Singleton alleges Waterhouse corruption with son Tom on More Joyous.

?

sniffin around ,,,,,,,, spy

or ... sniffin around spy   

press return half way thru a sentence mm..its going over the page width..cant read it

Just keeping an eye/s on things Mr Bas

Doesn't Tom Waterhouse declare that he has four generations of racing knowledge to rely on, in one or his advertisements?

At least he has been open about his connections.

Will affect TW brand, probably go close to knocking 50-100 mill of its value

At least that much if I take the 2.5% of my turn over that I place with Tom

BJT,

Running a horse that is not in 100% peak condition is not the same as running a horse "dead". Every day of the week trainers send horses out that are not quite at their best. If this didn't happen we'd have some very small fields going around. Running a horse dead means that it's not trying and that's a very different matter.

There are often instances of horses winning when they were not quite right. The most famous example in recent times was Black Caviar at Royal Ascot. And then of course was there was Phar Lap who won his last race in America when he was said to have been about 70% fit. I guess More Joyous is not quite in the same league as those other two horses, as her backers found out on Saturday.

Phil............i think Singo at least was entitled to know what little Tom knew, that the horse had a heat spot and its blood wasn't 100%.

and seriously if u think there isnt a conflict with Rob,Gai, and Tom youre blind

I miss Singo's outdated mullet

Alan Robbo was the former jock involved was hoping was someone with a bit more credibility

The stewards will naturally examine ALL the betting and laying on the race now ... and advise the public of all integrity ... surely

Rubbish!

How will they know what went through the illegal Asian Totes?

Or Tabcorp's Isle of Man for Zeljko - or any jockeys who would prefer to keep their antics secret?

Apr 28, 2013 -- 10:46AM, PittsburghPhil wrote:

BJT,Running a horse that is not in 100% peak condition is not the same as running a horse "dead". Every day of the week trainers send horses out that are not quite at their best. If this didn't happen we'd have some very small fields going around. Running a horse dead means that it's not trying and that's a very different matter.There are often instances of horses winning when they were not quite right. The most famous example in recent times was Black Caviar at Royal Ascot. And then of course was there was Phar Lap who won his last race in America when he was said to have been about 70% fit. I guess More Joyous is not quite in the same league as those other two horses, as her backers found out on Saturday.

We are talking about a G1 race that was aimed at.  Sure horses have campaigns where the goal is to get 100% fit when they hit the big race.  This was that race.  And this wasn't about fitness, this was about something else.  And all other times, the owners were in full knowledge of what was going on.  This was hidden from the owner, and not hidden from the bookmakers.

This is a rort of the highest order.

Racing them not 100% fitness is ok but the allegation here is more about the health of the horse not the fitness.

I've certainly heard about some rorts with all three codes about running horses/dogs that have an injury & have some suspicions about some instances from betting trends on here eg when a horse is matched at surprising high price for place & then runs 100m behind 2nd last horse.

license to print money if you know a horse has a temp or virus going into a race

Apr 29, 2013 -- 9:14AM, Kye wrote:

Racing them not 100% fitness is ok but the allegation here is more about the health of the horse not the fitness.I've certainly heard about some rorts with all three codes about running horses/dogs that have an injury & have some suspicions about some instances from betting trends on here eg when a horse is matched at surprising high price for place & then runs 100m behind 2nd last horse.

I don't agree.  Horses are supposed to be presented to the races with their best chance of winning the race.  There are trials to get your horses fit, shouldn't be using the races to do so.

But of course that is a separate matter to this thread, so back in my box I go....

would like to know what the "heat" in the neck was.
it would be negligent not to treat it but surely the owner should have heard from gai and not a 3rd party - think that's the thing that is sticking in singleton's craw really and its got his tits in a nice old tangle

Exactly. 
The reality is, there is no valid reason not to tell him.  How is he not entitled to know that his darling horse (Gai knows how much that horse means to him), wasn't right leading into such a big race?
The only possible reason a 30 year friend, and one of the people that backed you to get your license in the first place, wouldn't say, is because she would be worried he would pull her out of the race.
So, she obviously wanted it to run, knowing it wouldn't perform. 

Why?

Money...

bit similar to that case a couple of years ago when a trainer bought an expensive yearling on behalf of a long term friend and client but neglected to tell him the colt had fairly major 'skeletal'' (I think) issues.

Maybe because said trainer was getting a kickback from the vendor

And then the industry mates hold a fkn fundraiser to bail him
out of the ****.

Exactly Mr Eclair, Now I don't know whether or not he got a kickback, my money is on that he did, if he did the people that donated may want to take court action to retrieve their donations

JS is entitled to be livid he was left in the dark about any treatment for MJ.
Perhaps he could have gone about it a different way and not hooked up to a mic where the viewers could witness the whole bit

Agree totally LiH & he might lose a lot in a slander case if there is no evidence to support his words.

He should have just called her a b!tch in private & moved his horses.

I think its safe to say that Singo is smart enough to know what he is doing

not if he was uti

If he was so smart Mr Peekaboo why did he not lay it ffs

How do you know he didn't Mr Crow?

I asked him

He subscribes to Crowformgold.com no doubt

No he is a Platinum subscriber

Someones gotta be thanked it's bought the Oz forum to life.

Think i better update Johhny's with something.

Brought, not bought, just being pedantic Mr Blackball

this is getting sillier - did i just hear it said that the mare was treated by singletons vet and was inspected in front of singletons racing manager? if true he needs to take a look at his racing organizations chain of command imo

did the stewards report mention any possible reason why MJ raced so ... shockingly and abysmally poorly ... at 6/4 to 2's on the day

and did TW really say the day before she had NO chance 

these questions need an answer ... i mean the mare was not just pipped on the post (well she was 'pipped' .. but at the 300m mark 'post' )

wombleoz

So Bill and Robbie never got information about TJ's horses while he was still training???



... an old article turned up amongst the current goings-on where that question is answered mate


It's not that the Smiths and the Waterhouses were necessarily the Capulets and the Montagues but the country's leading trainer and the world's biggest bookmaker were hardly natural kinsfolk either.

Tommy didn't like that the Waterhouses seemed to know more about his horses than he did. Bill would note:

"Trainers and bookmakers rarely mix at the racetrack and I wasn't one for socialising with racing people anyway." 



http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-10-08/gai-waterhouse-racings-female-monarch/2290688

******


worth a re-read, spesh where tommy is alleged to say that gai is a better trainer than he

You could read the recollection of Bill Waterhouse of a conversation with TJ Smith just before he died. From father to father-in-law he confided: "She's better than me."

...

So Robby ,Louise and Tommy are all partners in Tommy's business allegedly.
So that allegedly makes Gai in effect a partner also.

Apparently Tom told Robbo who told Joey who told Singo.

not great evidence unless Robbo states it is true. Still smells a bit given how the horse ran but Singo was a fool for making it all public.

think the '2 international friends" were Seal and Delta

imo Jessica Rabbit would be a more reliable witness than AR

So long as they ask Robbo about 3-400 of his rides

Robbo would be able to buy and sell Singo if the fair was around while he was in his prime

THIS STORY IS CRAZY STUFF.........SINGLETON NEEDS TO HAVE A GOOD LOOK AT HIMSELF COMING OUT PUBLICY MAKING ALLEGATIONS.........HE SHOULD HAVE HAD A QUIET WORD WITH GAI AND TOM TO CLEAR IT ALL UP.......ITS ALL VERY EMBARRASSING FOR EVERYONE

i like the punters show take on it - Singo needs to pull his head in

womble what else do u expect them to say ?  they flog the RW  snake oil!

why should he pull his head in?  if he thinks he is being bent over then stand up and say it, note he did say this is the 3rd time something like this has happened

and if you watch the latest punters show make sure you have a sick bucket handy

Thebas 30 Apr 13 05:27
wombleoz

So Bill and Robbie never got information about TJ's horses while he was still training???



... an old article turned up amongst the current goings-on where that question is answered mate


It's not that the Smiths and the Waterhouses were necessarily the Capulets and the Montagues but the country's leading trainer and the world's biggest bookmaker were hardly natural kinsfolk either.

Tommy didn't like that the Waterhouses seemed to know more about his horses than he did. Bill would note:


It's not that Bill knew more, he just knew how to price them up a lot more accurately

And i thought "Chinese Whispers" only happened amongst preschoolers and female teens.

The so called exclusive report from the he said,i said,tonight will be akin to watching a mouse trying to stick a cork up an elephants kyber,On air implosion.

Only works if your Snoop Dogg
" But I know some people ,who know some people, who robs some people.

Don't really care how this saga ends up. I am enjoying it though because Peter V'landys isn't.

Fact remains, AJ said on air that he was told directly by Tom that More Joyous "was off".  Chinese whispers ends right there.
Can come back after the fact about "stats and form", but the reality is, this is the statement he made about what he was told, AFTER MJ was being treated due to off bloods and heat in her neck that morning.

Whether he got his words mixed up or what, he still said them, and the rest of the evidence doesn't look good either.
Somebody said Johns told him More Joyous wouldn't win based on what Tom said.
That got back to the owner.
The owner had a public spat with Toms mum BEFORE the race about what was told, saying he now knew his horse wouldn't perform.
The 3.00, impressive horse, was given about the run of the race, and DIDN'T perform.
They had another spat.
Comes out that ANZAC day morning, her bloods were off, antibiotics in the system and heat in her neck.
Johns came out to clear things up by letting slip that "Tom told him the horse was off" when they were together on ANZAC day afternoon.

So basically 8 hours or so after Gai knew, Tom was informing others about it.

I very much doubt that it can be argued any other way.  Johns had plenty of time to work on what he would say on Sunday.  He knew the information was out about her training on the Thursday, and still chose the words "he said she was off".

CASE CLOSED.
Strip her, strip him.
At the end of the day, who in their right mind would want to own a horse and send it off to the trainers, if this is what is happening to a man of Singletons standing, by somebody who has her license because of him (probably gets it anyway, but still, he had a part in her getting her license)......

thought this sums it up pretty well





One of the greatest scandals in Australian horseracing history is unfolding before our very eyes and I’m tipping the greatest scandal will come today week when the inquiry re-convenes, but more of that later. There are two issues, impishly conflated by the yellow press in the interests of the Waterhouses:

1.Did Mrs Waterhouse treat More Joyous for an injury on the Thursday before the race without telling the stewards, the owner or the public?
2.Did she pass the knowledge of this injury on to Tom Waterhouse?


The answer to the first question is of course “yes”. She’s guilty of a serious breach of a fundamental rule. That breach has cost punters, including myself, collectively millions. Her defence is that the vets passed the horse fit to run. That’s irrelevant. The steward’s vets never got to look at the horse. There have been countless times when she and other trainers would have happily run horses that the stable vet – ie someone employed by the trainer who relies on them for their wages – has passed fit, only for the independent vet employed by the stewards to rule the horse out. I could give you a catalogue of examples a mile long, but you only have to go back to last Spring's Cox Plate when the whole world appeared to know, as Richie Callander said at the time, that poor old Descarado just about had a leg hanging off, but less than an hour before acceptances Mrs Waterhouse was insisting it would run. The vets eventually ruled it out. I am not alone in emphatically saying that if I had been aware that the horse had been treated by a vet on Thursday I would have kept my money in my pocket. Others may have trusted the trainer and bet anyway. I don’t. And I, like every other punter, was entitled under the rules of racing to be advised via the stewards that the horse had received antibiotics for a neck injury. The penalty should be stiff. My own view is that anything less than 12 months disqualification serves notice that the industry doesn’t take these issues seriously. Being a pragmatist, I’d settle for three months. The reality is that Mrs Waterhouse is most likely to receive a fine which, given her wealth, will be tantamount to no penalty at all. It will bring shame on racing, lead to a lot of punters voting with their feet and doing something else with their time and money, and further entrench the understandable view that racing merely looks after its own. We’ve seen plenty of this in Victoria in the past 12 months. Many punters have said to me “Ray Murrihy wouldn’t have done that.” I hope they are right. We will find out on Monday just how seriously Mr Murrihy views a breach of this nature.

The answer to the second question is that I don’t know, but given the Keystone Cops nature of modern racing policing the Guff is honour bound to do at least some of the sleuthing for the stipes. We will get to that a little later. Prima facie, my guess is that one or two clowns attempting to big note themselves have gilded the lily more than somewhat when reporting conversations to Singo they either had with Tom Waterhouse or were relayed to them second hand. I can’t be sure about that and I’d be delighted to be wrong, but that’s what it is beginning to look like. Having said that, and no one has explained this part, Singo’s informants were correct insofar as their advice that they claim was relayed to them by Tom Waterhouse that More Joyous had been injured was correct. At the time they made this known to Singo on the morning of the race the trainer hadn’t – for whatever reason – bothered to inform him of this. That certainly adds some weight to his claims. The question here is: “If Tom Waterhouse didn’t tell the people who told Singo the horse was injured, who did? And how is it that this information is passed from within the stable to others – no matter who they are – but not the owners or the stewards?”

Let’s look at a couple of other elements of this. When interviewed by Bruce Clark yesterday, Tom Waterhouse initially emphatically denied having spoken to Andrew Johns at all. He also vehemently denied speaking to anyone about More Joyous prospects. Now ole Bruce is hardly Tom Hughes QC even when he’s having a go, but despite Tom Waterhouse being given a succession of half volleys outside the off stump, by the end of the interview he’d admitted “possibly talking to Andrew Johns and some of the Channel 9 rugby league people” and talking to others about More Joyous chances. There’s nothing sinister about him talking to anyone about More Joyous, the man's a bookie after all, so why be so coy about it? Why be disingenuous about it? It is simply impossible to believe that in the space of 10 minutes he realized that he had in fact spoken to at least some individuals about whether the horse could win or not and that one of them “might” have been Andrew Johns. He either has Alzheimer’s at a remarkably young age or his initial responses were, as I politely say, disingenuous. The mainstream media has put the wagons in a circle around the Waterhouses. Ask yourself this: in all of the interviews you’ve seen with Andrew Johns where he claims that Waterhouse did not say the things that Singo has attributed to his as yet unnamed source/sources, not one interviewer – not one! – has asked him if he spoke to Singleton about his conversation with Tom Waterhouse. You’d think it would be relevant, wouldn’t you? If Johns didn’t speak to Singleton sometime between Friday night and Saturday morning, it doesn’t matter, does it? But if he did, what did he say? If he didn’t say what Singleton attributes to him, why does he believe Singleton could misinterpret it so badly? Why on earth has no one asked him any of this?

Oh, and what does one make of Johns’ clarification that when he said Waterhouse told him “the horse was off” he meant something else?

Tom Waterhouse claims that he didn’t “speak” to his mother all week. Did they communicate via text, email, through an intermediary? Is there anybody calling themselves a journalist who might think the question is worth asking? You see, I’m bothered by Tom Waterhouse’s apparent inability to answer a simple question directly. When Bruce Clark asked him whether he considered following the Sportsbet example and returning all bets on More Joyous, he replied that he engaged in a lot of different promotions, getting your money back if you run second to one of "mum’s" horses and things like that. That wasn’t the question. It wasn’t even in the same postcode as the question, so why the dodging and obfuscation?

Tom Waterhouse went to great lengths yesterday to show that More Joyous was an okay result in his book, proudly displaying his computerised ledger to every gullible journalist who would display it on screen without asking the question, “And was this the extent of your activity on the race? Did you back any other runner with other bookmakers or via an intermediary?" By the way, no one has sought clarification whether Waterhouse's gimmick to give you your money back if you are beaten by one of "mum's" horses was included in his figures on the race. Clearly, that would have distorted his result. Again, no one in Sydney racing journalism thought it worth asking. Richie Callander and Mark Shean very strongly put to him that More Joyous was freely available at 3.8 at Randwick. Waterhouse’s indignant response was that the best fluctuation was 3.0. Why the indignation? It wasn’t just the on course bookmakers who decided that Sydney’s wonder mare had a leg off, Bet365 seemed to be betting with enormous confidence and I’m sure the stewards will be interested to see the volume they held on the horse compared to an average hold for a horse in that price bracket, along with who backed and didn’t bet-back the horse with them. Are you ready for this? Bet365 eased More Joyous from 2.9 to 3.5. While Bet365 is aggressive normally – god love them – even by their standards, a half a point better than the best official fluctuation is astonishing. Bet365 raced Betfair in leading out the price. That may well have simply been because they believed the horse to be a good risk and we're not suggesting any wrongdoing on their part, but an uncritical acceptance of Tom Waterhouse’s printout of his book on the race without further investigating other potential activity is an insult to the intelligence.

Finally, you’ll note that the Guff has never fallen for the media coo-cooing and addressed Mrs Waterhouse as “Gai”, conjuring images of a sweet ingénue who’s impossibly made her way in a man’s world while retaining an incandescent innocence. She’s Mrs Waterhouse. Her husband went to gaol for perjuring himself during the Fine Cotton affair and to this day has refused to give evidence as to his involvement or otherwise. When the AJC stupidly allowed him back on course it was on his undertaking that he “would not re-apply for a bookmaker’s licence within five years”. Having not got that verbal undertaking in writing, the AJC couldn’t do a thing when he re-applied for his licence within a fortnight.

In Bart Cummings autobiography, the great man details that when the stablehand who doped Big Philou was asked in court to explain why he had rung Bill Waterhouse’s Sydney office a number of times the week before the horse was doped he couldn’t explain why. He’d never met Waterhouse, didn’t bet with him and had no cause to telephone him. Later, on his deathbed, he said Waterhouse had paid him to dope the Melbourne Cup favourite because he was up for a fortune on the horse in Caulfield-Melbourne Cup doubles. Of course, people say all kinds of things when they’re dying.

I have a real fear that the “who said what to whom and when” game will act as a smokescreen over the real issue. As worrying as that aspect of this matter is, the fundamental breach is this: a trainer has called a vet to look at a horse with an apparently sore neck two days before a Group 1 race, administered antibiotics, and didn’t inform the stewards and consequently the public. That is incontestable. We will find out on Monday how seriously Mr Murrihy and his panel view breaches of this nature.

Oh, and if "Young Tom", another invention of media sycophants (there isn't an "Old Tom" and the man is 30) decides to sue me as well I can save him a bit of money by telling him that the two planks of defamation defence are 1. Truth 2. Public interest. Otherwise, bring it on!

Who wrote that Mr Roller?

anonymous writer by the name of GUFF..........................................................u like????

Nearly as much as his pseudonym

robbo is gonna be on today tonight tonight

Still Chinese whispers for me

None of them have credibility, they all have credibility

Tom says he did $300 thou on the race
Tom says he backed More Joyous
Tom tell Andrew Johns to John's coat tugging question what do ya like tomorrow I DON'T like I'm a Dundeel,More Joyous and All Too Hard
Singo says he was gonna have $100 thousand on MJ, are we sure about that? or is that just a way of highlighting Chinese Whispers said to him.


Hahahahaha fun watching the Cesspool hahaha he's my mate hahaha oh pleeease robbo

I have no interest in what Robbo may have or may not have said.
Racetrack spruiking at its best

Whilst not surprising it is concerning that a jockey is such good mates with a punter like Hayson

Kye
He's a maaaate

Pleaseeeeeeeeeeee

regardless of what who said to whom ... we as punters are in the classic/perfect position now ...

to see how our industry overseers perform

the stewards cannot sweep it away ... if everyone on both sides stick to their story

it must be investigated .. and under oath

here's where Pvl comes in ... his job is to ensure the integrity of the particpants

over to you pete ... we all await the outcome to this Front Page Kick In The Teeth that Sydney Horse Racing is undergoing

.... maybe a 3rd party can put up the odds on how well the authorities will handle this .. regardless of the outcome

lol
bring in the carpet sweeper
Pete's probably the only one not losing sleep

2 months ago polly's stood up and gave us Drugs in sport news of the Century.....zzzzzzzzzzz

Fines here,hose sales in Vic slowed down after the drenching gang got caught out fines there Waller, Biskin,..zzzz

A Bookie A Trainer An Owner A Jock  nearly in the footsteps of The Cook,The Thief.His Wife & Her lover

getting into the guts of it now ... interesting advancement indeed


http://au.sports.yahoo.com/racing/news/article/-/16966600/racing-nsw-to-seize-phone-records/



Racing New South Wales has taken unprecedented action, using special powers to seize telephone records in the More Joyous racing scandal.

Who spoke to whom and when will be revealed by phone records.

"We have used the power under the Telecommunications Act to subpoena number of records of the people we believe are pertinent to the inquiry," Racing NSW chief Peter V’landys.

These will include Tom Waterhouse, his mother Gai and father Robbie. Records of their calls and text messages are now in the hands of investigators.

"We have been working day and night on this - we've also subpoenaed throughout Australia of all the major wagering operators," V’landys said.

Investigators are also focusing on Betfair - which allows betting on horses to lose.

With the line up they have appearing on Monday, it will be the biggest case of the pot calling the kettle black I have seen, or should that be pots calling the kettles black

LOL, stop it spy your killing me

What are the odds on Tom Waterhouse going the distance?
Wednesday, 24 April 2013 11:53
Adam Schwab
Who do you punt for? Tom Waterhouse and the problem of overexposure
The top 10 Australian entrepreneurs to watch in 2013
2012's Hot 30 Under 30

While the controversial ubiquity of online bookmaker Tom Waterhouse has received a great deal of media coverage, far less attention has been focused on the young scion’s business model. Will he last the distance?

The 30-year-old is the son of disgraced bookmarker Robbie Waterhouse (who was banned from racetracks for 14 years after his alleged involvement in the Fine Cotton scandal) and Gai Waterhouse, one of Australia’s leading horse trainers (and the daughter of the legendary Tommy Smith). It put Tom in a pretty useful position when it comes to marketing his business. But Waterhouse didn’t rely on free PR alone to launch his eponymous bookmaker into the stratosphere — instead, he followed the well-trodden path of dot.coms: spend a huge amount on advertising to gain market share, then sell to a well-heeled existing player that has far lower return on equity requirements.

The strategy, while potentially lucrative, is certainly not without heavy risk. Most notably, running out of cash before a bigger fool comes along to overpay for the loss-making business. There have been many examples of both — think Pets.com or Webvan in the loser category, or MyCityDeals and Spreets as relative successes (for the seller, not the buyer).

The modus operandi is simple: raise a limited amount of seed money to develop the necessary web infrastructure and commence marketing. Early marketing is usually done through online “affiliates” and Google cost-per-click advertising. Affiliates are basically display advertisement wholesalers with existing relationships with thousands of sites (like blogs or news sites). Many online businesses will then tone down affiliate marketing when they’ve saturated that segment, while others will up the ante and transfer “above the line” (advertising in traditional media).

This is where things start getting really risky. The beauty of online advertising is not only its cost-effectiveness but also the ease with which an advertiser can measure return-on-investment. Virtually all online advertising allows an advertiser to track the exact spending on each particular advertisement and compare that spend with the profit generated by each user. If a form of advertising is not generating profits, it can easily be stopped and replaced by another that is (or if no online advertising is working, pull back entirely).

Traditional advertising doesn’t have that very useful advantage; that’s why almost all online businesses eschew almost all forms of offline spending, which is largely devoted to brand building, rather than specific revenue generation. Of course, if done right, offline advertising can cement a brand in a market-leading positions (like Carsales, Seek or iSelect), but it’s usually done after a brand has been very well established and is profitable. Neither of which appears to be the case with TomWaterhouse.com.

Waterhouse is playing an even risker game than usual: along with finance and p-rn, gambling is a well-established segment of online commerce. Plus, gambling tends to be quite lucrative — so the CPA (otherwise known as “cost per acquisition”) of customers is relatively high (compared with, say, online shopping). Gambling companies have been known to provide incentives of upwards of $150 in gambling credit (which works out to be far less than $150, but still, is far higher than a CPA of $3, which is common for nascent segments). Waterhouse himself was last week accused of breaching gambling laws in Victoria after offering a $200 matching bet to entice new customers.

But Waterhouse’s massive gamble may be paying off. The Financial Review reported in March that British gaming giant Ladbrokes was conducting due diligence to take a 50% stake in the business, valuing the nascent enterprise at $200 million. That price lies somewhere between astronomical and moronic (BRW revealed Waterhouse himself only owns around 25% of the business, with the rest held by investors). Moreover, Ladbrokes denied making any sort of bid for Waterhouse, noting it had “no contact” with Waterhouse.

An overseas-based acquirer would purchase a business like Waterhouse solely for its members (and possibly Tom, who would need to remain as a Colonel Sanders-style figurehead with a very hefty earnings-based payment). In old-fashioned terms, this would be the economic goodwill associated with the business. The infrastructure (like website and support staff) would be nearly useless to an existing player, which would need to integrate with existing assets anyway.

As BRW noted, Irish giant Paddy Power purchased the well-established Sportsbet business (which was founded way back in 1993) for $180 million in 2010. At the time, Sportsbet was making a profit of around $20 million annually. By contrast, Waterhouse is believed to be unprofitable (with advertising spend of more than $35 million annually). Moreover, Sportsbet is one of Australia’s most popular websites, ranked 153 in Alexa, compared with Waterhouse, which is ranked a relatively lowly 984 despite its monumental ad spend.

Crikey asked Tom Waterhouse for confirmation on its profitability, but spokesperson said there would be “no comment across the board on [any financial] matters”.

It’s certainly possible Waterhouse may find his patsy and sell the business for a fortune. It’s also possible he will simply run out of money before ever making a profit. Perhaps Tom could frame a market …

This story first appeared on Crikey.

http://www.smartcompany.com.au/leisure-and-gaming/055256-what-are-the-odds-on-tom-waterhouse-going-the-distance.html

Not a bad slant on proceedings.

nothing to see here - move on i reckon

this is how it works (just heard on RN Breakfast)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdTIUdsF9NQ

Robbo showed what a complete GOOSE he is last night on tv he's backed it up again on mmm radio this morning

So much for backing up your mate

Mr Elephant, for some people, telling the truth can get confusing

Allan Robinson's lawyer says he won't attend More Joyous inquiry due to ill health as a result of riding career ending injury

NEWS: A few years ago champion provincial jockey Alan Robinson almost died in a race fall that ended his career. He suffered a broken back and, even more disabling, bleeding to his brain.

Alan was a highly skilled and aggressive race rider and the toll of that was a career of danger and serious injuries. Not long before his worst fall he suffered a collapsed lung in a race fall and in yet another race fall he broke his neck. He was forbidden from ever riding again.

The ex-jockey has never been a bettor. He has no interest in racing now. I suggested to him that he might tell his story in his own way to a media outlet, he chose Today Tonight. He did his best.

Alan Robinson left school at age 14. His lack of education and his presentation have enabled people through his adult life to mock him and laugh at his expense. His career and happy personality have endure.

In my dealings I have always found him cheerful and high spirited. His racing career was highly successful and he is justifiably proud of it.

Alan will not be going to the More Joyous Inquiry.He is in no position to endure the stress.He pushed himself to undergo the Today Tonight interview to tell of his simple role in the More Joyous investigation.

I am hoping that Alan will be up to providing another account of his minor involvement in a few telephone calls that put Andrew Johns and John Singleton in contact. I will publish it here verbatim.

Without going into his health issues I can assure you he is not up to the task in his current condition. He soldiers on. I can indicate that he is not going to be put at risk by the pressures of attending the Ray Murrihy investigation.

Think i can hear Chris Murphy lurking somewhere nearby.

Closely followed by Max Markson.

Haha
Licking their chops to the words "there's the kids private school fees paid for"

Womble reckons Mother and son are sleeping with each other.   Worsse than Singos allegations.

I do???

Was some stories yesterday of vets rushing to see MJ at Strawberry Hills - not true??? I hope she is coping ok in this stressful time

Still reckon the inquiry won't go anywhere

Gai will get a fine for not informing stewards of treatment MJ received, no other charges on anyone else

Found this on another forum.

In August last year bookmaker Tom Waterhouse had receivers appointed to Hayson Bloodstock over a $3.36 million gambling debt. Mr Waterhouse also has caveats over Mr Hayson's brothel and his Dural property, to protect his claim.

Advertisement
Other creditors listed on corporate documents include the Bank of Western Australia and Network Consumer Finance, which is the finance arm of the retailer Harvey Norman.

While Network Consumer Finance usually provides loans to consumers for the purchase of whitegoods or furniture, Network Consumer Finance has occasionally lent money to people in the racing industry through Harvey Norman's proprietor, thoroughbred enthusiast Gerry Harvey. It is understood that Mr Hayson has settled with Network Consumer Finance.

very long bow there Chante

I didn't draw 1 Mr Womble.
Just throwing it into the mix.
After all it does involve 2 or 3 of the involved parties.

What about Robbo betting each way on today tonight? Think he got confused whether he was on the job or not

I couldn't make out what he was fkn saying.

" Pleeeeaaaaaaaasssssseeeeeee"   ffs

joey is denying Tom said anything. I think Singo might find himself in court with young Tommy

Yes.  A lot of back tracking going on.
Why am i not surprised.
Still the the phone records might be a shade embarrassing.

nothing to see here, some slaps on the wrist and let's move on

When the drug bombshell hits racing and Singletons cashed in he will look a genius I reckon.

Of course people will side with Tom.  He has the potential to keep tipping the "dead ones", whereas Singo is a mere friend...... 

Easy call for some.....  Even when they have more than enough.

Pleeeeeeeeeeeeese

they reckon they need 2 days to find out nothing happened - WOFTAM imo

spyvspy27 • May 3, 2013 1:11 AM BST
Gai will get a fine for not informing stewards of treatment MJ received, no other charges on anyone else


http://www.racenet.com.au/news/89773/Stewards-declare-'all-clear'-on-Waterhouse's-betting-action-on-All-Aged-Stakes

Self praise is no praise

Its how you spell mayonnaise

Just praising judgey, he told me that would happen, gotta love da judge imo

I've known the judge since the early 80s when we used to go to Harold Park before hitting the cross and cutting a couple from the heard and believe me there is not much to love

You sound like you tried your luck with him an he knocked you back, then he steered you to the fountain where you got accommodated

Is that a boarding house ffs

*bordello

Toilets normally suit those with that inclination