- This topic has 137 replies, 41 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
Another point on football betting & it’s relationship to racing integrity, it’s the last day of the Premier League season tomorrow. It’s tight at the bottom & goal difference may be key.
Manchester United will play a weakened team against Blackpool, there’ll be mutually agreed scorelines all around; integrity won’t get a look in.Always amazes me, Corm, about punters who swear by football as a betting medium.
What about Added Time? 98 minute games? Diving. Goals that weren’t (Lampard) and non-goals that were. Weakened teams, as Anthony mentions. Diving. "Professional" fouls.
Fixed games: West Germany versus Austria, 1982. Accrington versus Bury, 2008.Forest at Anderlecht, 1977. Any mid-table match up in Serie A after March.
Tryers? Ask the six Lincoln City loan players how hard they tried in the last six matches of the season. Apparently, Grimes was assaulted on the pitch by irate Imps – a la Fallon at Lingfield. I got the impression there wasn’t much sympathy for him.
Football? Safe? I’d rather have ten large on a horse than a fiver on a football match.
I don’t think they think it is safe Max, just that they don’t think there’s some malignant weasel somewhere with an on-side jockey skimming a rake off their hard-earned punting dollar.
There is a fundamental diff between football results which are ‘managed’ to produce a mutually acceptable outcome – it is usually abundantly clear beforehand what the risk/possibility is AND they are not
usually
doing it to defraud people betting on it AND they don’t happen very often.
Contrast that to the perception that races are being fixed on a
daily
or even hourly basis.
I’m not saying I agree with them, just answering AC’s assertion that small punters don’t care about fixing of races. I contend that the small punter
does
care that racing isn’t ‘straight’ (although I also agree there are a sector who are annured to/accept that possibility).
If we could demonstrate the sport was clean (and Lord knows how we’d ever do that) then I think more people would bet more often.
People may/do accept a Runyonesque scally-waggery but they won’t accept wholesale, organised fraud.
The fact that people now see a headline on ‘corrupt racing’ and dismiss the whole sport as corrupt, is increasingly similar to people believing that cycling is corrupt following multiple reports on blood doping.
Not to mention Formula One which is staged managed to the sort of extent that would embarrass American Wrestling.
Seems to me there is a definite distinction on this thread between those who have experience of ownership of horses and those that do not.
But having said that, the charges against the jocks, owners and account holders relate to information that a horse was not going to win. It has nothing whatsoever to do with young horses being run to get a handicap mark off which they can compete or football.And Reet Hard – we have had this conversation before- but I can tell you with 100% certainty that a jockey can throw a race without the connivance of trainer or owners. I’ve experienced that, though to be precise that was back in the days where if the owner or trainer complained the BHA would charge those who complained with bringing racing into disrepute, or whatever the precise wording is.
So I welcome he charges against these people and may justice take its course. Hopefully other jocks/owners will be charged as well, because there are other crooks. Racing needs to get rid of them, particularly the jocks.
richard
richard
wrote
Seems to me there is a definite distinction on this thread between those who have experience of ownership of horses and those that do not.
I was an owner once and my observation of some of the types of owners is this:
a) Loads of money, not really bothered about the horse/s, loves the social scene.
b) Loads of money, loves the horse/s, respects the stable staff, trainer/s and jockey/s.
c) Wants to clean up loads of dirty money, does so through buying horses and gambling.
d) Not much money, shares a horse within a large group, loves the atmosphere of racing.
e) Not much money, shares ownership with a small group, lives the dream, gambles.
Each type of owner will pick the trainer that suits their purpose.
Regarding jockeys, yes, I’m sure a few will throw a race without being requested to do so by the trainer/owner. I know of one who was so angry and frustrated that he deliberately won on a horse that he was instructed not to do so. He thought the owners were very greedy and arrogant. His rides dried up from numerous trainers within a week and he was finished. I found this amazing. No come back for him, no ban for a year and then able to continue riding as if nothing had happened.
Sorryrichard
, but I admire jockeys who try their hardest to stay honest. One of those charged I knew. He wanted to be honest. He wanted to ride and win if possible but he was not family connected and rides were hard to come by. I saw the trainers he was riding for over the last few years and worried. Very sad if these allegations about him are true.
You seem to suggest the BHA were not interested in complaints from owners/trainers:I’ve experienced that, though to be precise that was back in the days where if the owner or trainer complained the BHA would charge those who complained with bringing racing into disrepute, or whatever the precise wording is.
I feel the BHA are very lenient towards some trainers.
Many people I know think the sport is completely corrupt. They won’t go racing because of this. To clean up racing’s image gambling surely must have less media prominence. Racing rulers must find other ways of generating income. If they could promote the horses, the excitement of racing, instead of constantly going on about odds and steamers, gambling coups, the Levy etc.
And if turning away from the reliance on betting somewhat reduced the quantity of racing, would that not perhaps benefit racing long term?Those berating football might want to consider why the world will be watching the richest and most popular football league tomorrow – the English Premiership.
It wasn’t always the way. Not so long ago Italian football ruled the roost.
Why did English club football become pre-eminent? Because gamblers, principally Asian gamblers, preferred its legitimacy. Tomorrow we’ll see different odds to those we’d see in mid-season, but they’ll be for publicly known reasons (eg Man Utd having nothing to play for and having an improtant game in a few days time). You might even see cheating or gamesmanship, but the players’ motives will be solely to advantage their team not to land the bets of those who have supported them to perform badly.
They’ll be no odds-on draws or anomolous correct score prices tomorrow, unlike you’d get in other leagues on the last day of the season. They’ll be none of the sort of proposition bets you see every day in British racing.
Why not watch it? You may even catch sight of single players worth more than the whole year’s levy, all as a result of the sport being one punters can wager on with confidence.
- Total Posts 17716
And Reet Hard – we have had this conversation before- but I can tell you with 100% certainty that a jockey can throw a race without the connivance of trainer or owners. I’ve experienced that, though to be precise that was back in the days where if the owner or trainer complained the BHA would charge those who complained with bringing racing into disrepute, or whatever the precise wording is.
So I welcome he charges against these people and may justice take its course. Hopefully other jocks/owners will be charged as well, because there are other crooks. Racing needs to get rid of them, particularly the jocks.
richardRichard
There’s little doubt jockeys can throw a race independently, and that some occasionally do, (though, even in your own words, it’s infrequent enough for you not to have experienced it at all in recent years).
There’s much less doubt (to anyone who can find their way around a form book – regardless of whether they own horses or not) that it’s a mere drop in the ocean compared to the number of non-triers generally.
If you’re genuinely concerned about ‘justice’ maybe you should direct your ire at the ‘crooks’ who really pull the strings, rather than just taking potshots at their puppets?Another thought –
I wonder what the powers-that-be at the BHA make of their new Board member employing one of those charged on the day after the announcement.
Not saying it’s right or wrong, just wondering what they make of it.
Two words – Stanley Chin.
MJ had helped the young HK apprentice with summer stints in the UK in 1997 and 1998.
In 1999 back in HK Chin was involved in a race-fixing scandal that saw him put in pokey for 3 and a half years.
MJ (and Deirdre) went out of their way, first to go visit the guy in three separate jails in HK, and then on his release to give him rides in Dubai and the UK to help him re-establish himself (as incidentally did APOB). Chin is currently riding in Macau.
Having seen MJ go that far to help someone who was only ever peripheral to the stable, why would the BHA expect him to take anything other than an "innocent until proven otherwise" line in current circumstances?
As I’ve already said, I believe there was absolutely nothing wrong with Kirsty’s ride on Obe Gold and am staggered that this is one of the ‘races’ in question. The BHA must have something however to question the ride, but still, on visual evidence alone she did nothing wrong and will be cleared in my opinion.
But you’re right, why are ATR and RP using her pic to publish the story? Two reasons perhaps; 1) Her link to Mr. Fallon, 2) Female jockey in cheat claim shock.
Can anyone else – hand on their heart – say Kirsty (sorry, I don’t know her personally it’s just easier than spelling her surname lol) gave this horse a bad ride?
The horse stumbled at the start for crying out loud, causing Kirsty to hit the stalls (or the horse hit her I can’t remember) and injure herself by all accounts. The horse was then left a few lengths so Kirsty went to the rail (normally the fastest strip of ground). The horse then started to run on (as you would expect from an Ev money fav) and Kirsty steered left to get a clear run, running through the field to finish fifth.
She never once took a pull, never once steered the horse behind another horse to get blocked etc. Given what happened at the start it was a perfectly good ride there after. I’m still shocked that this is one of the rides brought to quesiton by the BHA.
OneEye,
It would be utterley pointless to look at a race in isolation, there has to be something else.
Not saying it’s the case here but if a jockey is going to "lose" a race for financial benefit the best way to do this is ride a good race but still get beat. It’s quite likely most of the horses would have lost anyway but the "bent" jockey just has to ensure that if they are going to possibly win, that they don’t, not necessarily ride a bad race.Another point on football betting & it’s relationship to racing integrity, it’s the last day of the Premier League season tomorrow. It’s tight at the bottom & goal difference may be key.
Manchester United will play a weakened team against Blackpool, there’ll be mutually agreed scorelines all around; integrity won’t get a look in.What a very silly comment.
There will be no mutually agreed scorelines at all – this is English Premier League football, not Italian football.
In horse racing you can generally tell when a horse ‘is going to lose’ by the way the markets move. So you would think that if some mutually agreed scorelines are about to happen in football then someone will know about them and the markets will move accordingly.
So here’s my challenge to you, from the markets, try and tell me one mutually agreed scoreline – after all, you have said that, "there’ll be mutually agreed scorelines all round".
Have Manchester United – by winning the league title a game early – not earned the right to field a different team to the one that played last week or will play next week? They will pick a starting XI from the 25 man squad submitted to the FA at the request of the FA, so it’s only a ‘weakened’ team in the eyes of the media.
The Premier League’s joint top goalscorer will be in that starting XI, United’s number one keeper will be in that starting XI, and so will be another six or seven players who have played at least 15 league games this season. Ask Schalke if it is a weakened team.
True, there might be a few players across the country taking the foot of the gas today, but there won’t be one player or club sticking to a ‘mutually agreed scoreline’ as you so foolishly suggest.
Richard
There’s little doubt jockeys can throw a race independently, and that some occasionally do, (though, even in your own words, it’s infrequent enough for you not to have experienced it at all in recent years).
There’s much less doubt (to anyone who can find their way around a form book – regardless of whether they own horses or not) that it’s a mere drop in the ocean compared to the number of non-triers generally.
If you’re genuinely concerned about ‘justice’ maybe you should direct your ire at the ‘crooks’ who really pull the strings, rather than just taking potshots at their puppets?I have little doubt the BHA have some suspicions about some of the trainers involved in the horses concerned Reet. But they’ve also got to consider what proof they have in their involvement. It must be difficult to proove any trainer is complicit in any wrong doing. It is a lot easier to see the jockey’s moves in the race.
The BHA can not assume guilt by association, like some seem to imply.
Without any proof there is no point in naming them in any investigation. As you say "jockeys can throw a race independantly", where as trainers can’t and may well be totally innocent.
Value Is Everything.
If the system can be exploited to allow horses to be run over inadequate trips, then the system needs to be changed.
Can someone with this opinion please tell us how this new rule / system will work?
May be (if they can) it will be best to start another thread.
Value Is Everything- Total Posts 17716
OneEye
, I don’t need to speak up for him, but I take Anthony’s point to be that nobody will call Manchester United’s integrity into question for patently not fielding their "A Team" against Blackpool.
The word "integrity" is being serially debased, if we’re starting (for example) to throw it at trainers who are doing their job properly, by running horses over uncongenial distances and in different running styles, in order to keep their handicap marks down.
That is what most horse racing is about, and has to be. Only a tiny proportion of animals are good enough to be campaigned at Pattern level, and giving their "A Game" every time. "Sighters" for "ring-rusty" horses are a necessity, not a corruption – though they make the job of rooting out genuine corruption all the harder, of course.
It is the punter’s job to work out such things. It’s hard work and requires imagination as well as knowledge. Being able to do so is what separates the professional from the mugs.
Have Manchester United – by winning the league title a game early – not earned the right to field a different team to the one that played last week or will play next week? They will pick a starting XI from the 25 man squad submitted to the FA at the request of the FA, so it’s only a ‘weakened’ team in the eyes of the media.
They have to play their best side, OneEye. And the players have to play as if this is the last match they are ever going to play. It’s only fair to Blackburn, Birmingham, Wigan and Wolves. Anything else blows a hole in your integrity argument the size of a moon crater.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.