- This topic has 51 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
The BHA have implemented ‘changes to licence/registration/permit application guidance notes, and new integrity-related Rules’.
The following caught my eye –
<i>In relation to the specific issue of jockeys’ commercial arrangements with betting organisations, jockeys, like trainers, are now permitted to enter into commercial arrangements with betting organisations (for example, appearing in an advertisement or writing an article for publication). Jockeys and trainers are required to notify the Authority of details of the main terms of such arrangements, which will be made available to the public on <!– m –>http://www.britishhorseracing.com<!– m –> (Rules (C)66A and (D)79).</i>
There is something that doesn’t feel right about jockeys (or trainers) having ‘commercial arrangements’ with betting organisations isn’t there? Maybe it’s just me being paranoid.
What do you think?
(full details here – https://theracingforum.co.uk/horse-racing-forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=86516&start=39)
Surely Official Sponsorship of Jockeys and Trainers is more open and accountable than what may occur in some cases.
- Total Posts 17716
I for one share your concerns,
Corm
. This giving way is doubtless due to BHA’s powerlessness in the face of commercial pressures and that indefinable "tenour of the times".
There is indeed something which does not feel "right" about it. But do we get concerned about
Mike Dillon
‘s close friendships with the
Ballydoyle
team? In a way, BHA’s statement is bowing to the inevitable.
Still, on the face of it this is another piece of weak legislation, executed under pressure from an industry which does not necessarily have the integrity of UK Racing at heart.
Agree about Dillon’s perceived ‘inside track’ re-Ballydoyle Pinza.
Crikey – that’s two things we’ve agreed on in the last five minutes!
Dillon’s perceived "inside track" is nothing compared to the ownership on one major bookmaking firm currently listed on Oddschecker.
I’ve always thought Dillon’s hanging around saddling boxes and always just a pace behind connections on the big days as wrong. Third parties with a large scale financial interest on a race’s outcome should be banned from area’s such as those imo.
Can of worms surely best left unopened. The accusations alone
Bookie X went 5/1 about horse Y when everyone went 4/1 and the jockey they sponsor gave it a dodgy looking ride.
They make movies about less dramatic happenings
In light of tennis’s concern around the closeness of the bookmaking industry to the sport and calls from key personnel for it to distance itself, should racing be looking at some of the relationships that exist.
Of course, racing is different to tennis in as much as its very existence in its current form relies on a financial relationship with the bookmaking industry.
However, surely racing should exert stronger control on the relationships developed by certain bookmakers and industry professionals (primarily trainers and jockeys). I’m not suggesting any impropriety but it doesn’t take any stretch of the imagination to imagine scenarios where a commercial relationship could lead to the building of an altogether unhealthier link.
Surely racing’s integrity, and the perception of it, should be paramount and surely therefore the banning of commercial agreements between bodies who potentially stand to gain from inside information, the influencing of running arrangements or even direct influence over a particular performance and the professionals involved in the sport is required to maintain that integrity and perception.
A person (trainer, jockey or owner) involved in a commercial relationship with a bookmaker is placing themselves in a situation where the potential for a conflict of interest surely exists.
I’ve got no problem with it.
No worse than the Racing Press having (effectively) bookmakers as their sponsers – when the racing press is supposedly trying to make money for their readers (punters). Potential conflict of interest. But without that sponsership we wouldn’t have a Racing Press.
Value Is EverythingBig difference. I have no problem with pundits (including the press) having bookie links. They are not in a position to influence the outcome of races and impact racing’s integrity.
Big difference. I have no problem with pundits (including the press) having bookie links. They are not in a position to influence the outcome of races and impact racing’s integrity.
You miss the point David.
Bookmakers are effectively the Racing Press’s sponser (investor). Is it therefore in the Racing Press’s interests to criticise those bookmakers? Or if they do criticise, is it in the Racing Press’s interests to make that criticism as harsh as it sometimes should be?
Is it in the best interests of the Racing Press to give punters the tools to beat their sponser (investor)?
The relationship you are talking about, jockey/trainer/owner with a bookmaker has a theoretical conflict of interest for only a fraction of runners. Relationship bookmakers have with the Racing Press could influence any/every race. eg Not explaining odds and percentages to punters.
Value Is EverythingYou are missing the point – in terms of the integrity of racing it is irrelevant whether the punters get good or bad or misleading advice from pundits. In terms of integrity it is vital that trainers and jockeys don’t have the spectre of external influences, who have a lot at stake in terms of race outcomes, hanging over them.
As for it being only a fraction of the runners. Paul Nicholls, one example of this type of relationship through his very close links to betfair, fields runners in over 400 races a year. For starters.
As for it being only a fraction of the runners. Paul Nicholls, one example of this type of relationship through his very close links to betfair, fields runners in over 400 races a year. For starters.
Does it matter to Betfair who wins?
Value Is EverythingYou are missing the point – in terms of the integrity of racing it is irrelevant whether the punters get good or bad or misleading advice from pundits.
If you think that then your “point” doesn’t make sense to me because the integrity issues are imo equally important.
Value Is EverythingCorm’s points make sense to me. The points are about the integrity of racing. It is not about bookmakers conniving with press or pundits to make more money out of punters.
There is a world of difference between bookmakers and those entities they help to fund legitimately misleading punters to enhance the bookmakers’ profits, and the integrity of horse racing. What the bookies do is the sort of thing that lots of companies do to their customers by misleading marketing, public relations stunts and celebrity endorsements. None of this is a corrupt practice (in a legal sense), neither is there any suspicion that it is. There is suspicion that persons licensed by the BHA have the opportunity and motive to participate in insider trading in betting markets, or to affect the results of races, because of their relationships with bookmakers and betting markets. If they do either of these things they are breaking the rules of racing and affecting its integrity, and possibly breaking the laws of the land by committing fraud. The problems in other sports, like the suspicion of fixing tennis matches to win money from betting, are integrity problems involving participants in the sport. The issues in racing are also about participants; owners, trainers, jockeys, vets, BHA officials and other licensed people. That is the point.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.