Do trainers have accounts with bookmakers...

Not mentioning names of course as dont want the thread to get pulled ...

I would imagine favours are not allowed to get on as this would basically be market fixing ... are trainers accounts with bookmakers monitored by any governing body if they are allowed? Apologies for my ignorance on this but I would imagine racing cleaning its act up will also cover these areas with integrity checks?

In the past some trainers had "non-loser" accounts with bookies. They may be frowned upon nowadays. There are very good and obvious reasons why bookies would like to have trainers accounts.

Funnily enough Betfair didn't allow my question to Nichoolls in the comment section of his Saturday colum, which was "why do you say you aren't a betting man when you stated you backed 1833 for the Hennessy amongst other bets" ?

Surely 'none-loser' accounts would be obvious if racing authorities had access to records of trainers accounts, if indeed they have ever had/have them with bookmakers.

The mind boggles at the variety of favours that could be done to get such accounts if they have ever existed. Presumably this is continually monitored by racing integrity officials? Dont remember reading references anywhere so would imagine any accounts held by trainers are losing accounts as otherwise they wouldnt be allowed to get on, as with say, Pr1cewise punters.

Also there would be an argument for any earnings from trainer accounts to be deemed as taxable income if there was a 'non-lose' aspect to them and of course if they existed. Surely the tax man would need to check the legitimacy of any winnings being tax free?

PN was also quoted as having backed Tatenen in the Arkle in 2009. He obviously has the odd bet and is not afraid to say it but to be fair he probably bets very little. It is the trainers who say they dont bet we should be wary of and they are a few of those around. We often hear "I dont know where the money is coming from and it is certainly not mine" and there is an almighty plunge on something and it trots in. I always believed that there were two types of trainer those who bet and liars. There is a trainer who has had Chelt Festival success and will more than likely have some this year again who claims to have no interest in betting. I do believe him but the rest of them???? Come to think of it Hen Knight might be another who does not bet.

Yes good points, surely there would need to be transparency on such accounts if they existed. If there was a 'no-lose' aspect then earnings must be taxed surely, then would a description be needed for those earnings

Arkle, when Best Mate was around, Hen used to have a tenner on everything else that had a chance in the Gold Cup just to jinx its chances!

Barry Hills bought his yard in Lambourn on the strength of one bet.
Just read his book,bl00dy good book as well it is.

It has always struck me, when seeing high profile cases of jockeys being brought to book over irregularities, that the ultimate figure in control of riding instructions, the horses preparation and presentation for a race, namely the trainer, is rarely in question. There has to have been comment somewhere on the transparency of trainers accounts with bookmakers I probably missed it?

Anyone got a link explaining how racing authorities monitor trainer accounts with bookmakers, if they exist?

Of course trainers have bets with bookmakers, as do owners. They aren't allowed to lay their horses to lose on the exchanges but if they want to back one of their animals I don't see what the issue is.

They will have winners and losers like the rest of us and if they get so succesful that bookies won't take their bets (Barnery Curley for instance) then they will just get someone else to place them.

I would have thought bookies would be falling over each other to give trainers accounts

You dont think 'no-lose' accounts, if they existed, would need favours returned from the person in ultimate control of a stable string. Free money or rather earnings from bookmakers, I didnt realise that was possible. Suppose authorities constantly check such accounts with compromising terms do not exist for trainers.

Agreed marychain1 - free information for them isn't it? Take a decent bet but know you're too big about a horse and take evasive action pronto.

If they did exist this would tower over any case of jockey irregularities and would need to be continually monitored by racing authorities. Someone may have a link to legislation where it is stated that financial transactions between such parties is monitored for transparency.

I dont see why there would need to be any legislation or transparency. And they might take a hit every no and then from a sizeable bet from a trainer, but the information they get from that bet would probably save them far more money.

Really, you dont see the other ways in which such a relationship could work besides 'placing a bet that lets the bookmaker know a horse is fancied'. Rather naive arent we? Monitoring trainer bookmaker accounts as the condition of having a trainers license would be a great move in giving confidence that no compromising relationships exist as a result of financial transactions between the two parties.

No I dont see it, you will have to enlighten me.

Surely the bookmakers themselves would monitor the accounts and as already said trainers will have as many losers as winners so prices shouldnt be affected

I know of one that bets, he does not have a no lose account but gets best price on his horse if he bets it.

We dont want to mention names we are discussing whether bookmakers have accounts with bookmakers and if so, whether they are monitored for transparency to ensure no compromising relationships exist. Being given best price already creates a differing relationship to a normal account.

trainers have always had no-loser accounts how else could bookies price up maidens without getting burnt .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIgG3SnfwQo

I'm not sure if this is the most tounge in cheek thread or the most naive thread.

Was in Leopardstown at the Champions stakes meeting lsat year, a certain gentleman who is constantly on RTE when discussing big bets, was standing below me in the stand, he was scanning through his phone and to say it was a who's who of owners and trainers at the highest level in flat racing was an under statement, maybe they where calling to discuss the weather.

Was in Leopardstown at the Champions stakes meeting lsat year, a certain gentleman who is constantly on RTE when discussing big bets, was standing below me in the stand, he was scanning through his phone and to say it was a who's who of owners and trainers at the highest level in flat racing was an under statement, maybe they where calling to discuss the weather.

A mate of mine at Lads allows winning punters decent size bets to follow in.

I just watched that link, very interesting the Jockey Club apparently banned such no-loser arrangements. How the heck do they monitor and enforce this then? Is it a case of carry on as normal once the fuss went away or do they have a statement anywhere stating how they actively monitor trainer accounts with bookmakers? These could lead to the most compromising relationship possible between parties in control of multi-million pound financial markets and the participants.

There has to be a statement somewhere of how the authorities are actively monitoring theserelationships?

There have been misleading announcements from some trainers in the lead up to the Festival.  As a punter I would like it confirming by those in power that there are no cosy favours being done directing none runner money into bookmaker satchels or information on horses that are v unlikely to or even wont win, in return for the aforementioned no lose accounts. This is basically known as financial fraud if it exists and the fact it is racing gives no excuse for it to go on.

Are there any such checks in place to protect the punter?