February 19, 2003 at 09:24 #4292
Saw the following in the RP – there was no comment about any betting on Cd Flyer – was there any dubious betting on any of the exchanges?
<br>Ryan and Lynch in hot water at Southwell<br>
by Tom O’Ryan
<br> <br>TRAINER Kevin Ryan and jockey Fergal Lynch found themselves in hot water with the stewards at Southwell on Tuesday over the running and riding of former Royal Ascot winner Cd Flyer, who finished eighth of the ten runners in the five-furlongs handicap. <br> <br> Ryan was fined Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£800, Lynch was suspended for five days and the horse, having his first run for the stable, was banned from racing for 30 days. <br> <br> Cd Flyer, winner of the Coventry Stakes at Royal Ascot in 2000 when trained by Mick Channon, but without a win since, was having his first outing since last summer in the Bet Direct Handicap. <br> <br> Soon out the back, he was adrift of the other runners at half-way before staying on in the closing stages to be beaten less than six lengths by the winner, Strawberry Dawn. <br> <br> In the subsequent inquiry, the stewards found Lynch to be in breach of Rule 158, which deals with a jockey’s failure to take all reasonable and permissable measures to obtain the best possible placing. <br> <br> Ryan, having told the stewards he was satisfied with Ryan’s riding, was found to be in breach of Rule 155 (ii), which covers the instructions given by a trainer to obtain the best possible placing by a jockey. <br> <br> Ryan said afterwards: "I am very, very disappointed by the outcome. It has been a long, hard road to get this horse to the races. He wasn’t facing the kickback and was also making a slight noise. <br> <br> "The stewards asked why Fergal didn’t hit him, but what’s the point in hitting a horse that can’t win?" <br> <br> Ryan and Lynch will view the video of the race before deciding whether to lodge an appeal against the decision. <br> <br> Stipendiary steward Ashley Bealby explained that the stewards felt that Lynch "made insufficient effort" in the early part of the race to keep the horse up with the pace andto give the horse the best possible chance of winning. <br> <br> "As Mr Ryan admitted that he was happy with the jockey’s riding," added Bealby, "he was found to be in breach of the rules." <br> <br> Lynch will be suspended on all-weather racing days between February 27 and March 4, while Cd Flyer is banned from racing from Febuary 22 until March 22.<br> <br>February 19, 2003 at 09:54 #102436SmithyMember
- Total Posts 720
Poor old CD Europe – all that nasty sand flying in his face! It was no wonder Fergal was trying to get him out the back to keep him out of the way of it all. Don’t forget that the horse made a noise as well – you wouldn’t have thought that they would churn up that old chestnut designed to cover their backs would you?!
Had he stopped making the noise when he finally consented to run forwards? Or had it mysteriously disappeared?February 19, 2003 at 10:15 #102439roryParticipant
- Total Posts 2685
Kevin Ryan is a fine trainer, and Fergal Lynch is undoubtedly a decent rider, but I can’t abide this attitude shown by connections found guilty of not running a horse on its merits. How exactly can Ryan be disappointed at the outcome?
CD Flyer might be incapable of winning anymore and could well be an old dog, and to be honest it was hardly an attempt to fool the handicapper, but the horse was never put in the race at any stage, and that’s against the rules. Apparently he wouldn’t face the kickback – Fergal must have found that out on the way to the start, because he hardly saw a grain of sand in the race, having been deliberatelty restrained and then taken wide of the entire field. Kevin Ryan said "It has been a long hard road to get this horse to the races"; the question is, Why bother?February 19, 2003 at 17:47 #102440SmithyMember
- Total Posts 720
I have to echo those sentiments Rory – there is no doubt that Kevin Ryan is an excellent trainer (top of the list of trainers for a yearling i have an involvement in), but how can this possibly be overturned – insufficient effort doesn’t do it justice.
By attempting to tug at the old heartstrings with his ‘poor old CD Europe – tricky to train’ facade, he is surely building himself up for a hefty fall.
On a similar theme, I couldn’t help but snigger when I saw that Mr K Fallon had been booked for the ride on Jair Ohmsford at Wolverhampton on Friday. If anyone can explain how Messrs Musson and McCabe got away without being done under the non-triers rule in the summer, then answers on a postcard to Malcolm Wallace, 42 Portman Square, London.
One suspects he will be rather more vigorously ridden with The Enforcer on board.February 19, 2003 at 19:12 #102447
We have had our share of skullduggery too, the thing is these days we don’t have ‘much’ at all! We don’t have the anything like the attemped rorting of the handicap in the UK.
We also do not have any system whereby a punter can profit simply just by knowing that something will be beaten.
If the exchanges keep the data available online (instead of whisking it away to a secret vault a few minutes after a race) so that anyone could examine betting data trends etc. I would feel ‘better’.
Given the lack of comment to my question it would seem that, at least in this case, there was no blatent attempt to use a betex to someone’s advantage for what a very poor performance.
But who would know – do we trust the moralists at Betfair to investigate and act. Not bloody likely.
rouge hommeFebruary 19, 2003 at 20:50 #102449apracingParticipant
- Total Posts 3105
We are, of course, a nation of conniving corrupt cheating scumbags, totally lacking in morality and always on the lookout for a chance to make an illegal buck.
That’s why so many of us were sent to Australia in the first place.
As an exchange user who simply uses my experience and interprets what I see in my own way, I’m getting heartily sick of this constant campaign you are waging – and I’m starting to wonder whose interests you believe you represent?
AlanFebruary 19, 2003 at 22:45 #102453tootingMember
- Total Posts 379
Heated debate brewing!
I see the RP Weekender has a new article covering betting moves on Betfair.
I have to say I’d love to be able to see the betting details available for a lot longer than currently.February 20, 2003 at 11:03 #102456
let me be clear – I don’t say that eveyone who "lays" a runner or put another way "against backers" are"conniving corrupt cheating scumbags, totally lacking in morality" – it is you who said that!
jokes aside – my biggest problem with betting exchanges remains that ‘honest’ "punters" create a smoke screen for those who would rort the system
my second biggest problem is that it betting exchange activity is not taxed equitabley compared to other wagering operators.
I have published papers in leading online gambling journals detailing the mathematics and principles behind my arguments and NO ONE has challeged them.
You will have no doubt noted by balanced arguments – even helping my mate Ian Davies out on the "betext as a bookmaker argument" –
The recent article in the RP about Betdaq’s different structures – bookmaker in the UK – betex P2P in Ireland one to minimise tax and levies in a "Gross Profits" environment and one to minimise/avoid tax/levies in a "turnover" environment highlights the unsafe ground this is all one.
Something has to be fixed. Legislative lag always catches up with the bad guys.
IMHO Betfair speaks with forked tongue – their dealings with the Australian Racing industry are reprehensable!
They have to expand offshore and exploit legitimate legislative distortions that exist in foreign jurisdictions – democracies no less than Australia – because according to my (solid) sources the GPT review will go against them and for that matter Betdaq.
They, and their users will then have to lump it or move offshore – and with that any remaining hope that the UK will continue to advocate "free-trade" in gambling "services".
Betfair have the moral backbone, or the lack thereof, of a grub.
Do you have principles – or can’t you sleep straight on the rack either?
P.S. Tooting looking forward to seeing the article hopefully, like most of RP it will appear in the clipping library tomorrow.February 20, 2003 at 21:30 #102462
Strong words – and bordering on offensive
You have brought some PM discussion into the public forum – and IMO twisted them to create a favourable argument.
For the record then – I was part of a consortium that tried to establish a betting exchange for sports betting in Australia, (it was plainly clear under our legislation (then and now) not possible to operate on horseracing anywhere in Australia).
You make out that I disagree with you on the Betdaq mode of operation – or the "twin-bet" mode as I call it – that is plainly not true. Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â I used the same device to argue that a "bookmaker" in Australia should be able to operator a betting exchange – our regulators (in the jurisdictions that mattered) however took a dim view of the "riskless" nature of it to the "bookmaker".
It is not a case of sour grapes – in fact like you I am looking foward to operating a betting exchange on sports – and, if an equitable way can be found, on horseracing too.
Without wanting to get on a high horse – I have some principles – and despite the opportunity to make money I won’t (a) operate outside the law (the letter or the intent) nor (b) free ride on someone’s IP – and with racing its critical as it, as a sport, depends almost exclusively on revenue from the wagering nexus.
If this means I don’t get rich – I won’t lose any sleep!
My view is simple – someone builds a toll road, they charge a toll – it is then the choice of individual to pay the toll and get to use the road Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â – or not to pay it.
I applaud your arguments about e-commerce, and your enthusiasm to pass on the savings to punters. Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â I came from, and still do come from, the same perspective.
Where we differ is the obligation to pay a fair and equitable IP rights fee to racing. Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â
On this point we are diametrically opposed – you believe you should have to pay NOTHING and only grudgingly would pay what was manadated on you.
All I know here is that it is only grubs and freeloaders that have to same view as you – the Australian Bookmakers’ Association fully supports the principle that racing be paid a fair product fee – and that that product fee should be fair and equitable when comparing the payments made by different types of wagering operators (bookmakers v totes).
The big storm brewing is whether or not a "betting exchange" is in fact a parimutuel betting system (tote) – if it is it will make life very interesting for UK betting exchanges as they would then be in breach of the TOTE’s exclusive authority in respect to horseracing.
The integrity issue (for horseracing) is almost insurmountable – but that is matter for each jurisdiction to decide in respect to the goverance of horseracing in that jurisdiction.
If the UK is happy to permit "against backing" – it is matter for the UK alone – but under no circumstance should that be considered as an authority to operate in that fashion elsewhere in the world.
To use one of your catch-cries, "the jury is till out" on cross-border betting – the UK (DCMS) is certainly a vocal advocate of "free-trade" – but it faces significant opposition.
At the Swiss Institute of Comparative Law’s Internet Gambling Law conference last week no other country came out in support of illict cross border gambling – the DCMS rep presented his case well – and there were supporters (operators, or would be operators) in the crowd – but the overwhelming evidence was things are getting tougher and tougher on cross-border gambling if the juridiction of the punter is against it.
I made the point above that I support the Betdaq (twin-bet) model – but it is clear from the drafting of the UK legislation that the intent was that Betting Exchanges would NOT be taxed/levied on commission revenue.
I have tried to contribute to the debate in thoughtful and structured way.
As to name calling – I do not believe I ever call you a "conman" – Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â as to being a "grub" – well that "tag" is something that I can say I have added to the TRF lexicon. Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â
As I remember I put to you a set of questions of principles (to which I actually commented that I expected you would support) when you replied in the negative – well you were a grub.
Speaking of grubs – if I was to use the example of a orchard – the orchardist grows his (grub-free) apples, picks them and has a "bricks and mortar" distribution network sells them wholesale for 20p each maybe making 5p each – the "retailer" with significant cost actuall sells them for 50p and also makes 5p – and the consumer eats the "grub-free" apple.
Then along comes the "pirate" – nicks the apples from the orchard and sels them online for 10p (he has some costs) making 5p. Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â The consumer gets the grubby apple for 40p less thinks that’s great in fact I’ll even had a second.
The pirate says – I am providing a great service!
Is this fair – NO – but that is how you and your kind at Betfair, Betdaq etc operate.
I do get annoyed when rational argument is ignored – as I made the point above I have presented both cases and highlighted the anomolies – my point remains that a betting exchange is either a "bookmaker" or its a "betting exchange" with special rules that apply "bookmaker" principles to the "bet-initator" or some other separate set of rules explictly for this "new" form of wagering. Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â It can’t be whatever it feels like on the day.
It is encumbant on Government the clear the issue up.
As to the interest of the punter – I am not forcing him to consume the product – in fact that goes against any principle of reponsible gambling – the punter has a right to choose – but he has no right to free-ride on "racing" by using a non-contributing wagering operator (and ven more some if it is himself).
My consiered view remains that the Betting Exchanges – as they profit off racing’s IP – should pay 10% of their commission AND the punters, as they are betting in a margin free environment, should pay the levy on their "bet-initiated" profits (over a month just like bookies) though net of commissions paid to the exchange (that said there are strong arguments as to why no such largesse should be granted). Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â
Logically that should apply to tax/GPT but that is not my issue.
That is fair and equitable.
You may lose a key distorting element in favour of your business model – if so bad luck
(Edited by redman at 8:41 am on Feb. 21, 2003)February 21, 2003 at 08:38 #102463raymondoMember
- Total Posts 20
The finest arguement i have ever seen on here.<br>Excellent stuff,<br>RayFebruary 21, 2003 at 12:01 #102464
But I am still waiting for some reply from my ‘mate’ – however while I am waiting waiting… do you have a view as yet?
rouge hommeFebruary 21, 2003 at 12:38 #102470Scottish JamieParticipant
- Total Posts 123
Great stuff, its like a tennis match.
Ian Davies came up with a big serve but Redman pulled off a miracle return, firing it down the line,it looks a clean winner, can Davies reach it, he’s scampering to get there, can he haul himself back into the rally ? He whips a running forehand cross court and it’s Redman’s turn to chase.February 21, 2003 at 13:10 #102474
Firstly, I have no vested interests – or to be very clear any pecuniary interest – though you do!
Secondly – a lot of my arguments are indeed fact – and I even present the half full and half empty perspective of the "facts" – but they are nonetheless still FACT.
My orchard example is not misleading – it is you who wants to pillage and plunder the orchard, and perhaps rape the orcharist’s daughter…
As I have stated over and over again if you want to avoid "tax" – or even as a thief pay VAT on stolen apples to legitimise your theft, or not, as the case may be – that is a wholey separate matter.
My issue is the Levy to racing – I think betting exchanges are nicking the "product" and using ‘legal’ devices (or loopholes) to minimise their (or more correctly their user’s) levy payments.
I find it interesting that you use a sports betting example to press your point – again I have stated, ad nausium, that I have no issue with BetEx sports betting – generally clearly a binary event in the first instance.
Betting Exchanges are a more efficent business model than "bookmakers" for two simple facts – the first – they faciliate the avoidance or GPT/Levy costs by the punter (costs that he would othersie have to pay as it would be incorporated in the price he bet at) – the second – they collapse the "margin" that exists in a multi-outcome event to that of a binary event.
The first is, simply, WRONG. The second is more complicated – and is further clouded by the "integrity" problems that it brings about for what is a fundamentally a wagering sport.
The October 6th Act – the Finance Act – sets out clearly that "bet brokers" should be taxed based on applying the same principles to THEIR USERS (not the exchange itself) as though they were "bookmakers" – that is "bet-initiators".
The "error" – simply aggregation or non-aggregation.
The KEY – if there is such a thing – appears to come down to who ‘offers’ a price – that person is the "bookmaker".
As the Betdaq position shows – the lack of definition as to who is, or is not, a "bookmaker" is a the heart of this issue.
If an exchange can be a "risk-less" bookmaker and thereby absolve his "offering" or "requesting" punters of any tax/levy liability so be it. Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Somehow I just don’t think that will happen.<br>
"the local judiciary will not be minded to be receptive to civil cases brought by the BHB against one of its most profitable local companies"
<br>How you can brazenly promote theft of racing IP for your own ends astounds me – how do YOU sleep at night?
You use the example of theft of music industry IP as justification – let’s be clear here – the music industry doesn’t have an issue with "fair use" rights but that doesn’t extend to commercial exploitation!
Lastly, again I state this is NOT about fleecing the consumer – the consumer has a right to choose – but if tax avoidance systems like Betting Exchanges exist – and what’s more brazenly promote themselves as legitimate – it make it very hard on the consumer to "do the right thing".
The problem is, as my father used to say – "locks only keep honest people out".
As I said before, and will say again, obviously government will have to sort this out – because people like you unfortately have to be told to do the right thing rather than being trusted to do the right thing!
(Edited by redman at 12:17 am on Feb. 22, 2003)February 21, 2003 at 13:19 #102477
Jamie – you are very funny bloke – for a scot ;) RHFebruary 21, 2003 at 21:33 #102486
I suppose you don’t pay your TV licence either
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.