- This topic has 104 replies, 33 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Of course the horses dont have to be sent to the races unfit in order to get beaten 100+ lengths, as this example demonstrates:
http://britishhorseracing.com/resources … tem=092121
For those unfamiliar with the substance detected in that case, ACP was the drug used by Dermot Browne to sedate numerous horses during the 90’s.
As for the handicapping issue, their actions in dropping some of these horse huge amounts for showing no form at all certainly made things much easier for Curley. I don’t see how anybody can justify dropping a Group 2 winning horse by 56lbs in the space of six races spread over five months.
Of course the horses dont have to be sent to the races unfit in order to get beaten 100+ lengths, as this example demonstrates:
http://britishhorseracing.com/resources … tem=092121
For those unfamiliar with the substance detected in that case, ACP was the drug used by Dermot Browne to sedate numerous horses during the 90’s.
I did not know of this offence. Hopefully, after being found guilty once of using ACP the BHA would’ve tested Barney’s horses more regularly (even after the enitial 12 month testing period).
Value Is EverythingSo 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.
You’re putting words in my mouth, I actually gave examples of two other horses who believe it or not are not trained by Barney Curley. Where have I said anything along the lines of "it was Barney, therefore he must have done been corrupt"?
I have to disagree with you on this horse and say it’s
probable
he was rekindled by being sent up a gallop somewhere.
Because the BHA or Timeforem didn’t comment on fitness doesn’t mean anything imo, a horse doesn’t need to be as big as a bus to be unfit.
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?
How lucky they were that the odds compilers were such dimwits. I would imagine that if BetLarge had been chalking up they would have been eyeing up a 6/1 yankee!
The only horse that suffered was the second. All the rest have no issue. They would be losers whether the syndicate horses ran or not. Were the second horses backed to beat the winners? I don’t think so.
The only horse that suffered was the second. All the rest have no issue. They would be losers whether the syndicate horses ran or not. Were the second horses backed to beat the winners? I don’t think so.
Steeplechasing , a pretty sanctimonious post from a guy with a bookie background Id say
each day of the week the bookies act on their own inside info and price up accordingly , all the things you outlined are the same in those instances as well …but hey you chose to ignore that
Fact is our racing is based on losing….the whole structure is run to suit the betting industry , we bend over backwwards and then they drop a few bob for prize money , if you look at the profit figures for all of the bookies , and then compare the levy yield , its a small chunk ….so when someone rips them off , I say well done you guys …more please
2 sides to every story sir …..
well done to the connections ….a job well done
now as Drone says ,,,money lent , lets get on to the next big thing …(how about we find out about the Zarooni doping )
as for fining and banning those who beat the system , please get real , its not going to happen , as simply there is no case to answer , if winning or landing a touch is penalised then why bother at all …..
Stupid logic , the bookies rip punters off each day ,,,and yes they are opening more shops each day for the dreaded roulette machines , before the law changes ….so lets not shed too many tears for them
I cannot stand bookie apologists
imo
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.
You’re putting words in my mouth, I actually gave examples of two other horses who believe it or not are not trained by Barney Curley. Where have I said anything along the lines of "it was Barney, therefore he must have done been corrupt"?
I have to disagree with you on this horse and say it’sprobable
he was rekindled by being sent up a gallop somewhere.
Because the BHA or Timeforem didn’t comment on fitness doesn’t mean anything imo, a horse doesn’t need to be as big as a bus to be unfit.
However, AP has raised another important possibility which I was unaware of. Obviously if a trainer has used a drousy drug in the past, then it is more likely to have been used here. It could also explain the long absences and return to form afterwards…My opinion about the whole affair has changed somewhat and that should be taken in to account in judging any of my previous posts. So we may now have a similar view THM.
Value Is EverythingAs 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?
I said "All four horses had every right to win their races on the form in the book."
Long Run is 40-1 for the Gold Cup. If he wins, I will be mightily surprised as recent form strongly suggests otherwise. However, he’s certainly shown himself more than capable of doing so on his best form.
Likewise, on their best form, three of these horses would not have had to show one ounce of improvement to land the gambles.
Obviously, the reason they were such big prices was a combination of long absences and poor form when they were last seen.
Mike
How lucky they were that the odds compilers were such dimwits. I would imagine that if BetLarge had been chalking up they would have been eyeing up a 6/1 yankee!
Not at all. On all public evidence they were priced correctly.
Mike
These eye watering drops in handicap marks off the back of uninformative runs do seem to be the preserve of Curley horses.
When challenged for similar examples, the best one Robin Mounsey could cite in today’s Racing Post was Acropolis. That horses fall to a mark of 55 took many years and dozens of runs, the last six being in claimers/sellers.
It does beg the question whether Curley has some inside line into the exact criteria the official handicappers use before a monster drop and places his coup horses to tick all of Phil Smith’s boxes every time they run.
Looking at Eye of the Tiger and Tusculum’s form I’m guessing the boxes that have to be ticked for a monster drop would include:
1) Has to have performed 50lb+ below form
2) Has to have done this over his optimum trip (ie distance can’t be an excuse)
3) One calender month has to have passed since run leading to previous dropGlenn,
Perhaps the inside line stems from the remarkable coincidence of one of the four horses involved on Wednesday being owned by a former BHA handicapper.
Here’s another example of a Curley horse getting favourable handicapping treatment:
https://www.theracingforum.co.uk/horse-racing-f … 91&start=0
Mike, fair points, and I’ve amended my post to reflect them.
I have spoken to the BHA and they tell me that ‘the balance of probability’ is taken into account in investigations. With that in mind, I cannot see how such a difficult logistical exercise aimed at bringing together 4 highly likely winners on the same day, some of whose prices contracted beyond the bounds of living memory, due to sustained betting commencing the night before, can be seen as anything other than a conspiracy.
And with the deepest ‘benefit of the doubt levels’ imaginable, I cannot accept that the handicap marks of the winning horses were achieved by each animal doing its best at all times, as required by the rules.
I might be wrong. But I doubt I am.
An excellent piece of journalism regarding the matter from
Sundayworld.com
:-
"An extraordinary few hours on Wednesday saw Irish and UK bookmakers hit for up to €15m after thousands of punters made wagers on a
four-horse accumulator
that was returned at up to 11,200/1.
At least four of the winners were believed to have some link to legendary Irish gambler and former trainer Barney Curley
."
This weeks prize question is:-
"How many horses are there in a four horse accumulator?"
A) Four
B) Five
C) SixText your answer to 0906 GULL IBLE
eg:
C) John Smith, Glasgow
ps I had a £5 acca on at the maximum odds but have donated it to the deserving charity
Raincoat Aid
, who help replace distressed outerwear for the less fortunate in society.
http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i237/scorrie57/barney_zps6ae217ee.jpg
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
Mike, fair points, and I’ve amended my post to reflect them.
I have spoken to the BHA and they tell me that ‘the balance of probability’ is taken into account in investigations. With that in mind, I cannot see how such a difficult logistical exercise aimed at bringing together 4 highly likely winners on the same day, some of whose prices contracted beyond the bounds of living memory, due to sustained betting commencing the night before, can be seen as anything other than a conspiracy.
And with the deepest ‘benefit of the doubt levels’ imaginable, I cannot accept that the handicap marks of the winning horses were achieved by each animal doing its best at all times, as required by the rules.
I might be wrong. But I doubt I am.
I’ve taken down my post with the quotes.
Your last paragraph contains the crux of the matter were any inquiry to be brought (and no sign of one as we speak).
Wasn’t Ahern nailed on ‘the balance of probability’? Although his explanations for events were beyond ludicrous.
Mike
Some observations:
1. It should now be possible to for Barney to make quite a bit by betting against horses he is connected to. Presumably just get together 4 connected nags to race on the same day, wait for the odds to drop and short them. Should be just about legal as long as they are trained/owned by friends and he doesn’t have a financial interest in them.
2. Mug punters probably did ok out of this. If they latched on late to the coup they would still have made a bit despite the low SPs. Expert punters could reasonably be expected not to bet on races among horses with unknown form. Biggest punting losers were probably people on exchanges betting against the winners in the hope that the odds had been pushed too low by the frenzy.
3. Not sure if already mentioned, but apparently foreign form doesn’t count for UK handicappers so it’s easier to get a low rating with a foreign horse.
4. Even in situations where horse and rider are doing their best, mug punters often lose. eg consistently backing AP McCoy’s rides at SP is going to lose you a lot of money. But nobody complains about this.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.