- This topic has 104 replies, 33 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I’m struggling to see the problem with this. All four horses had every right to win their races on the form in the book.
MikeIf that was the case then what was your pick-up? This sounds like after-timing of the highest order.
Egos abound but it amazes me how some people think an acceptance/glorification of this coup somehow puts them on a level above the average punter. Can’t think of any other reason for posting unless you see some sort of merit in transferring money (at the expense of punters and the image of racing) from rich Companies to rich individuals.
I’m struggling to see the problem with this. All four horses had every right to win their races on the form in the book.
MikeIf that was the case then what was your pick-up? This sounds like after-timing of the highest order.
Egos abound but it amazes me how some people think an acceptance/glorification of this coup somehow puts them on a level above the average punter. Can’t think of any other reason for posting unless you see some sort of merit in transferring money (at the expense of punters and the image of racing) from rich Companies to rich individuals.
The fact all four horses already had the form to win goes to the heatrt of the matter Stilvi. Some on here seem to be under the misapprehension these horses improved their career bests out of all recognition. They did not. One improved slightly having been on the up on his last few races. The other three only needed to RETURN to form to win easily; they were so well handicapped.
However, Mike and I are not saying we’d have backed the horses ourselves – it’s not "ego" or "after-timing". Just that there are
reasons
why they won without the need of skulduggery. Problem for us punters being unless you were "in the know" – there was no way anyone could tell how fit, ready and able they were; because of long lay offs after poor runs (mostly at wrong trips). So no knowing if they’re a value bet.
Value Is EverythingStilvi
Iam sorry you dont get it ,
Bookies win 99 per cent of time , nobody says anything , racing post says this morning , if you agreed with the gamble you are not a proper punter ….lord above , you are not proper unless you lose !!!
Punters win 1 perm cent of the time , nobody says a lot
a group of of shrewd punters have it right off once every 5 years or so and everyone is up in arms
Carry on losing Stilvi , we know you are a proper punter
imo
I’m struggling to see the problem with this. All four horses had every right to win their races on the form in the book.
MikeIf that was the case then what was your pick-up? This sounds like after-timing of the highest order.
Absolutely it is. If I were betting on those races I wouldn’t have backed three of them on fitness grounds alone, although I can guarantee you I would have noticed their form.
Egos abound but it amazes me how some people think an acceptance/glorification of this coup somehow puts them on a level above the average punter.
You better stay amazed then because I don’t remotely think that.
Can’t think of any other reason for posting unless you see some sort of merit in transferring money (at the expense of punters and the image of racing) from rich Companies to rich individuals.
Then you’re completely wrong as my reason for posting was nothing of the sort. It was merely to display my surprise that so many people are up in arms and using extremely vitriolic language over what I see happen all the time. It seems that four seperate insider gambles at various times are perfectly acceptable but if they are connected and on one day then the rules should change. Sorry, but I just genuinely don’t understand it.
Mike
You cannot win in racing without information, in this case information was more readily available to the racing fan because of Curley’s reputation.
In the vast majority of gambles not involving B Curley, we are firmly locked out and the vast majority of us are losers. When we have finished celebrating we need to campaign for a system that is less open to abuse by increasingly underhanded operators.
Stilvi
Iam sorry you dont get it ,
Bookies win 99 per cent of time , nobody says anything , racing post says this morning , if you agreed with the gamble you are not a proper punter ….lord above , you are not proper unless you lose !!!
Punters win 1 perm cent of the time , nobody says a lot
a group of of shrewd punters have it right off once every 5 years or so and everyone is up in arms
Carry on losing Stilvi , we know you are a proper punter
imo
As it happens I haven’t lost for several years. I don’t bet in low grade races but it doesn’t mean to say that I take any pleasure in seeing those that do being taken for a ride.
Did you ever go to a casino? The owners fix the machines and the tables so that they win and you lose. What you may win is taken from the pockets of the other punters. Barney decided to short circuit the other punters himself instead of letting the Casino Owners distribute the wealth. What is the big difference? The punters can’t wait to give back their money to the bookies so Barney decided to put it to use in Africa. He is one of the few winners who won’t give the money back to the bookies.
Horses not running on their merits is bad news for all punters and the wider reputation of the sport and as has been said before the temptation to not run horses on their merits is attributable to poor prize money which in turn is created by too much racing.
I cannot believe that our readers are concerned about reputation of the sport. Horse racing is like craps ,roulette, bingo, blackjack. they are all tilted towards punters losing and bookmakers winning. What happens under the tables is what happens back at the stables. Go figure.
Horses not running on their merits is bad news for all punters and the wider reputation of the sport
I couldn’t agree more.
Which of the four horses involved hadn’t been running on it’s merits?
Mike
Stilvi
Iam sorry you dont get it ,
Bookies win 99 per cent of time , nobody says anything , racing post says this morning , if you agreed with the gamble you are not a proper punter ….lord above , you are not proper unless you lose !!!
Punters win 1 perm cent of the time , nobody says a lot
a group of of shrewd punters have it right off once every 5 years or so and everyone is up in arms
Carry on losing Stilvi , we know you are a proper punter
imo
…Well Stilvi, may be you were right about "ego".
Value Is EverythingHorses not running on their merits is bad news for all punters and the wider reputation of the sport
I couldn’t agree more.
Which of the four horses involved hadn’t been running on it’s merits?
Mike
Eye Of The Tiger
Beaten at least 36 lengths on every start with Curley, massive odds every run, last time was beaten 85 lengths in a class 5. Punted off the boards the other day and hacks up.
I agree with what you’re saying that if this was a one off horse and not connected with three others that there wouldn’t be half as much uproar, you’re probably right.
Take the case of Quick Jack, favourite for tomorrow’s Boylesports Hurdle at Leopardstown. Was he running on his merits on his first three runs? Debatable. Or Sea Light for that matter. These horses seem to know when the money is down. The case of Eye Of The Tiger is no different, it just looks worse because the handicapper decided to drop him however many stone in the mean time!
Horses not running on their merits is bad news for all punters and the wider reputation of the sport
I couldn’t agree more.
Which of the four horses involved hadn’t been running on it’s merits?
Mike
Eye Of The Tiger
Beaten at least 36 lengths on every start with Curley, massive odds every run, last time was beaten 85 lengths in a class 5. Punted off the boards the other day and hacks up.
I agree with what you’re saying that if this was a one off horse and not connected with three others that there wouldn’t be half as much uproar, you’re probably right.
These horses seem to know when the money is down. The case of Eye Of The Tiger is no different, it just looks worse because the handicapper decided to drop him however many stone in the mean time!
Horses badly lose their form all the time THM, sometimes with a virus in the yard, sometimes through injury. Then, given a break, they can come back to form (especially when the trainer is in better form or better still changed trainers) or may be had an op. I could’ve understood people complaining about the change around in form had there been just a month gap. But is it not probable Eye Of The Tiger had been rekindled by
16 MONTHS off
?
Most of the time a horse like this won’t be fit or able to do itself justice, let alone win. But on this occasion connections got the horse in A1 condition for a big betting coup… Four horses for four betting coups.
Value Is EverythingGinge, your last post is ludicrous you are not gullible so don’t act it.
Of course horses lose form for no reason and for reasons you suggested, but is no ordinary situation. BC clearly had this in mind for a long while. His horses running down handicap from 100+ ratings is a common sight and it is evident Eye Of The Tiger and many others have not run on their merits at those times.
The problem though surely lies in the system, how on earth they could drop the horse 10lbs for showing no form is beyond me, horses should have to show some semblance of form at the very least, they should have to run somewhere near form if anything to get a handicap mark adjusted.
Beaten at least 36 lengths on every start with Curley, massive odds every run, last time was beaten 85 lengths in a class 5. Punted off the boards the other day and hacks up.
I agree with what you’re saying that if this was a one off horse and not connected with three others that there wouldn’t be half as much uproar, you’re probably right.
These horses seem to know when the money is down. The case of Eye Of The Tiger is no different, it just looks worse because the handicapper decided to drop him however many stone in the mean time!
Horses badly lose their form all the time THM, sometimes with a virus in the yard, sometimes through injury. Then, given a break, they can come back to form (especially when the trainer is in better form or better still changed trainers) or may be had an op. I could’ve understood people complaining about the change around in form had there been just a month gap. But is it not probable Eye Of The Tiger had been rekindled by
16 MONTHS off
?
Most of the time a horse like this won’t be fit or able to do itself justice, let alone win. But on this occasion connections got the horse in A1 condition for a big betting coup… Four horses for four betting coups.
I’d say he was rekindled by doing a bit of work Ginger.
I’m not complaining, I’m just telling it as I believe it is.
Let’s say you’re right. What happens, does Donovan ring up Curley and say "Hi Barney, remember that decent horse you bought, Eye Of The Tiger, he’s working the house down here"
Barney: "You’re joking me, I could never get him to raise a gallop when I had him"
Donovan: "Hoping to run him in mid January, thought I’d let you know you should have a punt on him"
Barney: "Actually, I’m planning a big coup around that time with three other horses, you couldn’t get him in a race on the 22nd could you?"
As TBRacing says, this was planned for a long time.
So what both you and TBR are saying is we should judge these races not by what actually happened in those previous races… but solely because the man at the helm was Barney Curley?
Of course there is a
possibility
of trainers running horses unfit etc, which is why I said "is it not
probable
" he was rekindled by the absence. "Probable" meaning more than a 50% chance, I don’t say I am
"certain"
.
Sorry, but doesn’t everyone deserve to be judged by the same standards? ie On visual evidence only and not on reputation. Therefore, can not judge races run by Barney’s horses with an entirey different set of rules. I don’t particularly like the bloke, but if I can not physically see the horses being stopped – then imo it would be wrong to let who owned/trained (or used to own/train) the horse influence me. Some people are saying the rules should be changed. Well, the BHA also need to judge races fairly, otherwise a court case would find in Barney’s favour.
May be if Eye Of A Tiger was massively unfit before (ie not fit enough to do himself justice) there would be questions to answer, but I am unaware of either Timeform or on site BHA people seeing any fitness issues.
The "it was Barney, therefore he must have done been corrupt", doesn’t wash with me. Show me what he/anyone did wrong and I’m willing to change my mind. There is only one horse I would say questions should be asked, and that’s been pointed out by Drone.
Value Is EverythingThis is one of those that will run and run, mostly because of different perceptions. Barney’s a hero or he’s a villain.
My take on various points raised since I last looked in:
Ricky, bookies don’t win 99% of the time. The current gross profit on horseracing is around 14% (so punters are getting back 86% of everything staked) A side issue is that once all expenses have been paid from that 14%, the best the bookies will do nett is around 2% profit for those with large economies of scale. If you’re not Hills/Coral etc, you probably make a nett loss from horseracing.
Now, to betting coups.
I’ve no problem with connections who gallop a two-year-old with a Derby winner and the 2-y-o wins by half a furlong. They keep it quiet and have it off first time out.
I applaud those who find themselves with a young handicap hurdler who muscles up over the summer and comes to himself and develops an exceptional hurdling technique at home and connections get stuck into him first time out that season at Taunton.
I don’t even have a problem with a trainer who knows the absolute limit of one old chaser he has is 115 and he runs him over the wrong trip/in the wrong ground to get him back to 115 and help keep his business afloat.
I do have a problem if it transpires that the coup was engineered – over a very long period – by a rich man driven by an almost lifelong hatred of bookmakers. Punters were not just deceived on Wednesday, they were very probably deceived in most, if not all of the other races in which those horses ran, because Wednesday seemed to make it obvious that the purpose of all previous runs was to get the marks down (an offence under the rules of racing).
Now some might argue that I couldn’t prove that, but I’d happily bet that any objective court in the land would find that ‘on the balance of probability’, that is exactly what happened. The complexity of the plot alone – 4 animals, long lay-offs, the Curley connection, all just happen to run on the same day, all bet off the boards, is self-incriminating.
This was a conspiracy. The BHA investigation might find that the successful ‘delivery’ of that conspiracy was carried out by premeditated and prolonged cheating. If so, that cheating means it is probable that every penny placed on those horses in the build up to this was lost before the race was off…that every penny placed on the rivals of these horses on Wednesday was almost certainly lost before the off. The entry fees, travel costs, hopes of connections and grooms involved with rivals, were worth nothing to the perpetrators of the coup.
A major deception was pulled off by a group who, on Wednesday night were probably sitting laughing at all the gullible folk mentioned above – not least the punters. As I’ve said before, all this ‘we caned the bookies’ stuff is nonsense. The only money bookmakers have in their possession is provided by punters. Bookies redistribute it, keeping a slice for themselves.
Your punting losses, in this case, were handed over to the coup gang.
So, they didn’t cane the bookies. They caned other punters. They caned other owners and trainers and grooms. They caned racing’s reputation. They didn’t even have the decency to admit after the result ‘Yes, we had it away good and proper’ (Organising a betting coup is not an offence in itself). Instead we get treated like fools with quotes like ‘I don’t know about betting.’
Yet who gets blamed? the handicappers: they ain’t perfect, but what chance have they in a case like this? The stewards? Perhaps some criticism is merited there, but they shouldn’t be made to carry the can imo.
As for those who claim ‘the form was there for all to see’, why then were they backable overnight at accumulative odds of more than 14,000/1?
Whoever organized this is, of course entitled to some admiration for the logistical side, but there’s no doubt in my mind it was a bad day for racing.
If it was Mr Curley, perhaps his smartest move of all was getting the stooges to deliver for him; for it is the stooges who, if found guilty of an offence, might – and should imo, lose their livelihood by being hit with long term bans.
The patsys might well be left thinking ‘We were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!’ They blew the walls out, and, after the BHA investigation, they could find the roof will come crashing down on them. I wonder what they will think then of Mr Curley who will be standing well clear, not a speck of dust on his suit, smiling at them before he wanders off to plan his next coup.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.