|
By:
Go back to very start.
What is the purpose of horse racing? Why do people race horses? Why did people start racing horses? If we understand that then we can make a better judgement. |
|
By:
This is truly dire nonsense. Will people argue anything at all on here?
Trying to get your horse to win is legitimate. Trying to stop it from winning is very naughty. I accept that the former case depends upon how the owner's horse turns out to be better than the public know. If it is due to previous nobbling, that too is sinister. If it is due to legitimate improvement, there's nothing wrong with it. I am not saying that either case is acceptable, they are both forms of what might best be called "insider dealing", the difference being the ease with which the desired result can be obtained. In finance there are strict rules about share transactions made by company officers, buy or sell. In the same spirit, if connections are to be prohibited from laying their horses perhaps they should be prohibited from backing them too. |
|
By:
Well done Magician, I wish you luck with your future aims.
|
|
By:
thanks hazel...
but only step one.... now need to recover my money... now that befair have confirmed Brookes took it Betfair have resited me for years on this topic - but finally gave in.... the rest of the industry/regulatory bodies of racing will defend the rule breakers even more agressively I fear... but ultimately I will win this battle.... I have too... I am correct, and as such the industry cannot resist fiarness indefinantly |
|
By:
In finance there are strict rules about share transactions made by company officers, buy or sell. In the same spirit, if connections are to be prohibited from laying their horses perhaps they should be prohibited from backing them too.
I don't see a parallel with the financial world, where employees (the officers) are forbidden from using inside info to profit at the expense of the shareholders (the owners). There is a case for making trainers declare their bets to the owners. I have seen posts on here by people claiming that trainers had gambled their horse without their knowledge, or told them only when the price was gone. That would be analogous. I can see no prospect of banning owners from gambling their horses. That would be suicidal imo, as most people who own horses have been betting on the nags for a long time, and would find the idea of not betting on their own one most peculiar. |
|
By:
This touches on one of the undelightful ironies of the modern world.
The class war is nowadays between the owners (who are usually the public, via pension funds and insurance funds) and privileged employees, the officers, with the employee as exploiter. I haven't seen this topic much discussed by the political ieologues of either Left or Right, they predominantly continue to analyse the 19th-century world in my experience. |
|
By:
Part of the problem is that the owners are actually represented en bloc by middlemen (the fund managers) who have more affinity with the employees than the owners whose interests they are paid to assert. Hence the futility of the recent exhortations of shareholders of banks to exercise more control over the bonuses paid to staff. Most of the fund managers are ex-investment bankers, who have to believe the myth that large bonuses must be paid to attract and retain "talent" because it is the only justification for their own personal success.
But we digress... |
|
By:
are we assuming here that owners know what trainers are doing with their horses
are we assuming the owner 'pulled' the horse up himself maybe the owner was trying to recoup training costs the only way possible lol his wrong of course was that ... it is against the 'rules of racing' ownership clauses .. thus the 3 years any mention of any other impropriety ? |
|
By:
Well done Magician and Betfair.
Good luck with your future efforts on this Magician. |
|
By:
well done magician.
I was just wondering how betfair could tell your bet was matched by this chap at that exact moment? Did your bot tell you the horse was not trying? it does not matter if a horse drift unless the owner is laying. |
|
By:
The impropriety that can be detected is the lay bet. that can be proved.
Other jiggery-pokery is often virtually impossible to establish, excuses are readily available. |
|
By:
I traded a rubber company shares. Then the FSA enquired of my broker about my motives for buying shares. It was not difficult to bat away.
|
|
By:
spot the error
|
|
By:
"groundbreaking" decision or their hand was forced. Bad publicity this for the bf model, imho.
|
|
By:
Magician. You recently won the Scoop 6. If you were to discover that a one of your winning horses only won because its main opposition in the race were not trying, would you feel it was wrong to keep the money, and would you give it back?
|
|
By:
What a silly Q, artie! :^0
|
|
By:
Well done Magician.
Regarding this comment: Moon Light 30 Jan 00:33 In finance there are strict rules about share transactions made by company officers, buy or sell. In the same spirit, if connections are to be prohibited from laying their horses perhaps they should be prohibited from backing them too. I don't see a parallel with the financial world, where employees (the officers) are forbidden from using inside info to profit at the expense of the shareholders (the owners). [...] Do you remember the case of the guy who worked for the BBC and knew the results for one of the reality shows and made tens of thousands putting bets on it. He was then allowed to keep the winnings and did not receive punishment from the BBC and he didn't do anything illegal. It would be good if this was made illegal as it is obviously grossly unfair that some are allowed to act on this. The attitude of "if you're going to gamble it's your own fault", should not be allowed to prevail. |
|
By:
I quite agree, Investor.
There's a lot of snobbery involved in the distinction between "high finance" and gambling. |
|
By:
What about all the punters who inadvertently find themselves on the right side of this corruption ?" Good question.
On the contrary, it's totally irrelevant. It's like saying the firms rebuilding the twin towers shouldn't be allowed to profit from it or that those who planned the bombing should get away with it because someone else profited from their act. Surely the point is, if the corrupt aren't allowed to keep their ill-gottens then we wouldn't have to even discuss such side effects. |
|
By:
Moon Light 30 Jan 18:37
There's a lot of snobbery involved in the distinction between "high finance" and gambling. "The gambling known as business looks with austere disfavor upon the business known as gambling." -Ambrose Bierce |
|
By:
I really like that one Eldrick. Saw it used in an article on Ed Thorp a few days ago. Stuck in my mind, so true.
|
|
By:
should be made illegal.
dentist sent to prison for 6 years for insider trading and chap at bbc keeps his money |
|
By:
There's one law for the rich and another for the poor. Betfair's city boys go along with that. They even attempted to justify that guy keeping the money and the total lack of protection for their customers until djsunset set the tabloids on them.
|
|
By:
If I lived in London and had a horse who was favourite running up in Hamilton. I wouldn't see anything wrong in it to lay my horse. I be just doing it so I wouldn't be out of pocket if something happened to it in the race and he got beaten.
To me it would be just the same as a guy on here greening up his betting book. It wouldn't be for any sinister reason. It would be just I personally couldn't afford to send him and the team up to Hamilton and end up been out of pocket for my visit. While if he does win I not only collect the prize money but the horse would be more valueable as well. So any pay out to a punter from me I would have felt was worth it. Funny thing is I'm actually thinking of buying a horse so be warned. :^0 |
|
By:
i've said this before and I'll say it again.
the smart gambling owners names are nowhere near the paperwork on their horses. Only the stupid get caught.....the guy being chased here a) doesn't give 2 hoots about racing + so being warned off is no bother and b) is (I believe) plenty rich enough not to worry about having to give back the fifty quid or whatever it was.... it's potentially more far reaching that this are betfair a bookmaker or not debate is being dragged back out for me. |
|
By:
I'm actually thinking of buying a horse so be warned.
You're the one who will be warned if you're not careful! :^0 |
|
By:
Telephone lines for the reality shows involved are supplied by BT but operated by service provider Harvest Media.
"We are urgently investigating this," a BT spokesman said. The gang, which made wagers from computers in the London area, are believed to have started their scam at last year's BBC Sports Personality of the Year awards. Members of the ring are thought to be in their early 30s and well-educated. The group began by placing small bets but those amounts grew as they kept winning. They also tried to hide their tracks by intentionally losing small amounts of money on other bets. early 30's and well educated that would rule out most people on this forum haha |
|
By:
Jonny
more and more this will be fround upon - bad PR for all involved even if not illegal |