- This topic has 104 replies, 33 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
Dear bachelor you are not making sense.Only one horse can win so no matter what the owners do they will all lose except one.And everyone knows that from the time when they acquired a horse to race.How did Barney change the goalposts do you mind explaining?
Hello Andy.
Using a boxing analogy, you’ve signed up to fight a nine stone journeyman only to find yourself stood in the ring watching a rabid looking 1989 Mike Tyson marching towards you. Would you feel comfortable staying staying in the ring? Or would you go to the commissioner and withdraw from the fight citing a breach of contract.
Transferred to horse racing, you’ve entered your 55 rated plodder in a 0-60 handicap only to discover it’s a 0-60 with an 85 rated animal thrown in at the whim of Barney Curley.
The owners of the original entrants knew roughly what they were up against and were competing against equals. When it transpired that a Curley horse was unplugged, that was no longer the case. Had I legitimately trained my horse to run on its merits in the appropriate class, given the circumstances, I would feel entitled to have my entry fee refunded as well as potential loss of earnings and compensation for the time it will take to ready my horse again.
I admire this gamble as a logistical operation – truly brilliant stuff.
Although most (especially the bookies) must have doubted that Curley was finished when he retired from training, that was a pretty successful bluff overall.
Getting four low ability horses well-handicapped and then 100% fit and ready to win on the same day must be such a tough thing to pull off. Likewise, keeping everyone quiet and making sure everyone follows the plan perfectly. If one person got greedy and tried to put in a cheeky acca before ‘go time’, the coup would have been in tatters. If one conspirator told their mate down the pub after a few drinks, it could have been ruined.
Curley has done it again, though. Even if you think he is a thief, he is a very clever one!
Personally, I think his work is not much different to the majority of other trainers. With prize money so poor and good owners so hard to attract, you need the odd punt to keep things ticking over. Curley just gets most of the spotlight owing to the scale of his gambles.
Sir Mark Prescott, David Pipe, Jonjo O’Neill…most other trainers at least dabble in this sort of stuff. Try winning the Coral Cup or Fred Winter without some sort of long-term plan to manipulate your horse’s handicap – good luck.
Forget about the bookies, what about Phil Smith and his handicappers, they have been suckered in again, lots of red faces this morning no doubt.
I took a look at how far
Eye Of The Tiger
had improved, compared to his handicap mark of
56
.
I had the going allowance for yesterday’s meeting at
Lingfield
, the fastest I can remember it has ever been at
+0.50S/f
, and I had
Eye Of The Tiger
improving his handicap mark by
18lbs
I await with interest to see what the handicapper is going to put him up by, maybe in the region of
25lbs
I for one will be very surprised if we see
Eye Of The Tiger
run again, as they say job done
Could something similar be done in France? No, none of this would be possible without bookmakers, punters are fleeced day in, day out by them yet little is said about that.
Any punter with the slightest bit of knowledge can’t get a bet on with them, even more so since FOBT’s.
If racing was a Tote/exchange monopoly we would be racing for decent prize money, have cheap entry to the races and you could have as much as you want on any horse without any skulduggery involved.
I’m afraid bookmakers are a cancer on the sport and always will be, if you want them you will have to put up with this sort of coup once every blue moon.
Well said Eddie , a bloody good post …and spot on , I am at a loss to understand Corm’s whinging post ,,,its called real life , every day gambles go astray , not a murmur ….and suddenly this is a watershed ….absolute nonsense sir
Most punters were cheering the last one home , just to see the enemy get a poke in the eye , it was good to enjoy that happening
Racing is what it is , and until we have a tote monopoly (never )
specific placement is the order of the day
, although you may never see one so beautifully orchestrated like this againwell done to the masterminds a job well done
imo
Ricky
Is that the way you want your racing Andy?
Bizarrely, I think it adds some color to the event. Its been all over the news shows here this morning and not in a negative way. Maybe its the oceans 11 feel to it. Maybe Clooney could play Barney, now that would be a tough role.
On a more serious comment, this was an audacious attempt, with a high chance of coming unstuck. In fact, most attempts at this probably do fail. As far as I am concerned, they paid their money, took their chances and good luck to them.
Within any race that I bet in, its up to nobody but sweet little me to watch out for the risk of a well handicapped horse.
SHL
Curley is seen by the public in much the same way as the perpetrators of the Great Train Robbery were afforded hero status for getting one over on the establishment. He is legend because he has a reputation for this kind of attack. The bookies do not usually object to skullduggery as long as it gets the favourite beat, this time however, they have taken a hit.
I suspect that Curley may have wanted to illustrate what is normal practice among trainers vis a vis, to disguise ability, everyone is doing it. The difference in Curley’s case is that the public are alert to his activities and are not slow in getting their money on. I applaud those who have profited in this case and taken a little from the bookie.
In the long run, the average betting man will lose because of the sheer depth of obfuscation and disguise in racing so who would deny him a moment of celebration.
Those who are doubting of Racing’s integrity are supported by activities and revelations on a now more regular basis and this gamble can be added to the Gerard Butler and Al Zarooni cases, it is an act of deceit in essence but a deceit that at least some of the general public could profit from.
The day after the "big coup" was pulled off. I have thought about this a lot and a telling personal reaction this morning was when I opened my paper to the racing page.
My initial thought was "is it a complete waste of time looking for winners, studying any form etc?". I am not tempted to bet today because of Mr Curley’s coup – quite the opposite, I am put off.
I may be in a minority with that view, if so I can accept that. but if not will the sport suffer long term if ordinary punters reduce their betting and in some cases stop altogether?
Racing needs the low level, regular punters who enjoy a bet with a chance of winning with all the usual risks taken into account. When winners like these come along, well beaten on previous outings and after long absences some may question their involvement in the game.
Dear bachelor you are not making sense.Only one horse can win so no matter what the owners do they will all lose except one.And everyone knows that from the time when they acquired a horse to race.How did Barney change the goalposts do you mind explaining?
Hello Andy.
Using a boxing analogy, you’ve signed up to fight a nine stone journeyman only to find yourself stood in the ring watching a rabid looking 1989 Mike Tyson marching towards you. Would you feel comfortable staying staying in the ring? Or would you go to the commissioner and withdraw from the fight citing a breach of contract.
Transferred to horse racing, you’ve entered your 55 rated plodder in a 0-60 handicap only to discover it’s a 0-60 with an 85 rated animal thrown in at the whim of Barney Curley.
The owners of the original entrants knew roughly what they were up against and were competing against equals. When it transpired that a Curley horse was unplugged, that was no longer the case. Had I legitimately trained my horse to run on its merits in the appropriate class, given the circumstances, I would feel entitled to have my entry fee refunded as well as potential loss of earnings and compensation for the time it will take to ready my horse again.
But even the most honest trainer can not allow his horses to run on its merits all the time. If you own an ordinary hurdler, you have to get a low handicap mark for him or you will never win a race. Every day, we see horses that have had shown little over a few runs then once assigned a mark will be allowed to run to merit. No gambling or punting involved and usually the horse will find himself in a race with others doing the same thing.
If you don’t like it, you really have to blame the system. Years ago, I owned a hurdler who we handled softly til we got a mark but we did manage to run into a distant third in a novice hurdle in Tipperary. After we won a maiden hurdle we found ourselves in a race where another hurdler who had to that point won three races was carrying about a stone less than us. Being new to the intricacies, I couldn’t understand it.
In fact, the faster a handicapper gets a grip of you, the closer your horse is to dog food.
SHL
Is there another Curley connection with today’s market mover Piper’s Piper 5.00 Kempton, 2/1 from 20/1? Interestingly trained by Mandy Rowland , not far from where I live, at more of an equestrian centre than a racehorse training stable. PP was trained previously by John Butler as was Low Key yesterday.
Low grade handicap racing.
Lottery.
Anyone that is not in the know should stick to the better group and graded stuff only imo.Gaelic Warrior Gold Cup Winner 2026
Corm is correct – the bookies didn’t get stung – you did. All that bookies do is redistribute money given to them by punters, keeping a slice for themselves. Punters paid for the Curley coup.
BTW, Bachelor’s Hall’s posts on this thread are some of the best I’ve read on any forum on any subject. Nailed it!
Joe
Corm is correct – the bookies didn’t get stung – you did. All that bookies do is redistribute money given to them by punters, keeping a slice for themselves. Punters paid for the Curley coup.
Joe
Who benefits and who is ripped off when a horse does 2 laps of track or bolts to post and is long odds on to be withdrawn only to be mysteriously backed from 8/1 to 11/2 etc?
Who benefits and who is ripped off from the micky mouse prices available at some all weather evening meetings when quite often you can get double the price on the exchanges for good money?
Corm is correct – the bookies didn’t get stung – you did. All that bookies do is redistribute money given to them by punters, keeping a slice for themselves. Punters paid for the Curley coup.
Joe
Who benefits and who is ripped off when a horse does 2 laps of track or bolts to post and is long odds on to be withdrawn only to be mysteriously backed from 8/1 to 11/2 etc?
Who benefits and who is ripped off from the micky mouse prices available at some all weather evening meetings when quite often you can get double the price on the exchanges for good money?
Exactly the same people are affected as those in the coup. The only money bookmakers are in possession of is that provided by punters. If bookmakers behave in the manner you cite, then the same punters can choose not to provide them with that cash and take it, as you mention, to the exchanges. Those who backed the losers in yesterday’s famous 4 races, helped pay Curley and his co-conspirators.
Will Joe Public have the awareness to realise the so called gamble at Kempton will lose them their two bananas, as the bookies get their money back ? these people who land the money are self serving extortionist, and are no hero of mine. The more publicity they get, the more likely we will see repeats from various people. The bookies always get their money back from your 20 quid punter. I liked listening to Curley on youtube, but he is a hypocrite, and inevitably a take out merchant. Do i blame him ?…no i don’t. I’d do the same thing myself if i could. And yes that would make me a self serving extortionist and a take out merchant, but i could live with those labels if i had that sort of money from dishonest punting.
Doesn’t all this prove, yet again, that even trainers whom are not considered "Top Tier" are more than capable of preparing horses to run fit and well to the best of their ability, no matter the lay off.
Every year the NH season (a certain few Festivals excluded) is ridiculed more and more due to the "needed the run" excuse.
I’ve said it before, but from a logistical point of view if a horse "needs the run", then run it over the distance at home until he/she does not need the run and is ready to try 100% under rules.
Is the "will come on for it" line the biggest myth / con in racing?
, although you may never see one so beautifully orchestrated like this again
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.