- This topic has 61 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
Wit,
Is the premise of the unfair contract similar to that being introduced with the Consumer Credit Act reforms? Under those arrangements, which will be regulated by the OFT and now arbitrated by the FOS, if a term within the contract creates a significant imbalance in either parties rights the contract will be deemed unfair.
If the regulations are similar the punters will need a zealous and strong minded soul to fight our corner and in effect push a test case through the courts for circumstances such as Glenn has put forward.
The big finance/investment houses are having to deal with this kind of thing from the FSA and OFT so why the bookies should be exempt is beyond me. Gambling is in essence high risk investment.
Farcical.
Glenn
I emailed the guts of your excellent post to Get On (ATR) for comment on the show and despite Tony Ennis saying he’d got through all the emails it was never mentioned. Says it all really.
Anybody have an sutiable email for RUK, the one on their website is a bit generic?
wit, excellent point regarding the new Gambling Act, sections 335-337, and yes, you are correct,  “Section 335 will make gambling contracts enforceable.â€ÂÂ
Riddler,
You really are getting the hang of this. You’ve even stopped talking about BODD-M.
Have you really copied those people in?!
I think we should stop talking about it as a conspiracy as its nothing more than capitalism in its darkest form at work here. The big issue is that gambling is seen as an evil, therefore regulating it is less of a necessity simply because of that fact. Why should the government regulate and protect consumers who are doing something which is not as widely socially accepted as say investing in the markets? Smoking in the UK became unmanageable and because our friends in the US think its bad (to be fair i’m sure there is plenty of support for it in the UK) we’ve taken that moral decision (I say we, the w**k<br>ers in office have). Gambling has less of an impact on the government because the detriment to the customer is not felt directly by the government. Nor do most punters actually know they are being fleeced so there is less of an uproar.
Eventually once the problem has got too big and the bookmakers have made way too much money, they might step and do something to regulate the market, until that time, people such as us should continue to exchange the info available to us and provide some education and insight. Its just another challenge in the life of a punter!!!
Edited to say: Perhaps if the feeling is great enough a super complaint could be generated through the citizens advice bureau so that the Competition Commission would have to investigate the market. That would be good for a laugh!!!
(Edited by Aragorn at 4:27 pm on April 27, 2007)
I think you are right Aragorn, regarding the dark side of capitalism .. these robberies are nothing more than that. Greed and the governments approval of it through Lord D, shows things up for what they really are.
Over the years there has been a concerted effort by all of our capitalist governments to create an un-even playing field across the board .. anyone remember ‘Rip-off Britain’. They are quite happy with the Rip-off, because those that are profiteering are paying tax on their massive profits and donating a small percentage to the levy. Whereas winning punters keep it all for themselves.
News…
“David Harding, chief executive of William Hill, cashed in £2.5m in share options this week.â€ÂÂ
I hadn’t seen this race, but I’m glad it was brought up.
I wasn’t too irked by the fact that the race was reduced from 16 to 15. I’ve seen the like of that happen many a time, and it would be a bit far-fetched to say that the bookies could influence the amount of runners on the day.
However! Cutting a horse whilst it’s bucking about like a mule, that’s nothing short of a ******* disgrace. The bookies should be made to prove the money coming for this horse, as they all take bets through automated systems now. Where are the lawmen of the racing industry? Surely they can see a gamble on a temperamental monkey is completely counter-intuitive, and altogether far too convenient for the men who are making the books? But then, ‘we’ are the public, ‘they’ (JC, bookies, BHB, media) are the industry, in it together.
For me, racings last hope died quite recently. Until then, I, as a naive young man, thought that the RP was a truly unbiased media tool, that it was on our side (apart from the folk they get in to do the spotlights, they’re pi$h). But recently, when Le Soleil was gambled from 13/2 into 11/4 for everyone’s favourite cheating swine, one B J Curley, the RP described it as ‘one of his special gambles’. Not ‘the old tossers at it again’ or ‘**** me, Curley, why don’t you just wear a mask and stripey jumper?’. A sad day.
Racing needs cleaned up at every level, not just the bookies. The 1st at Perth yesterday was an example of how the bookies can also come off worse at the hands of dishonesty.
Quote: from Friggo on 7:34 pm on April 27, 2007[br]The 1st at Perth yesterday was an example of how the bookies can also come off worse at the hands of dishonesty.
??
Care to expand on that Friggo
I wasn’t too irked by the fact that the race was reduced from 16 to 15. I’ve seen the like of that happen many a time, and it would be a bit far-fetched to say that the bookies could influence the amount of runners on the day.
However! Cutting a horse whilst it’s bucking about like a mule, that’s nothing short of a ******* disgrace. The bookies should be made to prove the money coming for this horse, as they all take bets through automated systems now. Where are the lawmen of the racing industry?
<br>Spot on IMO Frigster. The other ‘crimes’ listed on this thread are generally nothing of the sort – just standard capitalist practice.
This, though – providing not enough money has actually been laid on this horse to reduce it’s price – can only be described as fraud.
And I am always defending racing as being straight.
Mike
Still would appreciate a direct email for anyone on Racing UK. I’m also going to email the Morning Line tomorrow and Chapman or Boyce if their on ATR tomorrow, Ennis wasnt interested it seems
(Edited by Cavelino Rampante at 8:58 pm on April 27, 2007)
Call me naive if you will but could this gamble have ocurred due to the horse’s ownership (Patrick Veitch and co.)?
Rather like Tony Bloom in football markets, if a gamble is thought to concern one of the big players then chalk moves often occur. In horse racing the market moves on certain trainers’ horses (Stewart Williams for instance) do not reflect the actual money traded on them.
Could this be an instance where a gamble was being orchestrated by well known pro punters, the price was cut excessively (due to connections) and then totally unexpectedly the horse wasn’t fit to run for reasons already highlighted?
The gamble could well continue even after the horse’s pre-race antics as those people off-course who are in on the gamble have no knowledge of the horse’s behaviour, they are lumping on expectantly…
Just trying to balance the argument, and no I’m not Mr. Done/Hill/Chandler etc! :cool:
Doesn’t make it right to cut it past the 20p Rule 4 mark but if the gamble takes it in the region of 4/1 then surely as a business you’d think let’s push it over the threshold.
(Edited by ToneLoc at 9:08 pm on April 27, 2007)
Perhaps someone could kindly explain these sections of the gambling act
Section 5: Facilities for gambling
40. The list in paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (1) is aimed at different levels and aspects of the operation of gambling. Paragraph (a) is aimed at people and companies who are in the business of providing gambling. Any person who offers the opportunity for people to gamble, whether at a casino or licensed betting premises or through a website, will expressly or by implication be inviting people to gamble in accordance with arrangements made by them.
Does the above simply relate to the premises or all arrangements including odds offered?
Section 24: Codes of practice
103. A failure to comply with a code will not, of itself, render a person liable to prosecution or civil action. However, the codes can be used as evidence for criminal or civil proceedings; are to be taken into account by a court or tribunal in any case where it appears relevant; and are to be taken into account by the Commission in exercising any of its functions. For example, where a licence holder has his operating licence reviewed by the Commission for potential breach of a licence condition, under the powers provided in Part 5, the Commission will refer to a code of practice, where it is relevant.
What are the implications of the first sentence?
Section 336: Power of Gambling Commission to void bet
The fact that one or both of the parties to the bet believed, or ought to have believed, that the offence of cheating (as set out in section 42) had been, or was likely to be, committed in relation to the bet. This could apply where, for example, a person connected to a racehorse owner became aware that the horse had been deliberately injured prior to a race in which it was to run and, on the basis of that knowledge, made a bet on that horse through a betting intermediary;
Does the horse have to be deliberately injured or simply known not to be fit to run?
Quote: from Drone on 8:14 pm on April 27, 2007[br]
??
Care to expand on that Friggo<br>
I don’t know if you saw the race, so I’ll start at the beginning.
First show on the course: Smart Street 9/4, South of the Border 5/2. A gamble develops on SotB and at the off: Smart Street 3/1, South of the Border 7/4 (tchd 13/8 supposedly).
In the race itself, SS leads them a merry dance, and by the second last he’s shaken them all off bar SotB, but is still going the better. Sam Thomas starts to really get at SotB, but Phil Kinsella sits tight on SS. They jump the last roughly upsides, perhaps SotB just up, with Sam Thomas still riding like a madman, whereas Kinsella just shakes the reigns and gives a couple of sporadic, less convincing whips. SotB, the gamble, wins by half a length.
The whispering afterwards agreed with my thoughts that Kinsella gave SS "a tender ride", to use the phrase one trainer gave me. So the initial favourite has taken a walk in the market, and lost to the gamble under a very soft ride? Spooky, that.
And perhaps I was a bit rash in saying that the bookies lost out of this, but they weren’t the main culprits nor the main beneficiaries of this incident.<br>
(Edited by Friggo at 9:29 pm on April 27, 2007)
No I didn’t see the race so not in a position to question your take on it
Three points:
Smart Street has been ridden hands and heels in most of his races
SS is very much a chaser-in-waiting while South of the Border is Flat bred which may suggest the latter is a more adept hurdler anyway; hence market ‘correction’
When confronted by racecourse whispers "eyes open ears closed" mode is best adopted.
In light of this recent deluge of posts depicting the seedy and sick side of horserace-betting it’s understandable that paranoia kicks in and dastardly deeds are seen to be occuring here there and everywhere but I’d suggest exhausting all ‘form’ avenues to explain why a horse ran as it did before rationalising it away as corrupt.
Of course your assertions may be correct!
Hope you enjoyed Perth; it’s a grand spot.
I think it’s racing@channel4.com, davejay.
And I might have known that once a thread like this popped up, Boo Ridley would creep out from behind the stone he calls home and turn a sensible discussion into another sensationalist rant against corruption, cartels, fixed betting and his self-appointment as racing’s saviour.
Pratt.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.