- This topic has 51 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
If you’re paranoid about this, I think it would be worth putting in some time to study Oddschecker.
Do the firms stand out on prices on horses representing the yards they are linked with? I’d like to think Oddschecker hits home that Ladbrokes Coral have no ‘inside information’ about Dan Skelton or Colin Tizzard. We often stick out against the ones that move!
There are a few specific relationships that might need to be analysed. I’m not accusing them of anything per se but, for example, Paddy Power Betfair seem to know the score with Gordon Elliott’s horses. They seem to top up the subsequent drifters first thing in the morning and are usually already well on the right side of the live ones by the time the money hits the market. Could be coincidence though.
Personally I wonder what value there is in having a trainer/jockey blog anyway. Now and again as a punter you get a few nuggets of information, but they’re generally vague and non-committal about the chances of their horses. Anything juicy is instantly factored into the market anyway. Sometimes they even put you away – saying “should run well” pre-race and then “needed the run” in post-race interviews!
different landscape of course since no bookies allowed and a monopoly on betting, but HKJC Rule 151 says:
>>….a person shall be guilty of a corrupt, fraudulent or improper act or practice if he: —
(6) Being an owner, nominator, licensed person or employee of The
Hong Kong Jockey Club by advertisement, circular, letter or other
means offers to give information concerning his own or other horses
in return for any monetary or other consideration or who connives at
such practice..<<on top of that, Rule 150 says:
>> Any person found guilty of a corrupt, fraudulent or improper act or practice
whether or not his conduct constitutes a breach of any other of these Rules
may be declared a disqualified person or be otherwise penalised by the
Stewards of the Jockey Club or the Stewards in accordance with their
powers.<<Trainers and jockeys do not have tipping columns, ambassadorships or sponsorships but can speak to the Press and give opinions on HKJC TV.
with no betting monopoly in GB, it seems that jockeys can have tipping columns, ambassadorships and sponsorships as long as they are approved by and registered with the BHA:
http://rules.britishhorseracing.com/Orders-and-rules&staticID=126112&depth=3
but there is no similar approval /registration required in the case of trainers:
http://rules.britishhorseracing.com/Orders-and-rules&staticID=126042&depth=1
and with jockeys the trend seems to have been away from collective and towards individual sponsorship:
presumably bookies in it for the long haul are as keen as the BHA to have a betting product that the public trust enough to bet on, and would argue that it is better to have things done above the table / on the breeches / on the footbal shirt and regulated, rather than under the table and unregulated.
whether you go for a total ban or for allowed-but-regulated, it seems odd to treat jockeys differently from trainers / other Licensed Persons.
LS – it’s not about being paranoid, it’s about the perception of the betting public.
For example I’ve long thought that the close relationship your own Mike Dillon appears to have with the Coolmore/Ballydoyle ‘lads’ was not healthy.
Now, your average Saturday punter may not know or care who Mike Dillon is, who he works for and why that relationship is not a healthy one for the sport so in terms of its damage to the sport it’s probably negligible.
But Nicky Henderson’s twitter feed being run by a bookmaker? This country’s leading trainer so far in bed with a bookmaker that they are controlling and influencing the information that comes out of the yard regarding the well-being of his horses. That surely is not right?
Regarding what the value is, presumably it is a device to drive traffic to the sites and presumably, given the sums reportedly involved, it works.
It is paranoid Corm – you’re seeing that trainers write blogs for bookmakers and assuming there is more to it than that. You’ve mentioned Mike Dillon before – again if you follow the big races and watch Oddschecker with Coolmore’s runners you’ll note that we often get them totally wrong. No sort of magic steer from Big Mike.
I don’t think the industry should have to pander to people’s fantasies. However, IF there is cause for concern manifested by suspicious patterns on Oddschecker, the you might have a case.
I’m saying there is potential for there to be more to it than that.
I’m also sating that there is a likelihood that punters, people like me, will always eye such arrangements with suspicion. Is that good for racing and betting?
Racing’s integrity should be wholly above board. Having trainers and jockeys in the employ of bookmakers doesn’t give the impression that it is, regardless of whether any actual wrong-doing can be proven.
I’ll keep track next season on Lads/Corals stance on Ballydoyle runners and let you know how the data speaks.
I can understand your defensiveness, Soldier but I think Corm is spot on. Nothing to do with paranoia and active skulduggery doesn’t come into it. Perception matters an awful lot, perhaps more in racing with its historical association with gambling than with any other sport.
BHA’s press releases over the past year or so often mention ‘public perception’ and I’m in no doubt they’ll stop this kind of association – might not be right away – they’re building up substantial animosity in the training ranks just now – but it won’t be long.
Still waiting, doubt the hopeless BHA will do anything now, things are too far gone.
How long have trainers been allowed to bet but jockeys haven’t? And what have the authorities done to rectify this contradictory stance?
Instead trainers are patted on the back by all and sundry in the industry including the gravy train racing media for landing a “touch” while jockeys are treated like the lowest form of human being if caught having a bet.
“It was rumoured that Henderson receives 80 grand per year from his bookies while Bruce Millington stated that they couldn’t retain Nicholls services because they couldn’t pay anywhere near what he was offered by Betfair to move. Would think it is well into 6 figures.
What about the integrity of the sport?”
I cant believe betfair pay Nichols that much the cheeky beggars only used to pay me £70.00 per week for my lay a day column.
“I can’t believe betfair pay Nicholls that much the cheeky beggars only used to pay me £70.00 per week for my lay a day column”.
Beggars can’t be choosers potato
I would do/have done it for £60.00
https://betting.betfair.com/horse-racing/post-115-241007.html
Surely this was worth more than £10.00 a post？
Ok so this was a bad example as unfortunately this lay finished 1st but who else in the racing media calls racehorses cretins? I was a niche market.
Simon Rowlands has a lot to answer for in my personal opinion.
https://betting.betfair.com/horse-racing/the-brigadiers-lay-of-the-day-49-301107.html
Perhaps this was a better example. Can you imagine that betfair used to publish the opinions and tips of Ryan Moore, Gordon Elliot, Paul Nichols, Donal McCain and POTATO
On learning how much these people were getting paid compared to what they gave me I’m seriously.contemplating taking them to employment court for robbery.
I think it has to be public perception that is paramount here!!
Most of us know that pretty much all bookmakers lay trainers to get to know but it isn’t blatantly published on blogs twitter or whatever media stream you care to mention.
The public’s perception should be uppermost in both the trainers mind and the authorities!!
Mark Souster did a piece on this topic in The Times recently (paywall, so delete if necessary).
It was a spoof tweet posted on Twitter yesterday, but the sentiment contained pretty much sums up the feeling among many people about the plethora of trainers and jockeys who now have columns and blogs with betting organisations.
It read: “William Hill have suspended betting on the BetVictor Fighting Fifth until we get a Betfair Blog update following Betfair Exhange movements this morning. Unibet Champion Hurdle to be affected #ad”
According to the British Horseracing Authority with which any paid-for arrangement has to be registered, there are 23 jockeys and 18 trainers in Britain and Ireland who have deals with a cross-section of bookmakers. Guidelines are provided to trainers and riders when they enter into any commercial deals. The BHA monitors these on an ongoing basis, as well as public perception.
Betfair has meticulous control mechanisms around its columns
Betfair has meticulous control mechanisms around its columns
CLINT HUGHES/PA
The guidelines include areas such as market-sensitive information, scratching of non-runners, perception and the correct labelling of social media posts. These rules were brought in within the last decade.But in an era when perception is everything, should these columns and blogs be allowed? It is a grey area but the answer has to be no. Should the authority not instead be clamping down on this growing business, where any potentially sensitive nugget of information which could affect markets is revealed by a trainer, in the first instance, to his or her bookmaker by whom they are paid?
At a time when the sport is making a concerted effort to wean itself, at least in part, off its reliance on betting money, and at a time when gambling companies are under the spotlight like never before, perception has to trump any other consideration. Any sense that anyone is the beneficiary or provider of so-called inside information has to be countered. It’s the only way to eliminate any spectre of collusion and thus protect the public’s perception of the sport’s integrity.
There is of course no suggestion that any trainer or jockey, some of whom are believed to receive at least £100,000 a year for their services, nor any bookmaker, has ever acted improperly. Betfair for instance is meticulous in its control mechanisms. Any ghost writer with their stable of columnists has to sign a non-disclosure agreement which ensures that the information they glean in their conversations with jockeys and trainers cannot be acted upon until it is in the public domain via the website. “Any breach of this we consider to be a very serious offence,” Barry Orr, the company’s head of media said.
The explosion in sponsored columns and everything associated with those deals, seems to have coincided with the advent of social media and the opportunities those mediums provide for companies in terms of marketing and branding. One photograph of a winning jockey at a big meeting with the appropriate branding prominent on their silks can be worth the cost of the annual contract on its own. Also anything which can help drive traffic to a bookmaker’s website and hopefully ensure punters bet more and linger longer there, is considered sound business.
For the jockey and trainer the rewards provide a valuable additional income stream, but in truth only those already established and well known — who therefore have something worthwhile to say — will get those opportunities.
A distinction also has to be drawn between jockeys and trainers and whether they should be treated largely in the same way. The jockeys are the employees who essentially provide their opinion on their mounts. It is the trainers who are the big decision-makers and who are privy to knowledge which could be considered really valuable.
Whether the rules have to accommodate for such a distinction is another question that perhaps needs to be asked. That could be a compromise worth considering.
Ryan barely says a word when interviewed so I’d guess it would be a short piece ….Ive watched a few interviews back in the day with Steve cauthan …. a fair few jockeys should watch and learn how to do them
Pick 3 on Saturday champion 2025/2026
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.