Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Really a shame – they did seem to have got their act together in recent weeks.
I do feel a second paper is viable, albeit one that has a tight focus on racing. Despite the doomsayers, the market for newspapers is still strong in this country and racing remains a viable niche area.
The reasons for it’s failure were obvious to many forumites – poor initial form & cards, concentrating on sports betting etc – and this was aired a number of times on TRF.
Should have asked us first, I suppose!
Mike
I’ve spoken to my friend today – here’s the full chain of events.
Betfair contacted him a couple of weeks ago to ask him for their permission to forward his details to the City of London police (not the Met, as I erroneously stated previously). They stressed that his name had been taken purely at random along with many others who had backed or layed various horses (to wildly differing amounts) and that they were not implicating any punters or jockeys in any wrongdoing.
He agreed to this. I must emphasise that all this was done with his express permission.
As I stated, last Friday an officer then visited my friend at home and talked to him speifically about Levitator and Ballinger Ridge. He had backed both horses to small amounts on Betfair. Presumably this is why he was one of the punters selected.
The officer clearly stated to him that they were concerned with a group of criminals supposedly laundering money via Betfair. This may have also involved the procurement of some information from connections close to various runners to make that laundering more effective. The officer asked him if he was satisfied with the running of both horses which he said he was (the cock-up on BR notwithstanding).
He was subsequently asked whether he would have backed those horses if he had known that other punters with supposed ‘inside’ information were prepared to lay them. My friend said ‘no’. By implication, therefore, it would seem that both races are under investigation to some degree.
My fiend then made a verbal statement to that effect. This was then typed up and the officer returned this week to get a signature.
I hope this clears things up.
We should have no opinion on Fallon’s involvement or otherwise as none of us is in full possession of the facts. However, I am mighty suspicious that if you trail around the country collecting statements from losing punters you are inevitably going to portray a negative picture of the man.
How is this court evidence?
Mike<br>
Apracing
I’m seeing my friend today so I will ask him how the police got his details and let the Forum know. I believe I am right in saying that the first contact was via a telephone call to his business address.
I think you misunderstand where I’m ‘coming from’ in this exchange. I’m not trying to weave some fanciful story of my mate being Mr Fixit. This is not the case at all.
I am saying that we should all be concerned that so much police time, effort and money is clearly being spent on collating what looks like very dubious ‘evidence.’ They may have ‘40,000 pages’ of evidence but if it is all from such doorstepping, it counts for nothing.
The sub-heading to this topic was ‘this beggars belief…" and I feel this way precisely because of many of the reasons you’ve outlined (i.e. small punter, seemingly clean race, no obvious reason to call on him etc).
I would hazard a guess that his details were gleaned from Betfair as part of their ‘memorandum of understanding’ with the authorities.
As to why they chose him rather than me, you or the Pope is completely beyond me. Just a random selection, perhaps?
Mike
Apracing
Clearly you still doubt the truthfulness of what I am saying.
I swear to you and all others that everything I have put on this forum is 100% accurate and true (albeit secondhand from my friend). One of the conversations he had with the officer was in my presence.
Please contact me via betlarge@aol.com and I will furnish you with the name and two telephone numbers for the officer in question. You may then put your list of questions to him. I may also be able to get a photocopy of the statement.
Alternately, would you let me furnish your details to him (only with your express permission, of course) as judging by the bets you have struck he would surely be interested in your input.
I can stand most insults but being called dishonest in public is not one of them. Send me your details forthwith and you can check on the veracity of everything I have said yourself.
Regards
Mike
Uh-oh chaps – looks like I’ve been hallucinating again…
The police officer in question rang my friend this morning and returned to present him with a statement that had been typed-up based on his ‘evidence’ from last Friday.
My friend stated that his Betfair account details were correct, that he had backed Levitator and that he had no suspicions about the bet.
He was asked whether he would have backed the horse had he known it had been layed by others. He felt this was a leading question but answered ‘no’.
Make of that what you will.
The original point I was trying to make is that none of this seems remotely like evidence, merely hearsay. Yet it seems a number of police officers are scuttling around the country collecting these statements at our expense (he said he had travelled ack from ‘oop North today.)
Furthermore, all these details were taken down in handwriting last Friday only for them to be typed-up by a third party (presumably down in London) then returned to my friend’s house to sign by the same officer – another interesting use of time and money!
I would respectfully suggest to those who still think this is all rubbish, that anyone would now begin to struggle to make this up!
I know a few of you out there know me and you probably have some idea who I am talking about.
Mike
Mounty
I thought that ten grand was just Chompy laundering another week’s ‘wages’…:biggrin:
Mike
My friend said he was asked why he had backed the Fallon horse and ‘was he happy’ with the ride that it had been given?
He rightly responded that he couldn’t remember the ride it had been given!
The officer then took a statement to that effect, before asking him general opinions about Fallon’s performance. They also discussed the Ballinger Ridge case, again in seemingly general terms. I don’t see anything there that is vaguely approaching ‘evidence’ of malpractice and am in the dark as much as anyone as to what this was supposed to achieve. I cannot throw any light onto why he was questioned about a backed loser rather than a layed winner.
As I say, the officer in question seemed to have little knowledge of racing.
Those of you who seem to think this is a wind-up need only send me their private email address and I will forward you the name of the officer, his work number and his mobile number. You will be able to check this out yourselves.
Mike
Apracing
You seem to throw credence on this because I don’t know the difference between the Met and the City of London Police (which I don’t)?
This happened. Friday afternoon last week. The horse in question was Levitator.
For heaven’s sake, I am not some serial fantasist – I just thought you may be interested in knowing where your tax dollar is going in these troubled times.
Mike
I’m appalled to say that the following is a true story.
A mate of mine has been interviewed at his house this week by a member of the Metropolitan Police who travelled up to the Midlands specifically for that reason.
His crime? He had a pony on Betfair on a Fallon-ridden horse at Warwick over two years’ ago. The nag in question was a 13-2 poke, beaten into second place by an 11-10 fav. Blimey, that is suspicious. Unfortunately, Kieren slightly overdid the ‘pulling’ tactics, being beaten seven lengths. From that dodgy, fly-blown Stoute stable, too, guv.
Apparently Mr Plod was straight from the cast of Eastenders and wasn’t troubled with any particular knowledge of racing or betting.
Reassuring to know that the Met is using up vast resources on this critical inquiry rather that wasting time on global terrorism, gang wars, juvenile crime, anti-social behaviour etc etc.
At least our 5p e/w Flags will be safe.
Mike<br>
Mounty you miserable git – Cannon & Ball are playing the Pier and it’s the climax of the 61st Bowls Festival.
Fill yer boots at http://www.great-yarmouth.co.uk/ which has charming pictures of:
a) The Chuckle Brothers, and<br>b) a donkey
Mike
Not the oldest, but Mac Vidi was placed in the 1980 Gold Cup at 16 and was placed in another decent race the following year.
Flockton Grey was the oldest 2yo that I remember.
Mike
The article was patronising, misty-eyed gobs**t
e of the highest order. Totally propagates the theme-park idea of Ireland. Plucky Paddies with their craic and Daniel O’Donnell CD’s coming over here to whip their colonial masters…oh give it a rest. Childish, racist nonsense that has bugger-all to do with modern racing on either side of the Irish Sea.Maybe we should have a vote on who cringed the most – British or Irish readers?
Reminds me of a glorious episode at Cheltenham a few years ago, when Thommo (surprise, surprise) was waxing lyrical about Limestone Lad whilst sharing a commentary box with Ted Walsh.
Thompson was in full garbage mode, going on and on about this supposedly famous hill that Limestone Lad used to run up as part of his training. He imbued it with all the ‘magical Irish hills’ malarky and then asked Walsh (who seems not to suffer idiots at all) some fatuous question about it.
"You do have hills in England, Derek" came the terse reply.
It was never mentioned again.
Mike
FSL
IMHO you should ignore the advice about not betting odds-on. Get the "odds-on’ thing out of your mind, they’re just odds representing a view of a horse’s chance – whether they are above or below a mythical line (randomly set at Evens) is neither here nor there. Imagine a match over 3 miles on yielding ground- War Of Attrition versus Astonville and the first layer chalks up 10/11 and Evens respectively…never bet odds-on? Same odds for Chelsea v Doncaster Rovers, Australia v Zimbabwe etc etc
Exaggerated examples of course but it’s just to make a point. Good value can be good value at 1/4, poor value can be poor value at 100/1. The sole qualifier for any bet should be "Do I think the the chance of this horse winning is better than the odds available." Simple. The tricky bit is finding such horses but they will occur over the full spectrum of prices. To me, saying ‘never bet odds-on’ makes as much sense as ‘never bet between 3-1 and 9-2’ or any other random selection of odds.
Mike<br>