- This topic has 21 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
In 1945 a 2 year old won at Saliisbury.
After the race it was clear that this Scobie trained younster was part of a well planed betting coup.
Although the trainer was known as a very tricky individual he had pulled the whool over the publics eyes by placing an unknown 7 stone Jockey called Sharpe.on his horse.
Carrying 2 stone dead weight led the public to ignore the horse as a Scobie non trier.
Returned at 25/1 the industry knew that they had been caught.hopping.
After the race William Hill who had been given the contract got into a dispute with owner Reid and trainer Scobie when he declared that although he hd been given an instruction to place £600 Each Way at SP,William had used his knoledge of the ring, in only placing £500 as to protect the Starting Price from collapse.
A dispute arrose that caused a great deal of anamosity.
The dispute was taken up surprisingly by The Tattersalls Committee" who found in favour of William. the Great Birmingham Bookmaker.
Outside the rooms the Australian Trainer and William had a fiece argument.
Scobie called William a cheat and William called the trainer an "Australian Bushranger"(An Austrailian Convict who has run away"
The case for slaunder was heard in the high court, the findings with costs went to William.
However what is the Forums thoughts on the rights and wrongs of this famious case.
Cubone<br>
Good coup within the rules.
If punters, odds compiliers and bookmakers decide to ignore information made public and suffer as a result that’s their problem. Baboosh was a recent classic example.
Sounds like the industry sided with the big 3, even as far back as that. My guess is that ‘William’ had some big friends.<br>Another question I would ask is that how many would be calling SB a ‘cheating SOB’ that should lose his licence, on the internet forums of the time? ;)
I assumed you were talking of Scobie Breasley (SB). I make no judgements on him as he is way before my time. But you paint him as a trainer who liked to pull off a good ‘old fashioned’ coup, alike some other trainers today who get stick on the forums.
Sorry Racing
No the story was about the dispute between
Norman Scobie v William Hill and not the Australian Top Jockey of Scobie Breasley.
All the Best.
Cubone:)
Not even Scobie was old enough to be training in 1945 but there again he looked as if he was old enough to have done!;)
Colin
This is a lovely place to rest.
Drink and chat…
The other Forum is a bit like Broadmoore.:biggrin:
Right, ultimately, in answer to your question, i’d say that William was guilty of a breach of trust at worst. I assume the contract was a ‘gentleman’s agreement’ as opposed to a written contract. If that is the case, it sounds more like a case of massaging the market for his own best interests. Some may say that he welched on the bet. I dunno how the law would have seen it in 1945.<br>I guess that NS would probably have to take out a private law suit today, but i’m not so sure he would win it if he didn’t have the contract in written form.<br>The lesson is to always keep your betting slip :biggrin:
I agree with what you say but dont forget WH had been given an instruction £600 EW at SP if William thought that any more placed at SP may have caused a complete collapse he may have been correct in only placing £500 EW but as I do not know the actuall relationship between Bookmaker and Client it is not black and white, you must understand that it was not easy to get a updated contract in those days, it was on trust.
If you trusted William and Every one did at the time, and even now the name still has a massive trust attached to it. even though accounts have taken over,
Cubone
I wonder if Hill placed the 500EW in one hand or spread it around. A grand was a helluva lot of money to be placing on a ‘rag’ at Salisbury in ’45.
If it was spread then I doubt an extra 200 to complete the agreed 600EW would have caused the ripples in the market to assume tsunami proportions.
But what do I know, Billy H would have understood the market a whole lot better than I do or – presumably – the trainer, and Scobie would no doubt have been even more incensed had he seen the price collapse. 500 at a pony is a whole lot better than 600 at net so he should have been grateful for what he got IMO and shaken Hill by the hand instead of the metaphorical neck.
Can’t see much wrong with the ‘plot’ myself. Perhaps a clued up punter, knowing the trainer to be ‘shrewd’ would have employed a little lateral thinking and decided the unusual jockey booking was a positive rather than a negative.
It’s all part of the game: cf. Wallace’s reference to the Baboosh gamble.
I think he was maybe right not to pay him out. A lot of coups just skin everyone out .. B Curley being a practisioner that was talked about on here a while ago.
<br>:cool:
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.