Rich Ricci, owner and bookmaker, a conflict of interests?

My issue is that ultimately the owner is more influential than the trainer at choosing the race

Not in The Willie Mullins yard!

Can see your point though... last years debacle with Vautour proved this shouldnt really be happening.

Stick by your own guns, and you won't have to concern yourself with other peoples conflicts of interest. People still going on about vautour decision are failing to mention the times Ricci & co have been more than fair. Yes i had Vautour for GC, but that dust has long settled. We are owed nothing.

Not sure thats the point the OP is making though Graeme?

For what its worth, Ricci's firm Bet Bright paid out Vautour as a winner in the Gold Cup on antepost tickets. Whether its right, wrong or completely indifferent, its something that isn't going to be changed anytime soon. If someone believes thats Ricci is indeed misguiding the public and that Bet Bright have a superior level of knowledge than the public, why not punt with that in mind? This argument has been done to death and truth be told there isn't a right or wrong answer. Its a completely subjective and opinion based topic and one that doesnt paint the sport we all love in the greatest of lights

Racing has a long history of bookmaker owners. Michael Tabor owns VC for example.

There's a fair argument to say this shouldn't be allowed.

However, there should be no outcry if, say VVM and Limini switch Cheltenham targets. This would be a trainer decision and one he is absolutely within his rights to make.

Mullins picks targets CCM. Ricci is a banker. If he corrupted markets, it would be bad PR. Nobody will let a bankey away with it ! plus Mullins traditionally deliberates over something. I don't think Ricci will play silly buggers with anyone.

Of course, I agree.

And we are talking amongst people who follow the game very closely and can see it for what it is. But to the average man on the street, I think its different.

This was a concern when William Hill owned racehorses back in the 50s, and unlike Ricci, Hill really was a bookmaker rather than just somebody who owns one. Maybe it should not be allowed but that ship has sailed.

To what extent do you weed out these so called conflicts of interest. Does it extend to jockeys with articles ? I just think to play the game as it is, and if you don't trust affiliations, then don't bet. Are you a corrupt punter if you back a tabor horse because it's a point shorter with VC ? I try not to finger point.

If i did finger point i'm in the right place. This forum is ramp central.

Would probably help matters if Ricci did not say things like.....Vautour either runs in the Gold Cup or stays at home.

That sort of comment is unwelcome and just adds fuel to the fire.

I dunno Bud. Maybe it was what Mullins told him. I think if Ricci and other prominent NH people keep their opinions to themselves, then we lose a good part of the reason many of us prefer NH, and that's interaction and more candidness. I'm certainly not a fan of people dragging this up, especially at preview nights that people attend out of their own free will.

Thing is,what he said turned out to be false information.
And that simply does not help if people are looking at the integrity issue in our sport.
I have no problem with any connections of horses telling us stuff if they want to,but it really should not be stuff that later turns out to not be true.
If doubts exist as to a horses target,then simply either say nothing or say we are not sure yet,which to be fair Mullins normally does.
For connections To put people away, whether meant or not,is not acceptable in a gambling sport....simple as that imo.

I believe that he believed what he said at the time of saying it. He's said alot of stuff that has been very decent. To tell someone to not give wrong information in this instance, is the same as telling him to say nothing at all, as he never knew he would be wrong.  The people who are the most open and decent with punters are the ones who will inevitably get something wrong i.e hendo/binocular and Ricci/Vautour. When this happens i'd put it down to human error, as opposed to acting as if i'm entitled to know everything.

That's why I put whether meant or not, cos its quiet probable he did not mean to put people away, but unfortunately he did.
And his comments would have affected peoples wagers.

Anyway whatever way you look at it, it led to people having a reason to question the integrity.

Ricci was very categoric about the Vautour/Ryanair debacle......there was no ambiguity at all; he could so easily have "kept" his words and told Mullins to sling his hook ie my word is my bond, and reputation is paramount, regardless.

Ricci apologised and BB paid out on Vautour as a winner. He shouldn't have said anything but there's not much more he can do now, yet people just go on and on about it.

The thing is, we as antepost punters should know and accept that connections have the option to run wherever they want. Ask Mullins, Elliott or any other trainer of a big yard what their plans are for this weekend's racing...they may have multiple entries and wont decide until closer to the day and may well change their mind several times before declaration time. Cheltenham next week is no different. Just because there are antepost markets doesn't change the decision-making process of the trainers.

Supposed "statements" from connections are usually nothing more than mere comments reflecting their thoughts, at that moment in time,to an interviewer when questioned. These thoughts can change over time.If the ridiculous abuse of connections continues every time a horse get injured or switched to another race, then we will just end up as we were in the bad old days when trainers just didn't give interviews or talk to the press. Antepost punting comes with serious risks attached...If we are not prepared to accept these risks then we can always wait till race day to have a bet.

He apologised and paid out cos he knew he was wrong.
That's the point I am making,he should not have said it,as he is admitting.

Antepost betting is all about trying to get better prices than on the day,and should really be down to peoples judgements,and when we get it wrong we take it on the chin. Getting false information from an owner, now that is different, and is not on......meant or not.

He apologised and paid out cos he knew he was wrong.
That's the point I am making,he should not have said it,as he is admitting.

Antepost betting is all about trying to get better prices than on the day,and should really be down to peoples judgements,and when we get it wrong we take it on the chin. Getting false information from an owner, now that is different, and is not on......meant or not.

To be honest there is more love for the Ricci than I expected. Yes there are his horses and he can send them where he wants but in an interview this week he expected Limini in the Champion, Lets Dance in the Novice Mares and Vroom in the Mares, all of which could well be wrong. Ignorance or lies either way its deceitful. Where does it end, tomorrow we find out that Un De Sceaux has shown some speed on the gallops so he's swopping races with Douvan. Oh well thats OK.

Budd, yes everyone knows he was wrong to say what he said, including him.I have no doubt, as said above, when he said it he meant it at the time.

Those comments came out of banter at a Cheltenham preview night. It wasn't an official statement which tied him into an official contract.

There will be lots of horses who switch targets next week even though connections would have been adamant they were originally going for different races. Its just that they are not all Vautours

It should n't be forgotten that he spent a large part of the winter telling us Faugheen and Annie Power were fine every time he appeared on the TV when it was palpably obvious that they were n't.

Rease, what is your definition of "fine"?  Faugheen was coming back from a suspensory injury which is a slow process. He was on course for a comeback in the AIG and galloped early that week. He was fine then.
It was no secret that Annie was sound but just not working as well as she can early on and then picked up an injury.

Ricci is a grade one bu11****, in love with the limelight and the sound of his own voice - and how the Racing Post can pay Mullins to do a column is beyond me.

That has nothing to do with ante-post punting, their right to do what they like with their horses and, in Mullins case my opinion of him as a trainer of horses.

It's his definition of fine that you should be questioning.

He said something a long the lines that they had run horses with worse issues than Faugheen when he failed to contest the Irish Champion Hurdle hurdle, I think - the next report was he'd pulled muscles - and then they found a stress fracture presumably after they scanned him.

For the record, I don't think he deliberately puts people away and I think sometimes it's just that he gets carried away due to his enthusiasm. Mullins is with the horses every day and will have a better handle on their wellbeing. It's understandable that he's high profile given the amount he invests in the game but I prefer to listen to the trainer who is more measured in his responses to questions anyway.

I've no issue with the changes in targets for their horses as they're all within the rules of the entry system and anybody betting ante post should accept that or wait for the final decs.

...and that gets us nicely back to the original question, should a bookmaker who stands to gain be an integral part of the decision making?

Yes they should. These people are wealthy. Ante Post vouchers aren't going to crumble them. I don't think being part of a bookie outfit changes their behaviour. Ricci will still air his opinions thankfully, and Tabor will still be punter un-friendly with or without VC. To me it's not about whether or not they should have a say in the decision making, it's about whether or not they have changed their behaviour since being in a post with a bookmakers(for gain). I don't think they do.

Mullin's is an habitual, maybe even pathological fibber. I spotted an obvious trait he has in the days leading up to the news breaking about Faugheen and posted it on here. I at the time posted that in no way was i an expert in body language or signs someone is trying to be conservative with the truth, maybe he felt obliged somewhat to give the press what people wanted to hear ie he's perfectly fine etc, except he didn't input any but's at that point. That i thought he was lying (ok sorry conservative) and the reasons why i thought he was too. It turned out that i was correct. I so wish my phone didn't cut out that night on the program On the Line as this was the next subject i was going to talk about after what i thought about the people whom are and can manipulate the markets. This was 4 days before the news broke when he was saying how well Faugheen was!

He hides this persona behind someone who is supposedly very undecided on what he's going to have for breakfast, toast or cereal. Yes that was mooted in one interview with the bloke a couple of years ago too. But can you afford to be so unsure, un-confident, doubtful be as successful as he is?

Fact is imho he doesn't have a great ability to talk to the press, unlike some. Although we are at times all greatful that he does (sometimes) When he's talking the truth or about horses where his mind is str8 on, he reams the information off like he's reading from a newsreel, but as soon as he's asked about something he doesn't want the press to yet know about, all these err, emm, its this, it's that but then its that as well and his personal fav' "Oh he's/she's fine" He doesn't ever look the interviewer in the eye either when this is going on.

Now he's not the only trainer to do this, ie switching horses or telling the press what they want to hear, the difference is where others would rather say nothing, he can't help himself.

I think RR falls into the category of beig the owner that loves the limelight and wants to give the betting public any information they so wish being given. Which is why you used to see him on panels for preview nights and the likes, never afraid to be interviewed etc.

Mullins is with the horses every day and will have a better handle on their wellbeing. It's understandable that he's high profile given the amount he invests in the game but I prefer to listen to the trainer who is more measured in his responses to questions anyway.


Apologies i did not read this comment before posting mine. Mullin's would not with the horses everyday, his staff are. Of course i wouldn't know this for absolute certainty. I disagree with the last part of this sentence and my comment described why.

Thats a fascinating insight into your extraordinary psychological powers of observation STS. It is indeed a pity that that phone of your's cut out the other night, you'd have sounded very convincing I'm sure and would have been very much at home on On The Line.

Where would you think Mullins would spend his days?
For what reason would you think he would lie to the public?

Thats a fascinating insight into your extraordinary psychological powers of observation STS. It is indeed a pity that that phone of your's cut out the other night, you'd have sounded very convincing I'm sure and would have been very much at home on On The Line.

Where would you think Mullins would spend his days?
For what reason would you think he would lie to the public?


Firstly i don't and won't. Read the post again, i said he is a pathological fibber, big difference from being a downright liar. He likes to speak to the press whenever he can, we can only thank him for that. Also it was more than 5 weeks ago. I took my observation, laid the be-jesus out of Faugheen on here and tried to call the program to which my phone cut out. It wasn't the other day

And the fact you post fascinating insight into your extraordinary psychological powers of observation obviously means your a very pessimistic person that thinks or has the opinion that people who can read whether someone is being conservative with the truth or not don't exist or are somewhat delusional in the head.

Oh and if you meaning by this quote

and would have been very much at home on On The Line.

Is a p!ss take in relation to some of the crack pots that phone that show up then you are very much mistaken. Thought i'd ignore that little input however i will leave it there

STS, maybe your a little confused, so here's the exact post you wrote on the champion hurdle thread on 25 Jan:

"I'm not expert on lying nor body language but when WPM was being interviewed earlier today on ATR when talking about AP he was very shifty, lots of ers and ems whenever he spoke. There was no eye contact with the camera and what there was towards the interviewer was very limited!!
Not sure if he was asked about Faugheen but when asked about todays runners / other horses he completely changed his demeanor and the sentences were flowing as if he didn't have to think about what to say before saying it"

You posted this just after Annie Power was ruled out of Cheltenham. The shiftiness you are referring to is of WPM talking about Annie Power being withdrawn, not Faugheen. As you say yourself, you were not sure if he was even asked about Faugheen. Faugheen had actually galloped the previous day and, 2 days later was declared for the AIG.

It was only after he missed the AIG, when it was obvious to everyone that Cheltenham was becoming less likely for him, that you first mentioned laying Faugheen for the Champion Hurdle.But the reason you gave for laying Faugheen was because you felt from his body language that he was lying(about Annie Power!!).

I'm sure this was just confusion on your part and I am most certainly not calling you a pathological fibber.

Well thanks for pointing this out to me. I actually felt that about both ap and F. I sometimes just miss out detail when talking about something and putting down in type. I should always read back what I type on here but usually I get too lazy. My english grammar teacher used to always point that out to me haha so guess even in 27 years I've still not learned PMSL

I'd have far more of a problem with top jockeys providing advanced information to PP and others solely for the purpose of profit on both sides.At least the bookmaker owner is pumping money into the sport, the s.umb.g jockey is take take and take more.

If your referring to ruby Walsh and pp I have to day I don't subscribe to that rumour one iota

do people realise how rich mr ricci is?  and hes over here manipulating markets!?!? for personal gain of how much?  i dont know what his exact salary(well over 100 million) is but he usually gets 50/60 million bonus every christmas?!?! and hes over here chancing a few quid!?!?  they dont know themselves from day to day...for example   if limini worked less than impressive today they will hardly go fot ch.but if she did they prob will.same with vvm..they arnt cars that are 160 bhp every day of the week..

STS I like your sound approach to punting and your contributions to the forum but I'm amazed at what youve written in your 16.10 post and I would be pretty certain you know very little about the real WM.

Indeed i know nothing about the man. But you don't have to to hold an opinion based on the evidence provided by his manner in which he conducts himself when being interviewed.

One thing i think we can all agree on however is, nothing with wpm is straight forward.

@kavvie -- do people realise how rich mr ricci is?

The clue is in the name. And also in his initials: RR.

Punters would do well to remember that owners are at best recounting a garbled and out-of-context version of something the trainer or jockey told them three days ago.

not our mr ricci  hes razor sharp on all things nh.and imagine an investment banker massively rich having a passion for nh racing in ireland .it was a longshot he would stumble across such a remote sport in the context of where he lives and mingles with..

So we have a razor sharp, multi millionaire banker, doing this sport for fun. OK.

So as a banker. he will be fully aware of the impact on a financial market when the owner talks about targets.

It kind of makes it worse, if it's not for financial gain, that his misleading statements shows a lack of respect for the sport.

To argue that he was caught unaware and made these comments flippantly is ridiculous. His Bet Bright were at the forefront of marketing preview nights with RR.

never trust a man who wears sunglasses all year round.

he has an eye condition that leads to wearing them

Was said in jest Kavvie

Kavvie, have you got posters of RR on your bedroom wall?

...and that was said in jest x

no but i feel hes an addition to the sport.and mostly gets a negative press.he has bought a lot of horses and invested in a hobby that most of us would agree is heavily weighted against making money out it as an owner.

I think he has a genuine interest in owning horses but i dont think hes bringing anything to the sport. If he didnt buy them someone else would.

I dont think his bookmaking is based on interest in the sport though. It doesnt strike me as a hobby or a fun investment - especially if it means people are questioning his integrity. The obvious reason for his bookmaking is its making him money. And there lies a conflict of interest.

RR was a colleague and mate of Bob Diamond, the CEO of Barclays (then) who was told to clear his desk in the midst of the Banking Crisis; he was asked to head an investment division of BZW, a subsidiary of Barclays, and was remunerated handsomely when this division was sold; he bought a huge stake in Betbright from his golden handshake costing next to nothing no doubt trying to emulate the fortunes and growth of B**365, a private entity now capitalised at or equal to that of Laddies/Ok Koral, I believe.

Horse Racing is just a sport to Ricci, and everything he does is geared towards promoting Betbri*** and not horse racing; a character like Ricci can only deter prospective customers/racegoers/punters off horse racing instead of attracting them.

Betbright are an awful bookmaker, and he clearly is in bookmaking to fleece the punters and make himself a buck.

It's an obvious conflict of interest from a punter's point of view but it doesn't matter from his point of view as there's nothing to stop him. The betting industry is so weakly regulated it's no wonder merchant bankers are attracted. Regulation of the stock markets, although still pathetic, is more stringent and in theory you can be jailed for benefitting from inside information. I seem to recall the betfair exchange was set up by city types.

On a slightly different note, I don't know how BSkyB are allowed to have a 20% stake in Skybet and own a Sports News company.

Surely that's a conflict because they can qoute their "sky sources" on SSN or their website, which can massively effect markets, eg next manager betting odds and promote their own company as being top price on x,y,z.

I'm sure that probably doesn't happen but it seems strange to me that one company can have stakes in both because its open to manipulation.