- This topic has 80 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
I thought Zorro’s article was spot on with respect to pubic cynicism. Not sure how anyone can disagree with that as a historical fact.
Not many will disagree that Horse racing is much less corrupt than it was years ago. It has survived worse scandals and I think will survive this jockey scandal and indeed may be better for it.
People can be up in arms about certain rule breaking. What about the acceptible "cheating" in racing such as inside info, scam tipping services, running of horses in unfavourable conditions, training on the course etc? We have all had a supposed insider tip and accept this "cheating" to give us a supposed acceptable advantage.
I was over in Eire a couple of weeks ago and watched a Hurling game final. This was in contrast to the daily diet of world cup offerings Was so refreshing to see true sportsmanship without play acting, cheating or Cynicism.
Was not going to comment on Fallon but believe in the innocent until proven guilty cornerstone of British justice concept. I think they have acted too soon.
Like one or two others on here it seems I was pretty surprised by Paul’s take on events in his piece – so much so that I initially thought he was taking the pee. He corrected me on that and pointed out his target was the general level of cynicism amongst sports fans.<br>With that in mind, a few points –
-Paul Haigh columns are ‘opinion pieces’ they are not straight reports of facts that can be read elsewhere.<br>-To be successful they probably should divide opinion or at least prompt a few questions and cause us to stop and question our own views.<br>-He’s entirely entitled to voice a view that is clearly shared by others that punters are immune to the scandals that afflict racing and other sports.<br>-To suggest that he should pull up stumps simply because you disagree with his views is daft. <br>- The Tour de France seems to be a pretty big event despite being exposed as a drug fuelled farce.
What Paul had to say has prompted further debate on here – and isn’t that after all what we all drop in here for?<br>Having exchanged e mails with Paul I can see more where his article was coming from and it’s another addition to an increasingly wide ranging -and to my mind overdue- conversation that we’re all having.
For me there is a key difference between racing and all the other sports mentioned. Racing depends on betting and all other sports do not. Simple as that.
There is also the obvious point that the current charges against jockeys are comparable to the Cronje scandal in cricket and the current investigations into Serie A corruption in football, not to footballers falling over and cricketers shouting ‘howzat?’.
I would go even further and say that the current charges go beyond anything that has happened before in terms of scandals, coups and strokes in the sport of horseracing and it seems to me that many commentators and pundits are in danger of missing the point here.
In previous attempts to defraud the ultimate victim has usually been corporate – ie the bookies.
What is alleged here is that jockeys conspired with layers to take money off punters backing horses that, it had already been arranged, were not to win and/or place that day and that they did so not once or twice but over and over and over again.
There is no romance to these charges. This is not a case of daring villains duping unsuspecting bookies. This is not a case of a few quiet rides before a well planned coup. To take people’s bets when you know the outcome has already been settled in your favour is theft, as sure as if the people concerned had broken into your house and removed your cash and valuables while you slept.
Paul takes the view that punters have seen scandals come and go in a wide range of sports and those sports have continued to thrive.
I take the view that if only a fraction of the core punters who keep this whole show on the road are disillusioned enough to pack it all in betting turnover will be decimated and the sport could be thrown into an irreversible decline as a result.
More than 80% of the average bookies profits come form less that 15% of his customers. In other words the vast majority of turnover, profit and levy comes from a very small pool of regular punters. I’m one of those punters and I know that at times I have modified my betting due to concerns about how certain types or races have been run. If those concerns had continued to go unadressed my betting on racing would have continued to decline.
It’s quite possible that we’re both wrong and that the truth lies in between. I come at these debates first and foremost as a punter though and I think that punters will accept game playing, and sportsmanship and attempts to kid on the handicapper. What they won’t accept is money being thieved from straight out of their pockets.
I think that the Post had misread the mood of punters in the lead up to Friday’s events and is now playing catch up. There’s no shame in that I don’t think that any of us has covered ourselves in glory up to now on this topic but what we now have is the opportunity to reshape the governance of the sport and the reporting of it.<br>
I haven’t seen the article but if it made mention that betting turnover won’t be adversely affected by this scandal or by the result of the eventual trial then I believe that to be pretty much the case.
Recent events are indeed serious and it may well (rightly) concern those ‘serious punters’ who contribute to forums such as this and lead to wariness/trepidation when betting/laying, or concern anyone with a genuine love of the game in it’s own right, but to yer average betting shop habituee – who contribute the majority of betting turnover – happy to while away an afternoon betting on numbers, Portman Park and chatting with his mates it won’t make a blind bit of difference. The smoking ban may.
It will simply reinforce his belief that the game is, was and alwys will be bent – a comfortable crutch to lean on, the reason why he loses money betting the gee-gees: ‘you can’t beat the system’. Of course it would never occur to him that it’s his fault and his alone that he’s a loser; it’s so much easier to blame third parties.
‘Effing jockey’ ‘effing trainer’ ‘effing horse’. No matter the 3.40 at Wolver’s off in a few minutes, time to recyle another fiver.
Don’t underestimate the social function that betting shops offer – the craic – which is every bit as important as the actual betting and as such the captive and willing audience will continue to throw away wedge on horse races whilst enjoying a gossip and whinge, much as they have done since 1961.
The holy trinity and uneasy bedfellows – betting, birds and booze have an eternal attraction, the strongest of pulls and little can be done to persuade those intent on indulging from walking away. And baccy makes four.<br>
(Edited by Drone at 11:05 pm on July 9, 2006)
I think this is where Paul and I may concur. The trial itself will not adversely affect turnover in the long run. <br>Failure to address the problem and bring charges would have done.
As for the assumption that betting shop customers will queue up to take turns to be repeatedly shafted on account of them all being simpleton chavs with nothing better to do I refer you to the Gerald Ratner experience.<br>Good band, shjite CEO.<br>
Won’t make an iota of difference to turnover IMO. Sean, as someone close to the game you must have suspected that something like this was coming off yet, I am sure like lots of others, you have continued to play. Should be big news which turns punters off, reality is that it will be a ripple on the pond.
Wish i’d bought post and read Zorro’s article because this thread has turned into an intersting read, but i’m afraid paying arse licker/inside dealing journo’s wages (4) ain’t my thing
<br>7) Is my Fav Glenn btw
That’s my point really Cormack. As someone who does play every day yes it did make a significant difference to my turnover. Less so now as things have improved recently and I know punters who have felt the same.<br>My main point though is that the real comparisons with other sports would be things like Cronje, Grobellar, Serie A scandal etc.<br>Any one of these would not destroy a sport but a constant stream of them would. If the Grobellar/fashanu match fixing allegations had come and gone and then been followed by an ongoing run of bizarre results involving those players, how would football have coped? If Cronje had lived and played in a succession of dodgy games who would cricket have coped? If Juve had been charged with bribing officials to win championships and the allowed to win more championships while waiing for trial how do you think the credibility of Italian football would have coped?<br>How much worse for racing to continue to ask punters to bet on practioners who have been accused not just with tampering but with taking the money of those who fund them?<br>You may be right that puntes will continue to take anything that’s thrown at them but given that you’re staking the future survival of the sport of horseracing against that assumption I’d say that’s a pretty high risk wager.
Anyway, I clearly can’t type straight let alone think straight so I’m off to bed. Be back tomorrow though.<br>Forza Italia!<br>Amazing what they can do when they’re trying!<br>
Very good debate going on here.
In the 1970s Belgian racing was doing quite well and the likes of Lester Piggott used to pop over to Ostende for the bigger races there during the summer. Brussels had three tracks and a training centre.
By now the Brussels tracks are closed and most races are run for prize money in the hundreds, not thousands, of euro.
I am told that two factors contributed to this collapse of the sport, one being an unsympathetic fiscal regime, with betting duty of 15% on stakes. But the bigger reason, and the one which probably created the lack of sympathy in the first place, was a race fixing scandal that destroyed the credibility of Belgian racing as a betting medium.
I don’t think British racing would be as quick to collapse, but decline is certainly possible. Whatever about the details of his argument, Glenn is right to point out that punters wanting a bet are no longer stuck with just racing.
No time to get further involved in this, I’m afraid. Glenn will will be thrilled to know I’ve got to finish a book by August 31. <br>But there are some superb posts on here. Maybe I can come back to the subject on Saturday. That should give me time to think about them anyway.<br>Got to answer one contributor though.<br>I don’t lick arses, empty wallet. I know very well I’d be much better paid if I did. And as for insider dealing, big larf. If I were an insider dealer I wouldn’t have to work.
Zorro
Glad to hear it m8, i wish everyone at RP was the same, i’d start buying it again, because i miss Willo’s stuff, top piundit/top journo imhaho
Zorro
That was another thoughtful piece today. Can you see a scenario where Betfair might actually drop racing as a betting  medium altogether if it continues to decline in popularity proportionately while some of its customers are found to have been defrauded  by their fellow customers?
Zorro, an enlightening piece.
Please, please a thousand times please explain to the powers that be,(they wont listen to me I talk through my pocket).
In the first 9 months of my new betting shop opening it has been very successful.
gross profit from all areas= £4500 pw
gross profit OTC (over the counter) 7% of £30K=£2100
of which only 40% UK horse racing= £840 less 25% combined taxes (GPT & Levy) = £630.
The Levy board currently accept that 49% of OTC profit is UK racing I am about to produce comp. print outs to challenge this figure.
Last weeks Tote AGM reports claimed only 41% UK horse race profits claiming on-course margins the problem.
On-course bookmakers following betting exchanges blindly will eventually reduce the levy % of profits in shops to zero.
Industry prices will never come about trust me.
<br>MAKE SOMEONE MOVE FAST.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.