets could be placed on his next outing. The horse was 25/1 for the race in question, was backed to win a five-figure sum by the jockey and duly waltzed in. The jockey hasn’t ridden for the trainer since.
This story was relayed to me by someone who used to have shares in a horse with the same trainer who, incidentally, made a habit of running one particular animal on appalling ground so that it could be backed at massive prices on the one occasion a season it encountered a firmer surface. I’m unsure as to whether he (the trainer) laid the horse he attempted to hold back – considering his reaction though, I suspect he did – but would he be any less guilty of corruption? In my opinion, no.
The BHA need to define the term ‘corruption’ as it currently, quite obviously, exists in many forms. More effective procedures are required to investigate suspected cases immediately and to produce sufficient evidence to warrant legal action. There is no other deterrent for cheats than the threat of imprisonment, as being ‘warned off’ represents a mere inconvenience. Paul Blockley can still work in racing and so have exactly the same influence he has always had, and Dean McKeown continued to ride and, it would seem, cheat, even after his conviction. And what is to stop either man, or any of the owners recently named, laying other horses through friends in the future? Do the BHA believe that, because they’ve been warned off, they (all of a sudden) don’t know anyone else involved in the sport?
I guess it raises the ultimate question – do the BHA simply not have enough evidence to pursue any other course than that afforded to them by the rules of racing? Was the collapse of the CPS’s case against Kieren Fallon and co. (not that he, or any one associated with the case, were indeed guilty of corruption) wholly indicative of the problems racing faces outside of its own boundaries?
I’m glad that the likes of Blockley and McKeown have been weeded out, but the almost mindless musings of Graham Cunningham are incredibly naive.
Seems to me that it is not the laying per se that is the problem – as anyone who remembers the era of Man Mood, Little Owl etc will aver – but that backing with a bookmaker is not so attractive financially as laying, even if the latter comes with the threat of exposure.
Some of the stuff that went on in the 1980s and early 1990s – long before exchanges (and mostly before pictures were so widely available) – was every bit as rancid imo, TDK.
.Racing has always been “bent” to a certain extent and I don’t think it will ever be possible to completely remove corruption from the game. The task therefore is to try to reduce it to the level where it doesn’t completely destroy punters’ confidence and deter people from having a bet on the sport.
At the moment, the fact that people can make 5 figure sums from horses not trying and losing with virtually no threat of criminal proceedings arising, means that the sport is on the road to self destruction imo. Yes, there were Man Moods and Little Owls in the past, but people who follow the sport closely can name at least two non triers in the last week who have netted someone a significant payday.
Much like in the current financial crisis, anyone that thinks that the current “free” betting market (aka free-for-all) doesn’t need proper and much stricter regulation, will be shown to be horribly wrong in the long run.
Here we go again,
TDK, do you still make cassette tapes btw.
Equitrack, you ain’t as good as Polly Track.Where is the evidence?
The game is not "bent".
Just because there are a few unscrupulous people in racing does not make the whole of racing or even a large minority bent.
Whatever profession, if there is money involved there will be those going against the rules to profit.
Football, Tennis, Cricket, Banking, Plumbing, Carpet Fitting, they all have "bent" people in them. But it does not make everyone or most working in the trade bent.
If you truly believe it is bent then you are a fool to keep betting, or even like our sport.
Where are these two non-triers? If you do not want to write them here PM me.
Many punters want to believe the game is bent because then it is not their fault when they do not back the right horses.
The thing the BHA could do is to prevent those who have already been found "guilty" of breaking the rules (in a major way) from working in racing again. This would be a bigger deterrant to others and not put them in a tempting situation. (Which is my arguement in the It Must Be Love thread).
Mark
Value Is EverythingIf you truly believe it is bent then you are a fool to keep betting, or even like our sport.
My point exactly – by extension of this argument, widespread "bent" racing will kill the sport.
There are now plenty of low grade races where I already think it is rather foolish to have bet, because there are horses which are doubling and tripling in price near the off and subsequently running stinkers or not being put in the race. If you are betting in these races, all you are doing is effectively funding the insiders in the long run.
I am not going to go into naming which horses I think haven’ been trying (although this thread is named after one of them!). All I know is that if you follow the sport and the betting closely enough, you would know that there is a serious problem at the moment, particularly in low grade racing.
Many punters want to believe the game is bent because then it is not their fault when they do not back the right horses.
Here we go again, let’s turn the debate from one about racing being fixed into one about "mug punters", and what "mug punters" think! If it’s any help, I enjoy the craic at my local bookies and most of the moaning comes when people see what they believe is a bad ride, (or you occasionally hear plenty of gasps when one horse in front hit’s a fence hard), but actually, very rarely do I hear people saying the game is "fixed", because ultimately (mugs though these people are), they can’t possibly know what their superior counterparts are doing on the betting exchanges and whether an owner has instructed horse X should be stopped. If indeed my bookies is a representation of most bookies, then I suggest most punters would not bet in a game that they "want to believe" is bent.
Did not say most I said many Marble.
Of course it goes on. Am just saying there is no evidence that the game is bent, or that stopping horses is rife.
Sorry if what I said came across as a them and us scenario.
Mark
Value Is EverythingIf you truly believe it is bent then you are a fool to keep betting, or even like our sport.
My point exactly – by extension of this argument, widespread "bent" racing will kill the sport.
There are now plenty of low grade races where I already think it is rather foolish to have bet, because there are horses which are doubling and tripling in price near the off and subsequently running stinkers or not being put in the race. If you are betting in these races, all you are doing is effectively funding the insiders in the long run.
I am not going to go into naming which horses I think haven’ been trying (although this thread is named after one of them!). All I know is that if you follow the sport and the betting closely enough, you would know that there is a serious problem at the moment, particularly in low grade racing.
Do agree it is far more likely to be seen in poor quality / poor prize money races. The easiest way for connections to make a profit with such horses is with a betting coup. There should be an effort to either increase prize money or if this is not possible reduce the number of these races / improve the quality of the worst graded races.
Did not expect you to name the non-triers here but why not PM me TDK? Guarantee I will not mention them back on here. Just want to know who they are, and if you could do this every week, would be interesting.
However, there are many reasons for a market drift, unfit, sweating, playing up in the paddock, pulling or free to post, poor comments on the racing channels (Mr. Chapman in particular seems to talk up any market move which encourages more movement in price). It could also mean good judges identify a horse at too short a price which they want to lay.
Also, I am sure Barry Dennis will confirm, it does not take anywhere near the same amount of money to bring in a horse from 12/1 to 3/1 at a small meeting, as it does at a major meeting. That means when some horses come in drastically in price, there will be others who go the other way. For bookmakers to bet to the right percentage.
So there is USUALLY a valid reason for a large market drift.
When a horse has drifted for valid reasons and runs badly there are many people who put two and two together and make five.
Mark
Value Is EverythingTo be fair to you, you didn’t bring betting shop punters into it either, though most people would associate the quote I highlighted by you with your typical regular betting shop punter, so thats why I tryed to make it clear not everyone who walks in a betting shop wants to believe the game is bent (just for the record etc).
I would actually argue it is the "shrewder" people, or people more closely involved with the sport that are complaining more about what they percieve is potentially corrupt than the "many" punters you highlight (judging by forums like these anyway). You really should try and qualify statements that implement half the punting world.
ps, with scum like Dean Mckeown I would argue it would be hard to consistently pick the right horses aswell.
Why should I qualify statements marble?
It is not something I am aiming at every punter, on here or in betting shops. Just the ones who constantly blame trainers and jockeys for no valid reason, we all have met them.I have no problem Marble with debating what we can do to try and eradicate non-triers from our sport. But when people who should know better, imply it is rife, it does damage to racing.
PS I can agree with the PS.
Mark
Value Is EverythingMuch like in the current financial crisis, anyone that thinks that the current "free" betting market (aka free-for-all) doesn’t need proper and much stricter regulation, will be shown to be horribly wrong in the long run.
Could not agree more, including about the comparison with the City. Which is why I have long argued for, among other things, proper stewarding and scrutiny of rides, handicapping which does not encourage sharp practices, owners that are properly identified and registered, and Know Your Customer and paper-trail requirements for all bookmakers.
Stewarding remains amateurish in both senses of the word; handicapping remains craven; owners are allowed to masquerade as whoever they please; and only the exchanges have taken proper steps to identify (and if needs be monitor) the activities of their customers.
Racing has always been "bent" to a certain extent and I don’t think it will ever be possible to completely remove corruption from the game. The task therefore is to try to reduce it to the level where it doesn’t completely destroy punters’ confidence and deter people from having a bet on the sport.
If I had to scramble around for prices that dont exist, try to get on with firms that wont stand a bet, open 30 accounts in my mothers name, pay 2% per runner, pay rule 4 reductions on top of reduced place terms etc,etc…I would have given the game up a long time ago. The exchanges facilitate my interest in the sport and long may they continue.
It is not something I am aiming at every punter
Even if you are aiming it at every punter, I struggle to see what is has to do with what Dean Mckeown did the other day. I know it was a general comment that you made but it was a massive and perhaps unfair generalisation on most ordinary punters – who are of course the lifeblood of the game…
Marble,
My post was a direct criticism of Equitrack and TDK’s posts that immediately preceded it. Posts that I consider to do the sport of horse racing no favours. Equitrack in particular has constantly implied in this thread that our sport is rife with trainers and jockeys breaking the rules left, right and centre. Without any evidence. So yes I do consider him as one of those who blames others, I may be wrong but that is how I feel. TDK has since qualified his statement and I no longer consider him to be one.
"Many" means a significant number, it may be only five percent of punters but that is still a significant sum. If you Marble, or anyone else wants to think it is aimed at them I can not do anything about it. It is up to every punter to examine themselves to know whether it applies to them.
Mark
Value Is EverythingMuch like in the current financial crisis, anyone that thinks that the current "free" betting market (aka free-for-all) doesn’t need proper and much stricter regulation, will be shown to be horribly wrong in the long run.
Could not agree more, including about the comparison with the City. Which is why I have long argued for, among other things, proper stewarding and scrutiny of rides, handicapping which does not encourage sharp practices, owners that are properly identified and registered, and Know Your Customer and paper-trail requirements for all bookmakers.
Stewarding remains amateurish in both senses of the word; handicapping remains craven; owners are allowed to masquerade as whoever they please; and only the exchanges have taken proper steps to identify (and if needs be monitor) the activities of their customers.
Agree with all of that. The key with any regulation would be not to overburden the industry with unnecessary regulation – we don’t need JOe Punter to have to do a KYC before he has his 5p yankee. However, I think there should be greater transparency across the whole industry where horses are laid to lose a significant sum of money.
My post was a direct criticism of Equitrack and TDK’s posts that immediately preceded it. Posts that I consider to do the sport of horse racing no favours. Equitrack in particular has constantly implied in this thread that our sport is rife with trainers and jockeys breaking the rules left, right and centre. Without any evidence. So yes I do consider him as one of those who blames others, I may be wrong but that is how I feel. TDK has since qualified his statement and I no longer consider him to be one.
"Many" means a significant number, it may be only five percent of punters but that is still a significant sum. If you Marble, or anyone else wants to think it is aimed at them I can not do anything about it. It is up to every punter to examine themselves to know whether it applies to them.
No, i’m not bothered about whether or not I should take offence at what you said. The point is, the use of gratuitous assumptions placed at the door of the "many punters" you elude to, is actually in some ways discriminatory and would not be tolerated if it was directed at Black, female, old, or even the lower classes in society. Before you say i’m going over the top or taking it to far, i’m just picking up on something that I have noticed on this forum, that people who decide to go to their local bookies and have a bet are some how the scum of the earth – your remark about "punters" wanting racing to be bent (to justify them not winning) is a massive generalisation and certainly not quantifiable (even if you only did use the unquantifiable term "many".
What the F
Oh yes Marble, you have really gone too far, you have well and truly lost it.
To equate what I said to racism etc. is plain stupid. Oops sorry, should not use the word stupid else those with limited knowledge might take offence. There has got to be a limited amount of political correctness I know but……….
All I said was "many punters want to believe the game is bent because then it is not their fault for backing the wrong horses".
Whether that is a concious or sub-concious thing depends on the person.
Gratuitous assumptions, what gratuitous assumptions?
I may remind you that it was you who presumed I was talking about betting shop punters. And you who has some how twisted what I said as meaning betting shop punters are scum. I am not responsible for anything others may have said about betting shop punters?
It is not a generalisation.
To say "punters want" is a massive generalisatioin. To say "many punters want" is not.Let’s have a discussion and not a slanging match.
Mark
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.