January 30, 2016 at 18:04 #1231324GingertipsterParticipant
- Total Posts 26588
That is one point.value is everythingJanuary 30, 2016 at 20:24 #1231341
Are you saying that someone throwing races fir the benefit of a bookie would be the same level of integrity issue as Bruce Millington failing to publicly censure, say Ladbrokes, over some misdeed GT?January 31, 2016 at 08:20 #1231400yeatsParticipant
- Total Posts 2911
Does it matter to Betfair who wins?
Surely no one can be that naive?
That applied for a few years at the start of Betfair’s life. Have you heard of Betfair Sportsbook and they have a big input in the markets on the exchange now.
So yes it does matter to Betfair that they win as much as possible.January 31, 2016 at 09:28 #1231402ZamorstonParticipant
- Total Posts 1113
I’ve always thought bookies had men on the ‘inside’ and benefit from inside info…they don’t like a punter doing it but in my eyes do it themselves regular.
That was an interesting interview at Cheltenham yesterday with Lydia and Rich Ricci…the point was covered about him being chairman of Betbright and he said he would never use inside information for their benefit as integrity is so important…good interview…January 31, 2016 at 12:45 #1231444GingertipsterParticipant
- Total Posts 26588
Are you saying that someone throwing races fir the benefit of a bookie would be the same level of integrity issue as Bruce Millington failing to publicly censure, say Ladbrokes, over some misdeed GT?
Of course not. But bookies don’t need a public relationship with a trainer/jockey/owner to pay them to throw a race.
Where would you draw the line David?
Is it ok for bookmakers (or anyone who has anything to do with a bookmaker) to own racehorses?
Should Rich Ricci and JP McManus be banned from owning horses?
Do bookmakers reps need to be locked in a room at the races so they do not talk to owners, trainers and jockeys?
Would you have prevented Martin Pipe (son of a bookmaker) from ever becoming a trainer?
Is it ok for bookmakers to recieve information directly or indirectly from stables of how good their unraced horses are? Maidens would become officially non-betting races, encouraging illegal bookmakers.
How would the betting public get the information it currently recieves from all these columns? There’s only so much room in the Racing Post and Sporting Life and they wouldn’t be able to pay for so many columns anyway.
I think there are boundaries which both bookmaker and trainer/jockey/owner know and – on the whole – imo it works well. Stopping this type of relationship encourages more underhand secret deals and the problem of “throwing races” will get worse. On the whole – punters would be worse off from not recieving other information about who needs a run, valid excuses, wind ops etc. If we’re not careful trainers will get fed up of all this suspition and just keep everything to themselves.value is everythingJanuary 31, 2016 at 13:57 #1231453yeatsParticipant
- Total Posts 2911
That was an interesting interview at Cheltenham yesterday with Lydia and Rich Ricci…the point was covered about him being chairman of Betbright and he said he would never use inside information for their benefit as integrity is so important
Easier said than done, think you would struggle to find a bookmakers spokesman say they would use inside info for the financial benefit of their company.June 10, 2017 at 15:07 #1303980
Surely something not right with allowing jockeys and trainers to cultivate close relationships with betting companies, where the jockey or trainer is rewarded financially for their side of the arrangement.
I’m not suggesting there is anything untoward with any current arrangement but I don’t think it looks good. I’ve always, for example, been uncomfortable with the fact that Ladbrokes seem to have been very close to Coolmore/Ballydoyle. Nowadays we have Nicholls/Elliott/Moore/Palmer all closely involved with Betfair.
The ban on jockeys having commercial agreements of this nature with bookmakers was lifted in 2011 with the following comment from then Head Of Security Paul Scotney
“Provided there are checks and balances and it is within a strict framework there is no reason why they can’t do interviews for a bookmaker, in-house TV or blogs.”
I wonder what, exactly, those ‘checks and balances’ are?June 10, 2017 at 15:09 #1303981June 10, 2017 at 16:01 #1303987
Says here on PJA page that…
“Sponsorship arrangements with betting organisations continue to be subject to a trial period with the BHA and may be subject to cancellation and removed from the register of sponsorship agreements maintained by the BHA, should good cause be shown. ”
Begs the question when does the trial end and what are the criteria for it being judged appropriate to end the trial and carry on or otherwise?June 10, 2017 at 16:24 #1303995LostSoldier3Blocked
- Total Posts 1894
So long as no inside information is being passed to the bookies, what’s the problem, right? We all know that IS the problem in some cases, though.
I know you’re trying to tiptoe around anything potentially libellous, DC, but I’d join you in suggesting that the Paddy Power situation needs to come under scrutiny. Their pricing suggests they ‘know’ more than the rest of us with certain trainers. They often take standout views on runners from their ‘home’ yards and they are usually right.
Jockeys are high-profile figures in one of the main betting sports, so they’re the natural fit for this kind of ambassadorial role. Usually the arrangements seem like pure visibility and association grabs. They add very little direct value through their rather banal blogs and maybe spend a few minutes at each meeting on hospitality duties, but there’s some value in having a walking billboard.
As far as Coral and Ladbrokes are concerned, our jockey/trainer ambassadors publicly share their opinions via regular blogs on our news portals. Though Scudamore, Skelton and co are very entertaining writers, their columns rarely provide anything that isn’t already in the public domain. They have other loyalties, of course – and you’d be extremely naive to think any of these squeaky clean industry professionals would ever risk their status by passing inside information to us. I’d like to think any regular punter could see that we don’t have any magic line with ‘our’ yards, doubt there has been any time where we’ve taken an inexplicable non form-based view that might raise suspicions.
As to the Coolmore thing, I wonder if that is a myth, or at least some sort of legacy thing. We never ducked Wings Of Eagles on Derby day for example. In fact, it feels like many of the views we’ve taken against market with the high-profile Coolmore runners this season have been wrong!June 10, 2017 at 16:36 #1303996stevecautionBlocked
- Total Posts 8279
Theresa May is embroiled with the bookmakers as well.
After the hung parliament, she is now totally reliant on “paddy power”, via the DUP
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.June 10, 2017 at 16:46 #1303997
As far as Coral and Ladbrokes are concerned, our jockey/trainer ambassadors publicly share their opinions via regular blogs on our news portals.
Anyone who goes racing will notice Mike Dillon’s closeness to the Coolmore cognoscenti. You’d be naive to think he doesn’t get some insight into what’s hot and what’s not. I’m not suggesting impropriety, just that the perception such a relationship gives is not good. As for Wings Of Eagles, I suspect that was just about as big a surprise to them as it was to the rest of us.
Also it’s not what is publicly shared, it might be what is privately shared once that monthly cheque is finding its way through the letter-box. It isn’t hard to imagine a situation, surely, where an unscrupulous (or financially under-pressure) jockey might see an opportunity to earn a bit more and where an unscrupulous (or financially under-pressure) bookmaking group might see an opportunity to gain an edge.
I’m not suggesting anything underhand in ANY of the current arrangements LS, I just think it’s not necessarily a healthy state of affairs in a sport where integrity is (or should be) fundamental to the sport’s short-medium-long-term prosperity.June 10, 2017 at 19:54 #1304005LostSoldier3Blocked
- Total Posts 1894
I think we’re talking about an issue of semantics and enforcement. That PJA statement is extremely vague and there needs to be openness, accountability and concrete criteria. The public need to be satisfied that everything is above board – neither party should be able to just give the PJA their word, which seems like the current deal. I’m with you all the way on that, Cormster.
Sadly, the whole concept of ‘intregrity’ can feel a bit redundant in racing. Think about all the daily shenanigans you see as you watch the markets. I like the sound of your utopian industry but we’re trillions of miles from it right now. If the industry had integrity, the markets for unraced maidens, for example, would look much different. Non-public information like ability in unraced horses, fitness and riding tactics almost always filters its way into the market before the off. There are still numerous hourly examples of horses taking inexplicable exchange drifts and running below form. There are certain yards where you can almost guarantee a no-show if their horse is drifting on the exchange.
Unless we go full Hong Kong and keep public records of every vet’s visit, every gallop and practically every step a horse takes in its lifetime, integrity is never going to be a buzzword in our sport.June 11, 2017 at 05:40 #1304021SteeplechasingParticipant
- Total Posts 5769
If an accurate definition of ‘inside information’ could be established, that would be a start.
Never argue with a fool. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience, then onlookers might not be able to tell the difference. https://lazybet.com/June 11, 2017 at 08:52 #1304028
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.