The Gambling Comission officially endourse 'corruption' in horse racing

It seems to me that your beef here should be more with the BHA than the Gambling Commission. Having said that the Gambling Commission is worse than useless. Its one major achievement has been to cripple small bookmakers. Wow! Brilliant. Well done f*ckwits.

Magician is such a boring, sad individual

Can't make it pay himself, so tries to stitch up others with this and inrunning etc...

Why is it necessarily morally wrong for an owner to lay his own horse.
If you have invested a lot of money in the purchase and training of a horse then it makes sound sense to " hedge " this investment on accasion, in case it doesn't run well.
The more important question is did he simply invest in the training of the horse etc to set up a sting where he would lay the horse ( knowing from inside knowledge it was eihter not in form to run well or worse was going to be deliberately held back ) for a large overall profit at some future date?.

Isnt this man lands on moon with Horse racing?

Everyone knows its**or am i missing something?

Clarky9, I'd wager my entire wealth at 1.01 that The Magician has made a lot from gambling than you have. You only make yourself look silly with your stupid comments.

*a lot more

FINE AS FROG HAIR 06 Apr 22:45

Why is it necessarily morally wrong for an owner to lay his own horse.
If you have invested a lot of money in the purchase and training of a horse then it makes sound sense to " hedge " this investment on accasion, in case it doesn't run well.

I guess you'd need to know how much was to be gained by the owner if his horse won, and therefore how much the hedge was in case it lost. If the lay was far greater than the potential gain, it would look rather suspect.

wtf does it take a year to complete a case?

It's a victory for us horse owners and rightly so. If we didn't choose to run our horses at these shiity midweek meetings for ever worsening prize money and ever increasing costs you'd have nothing to do with your sad pathetic lives.

the hills brthers

keep on with trying to form a punters group magic man, when the bookies got through a % on profit instead of turnover towards the levy you know the decks stacked B-)

In a perfect world insider trading or betting would not happen.

However 99% of traders or bettors, would, if the chance presented itself, take
advantage of any insider knowledge.

(posted on other thread but this one will stay active longer)

Surely it is time for there to be an organised voice of the punters?

At the very least we should start complaining to our MP's (once known!) about the totally useless drinking club known as the Gambinling commission?

Absolutely agree Muq.

They, like IBAS, are indefensible in their position which is constantly biased towards the laughably named "big 3".

Wow ! Bertrand Russell quoted on this forum. Things are looking up.Anyway nothing wrong with owners laying/backing or organising the occasional coup etc.They keep the show on the road.No I'm not an owner.

Trevh 07 Apr 00:45

I guess you'd need to know how much was to be gained by the owner if his horse won, and therefore how much the hedge was in case it lost. If the lay was far greater than the potential gain, it would look rather suspect.


I copied this from the RP website, it's from Dec 09:

"OWNER Leighton Brookes has been found guilty of laying horses under his ownership by a British Horseracing Authority disciplinary panel.

The panel found Brookes, whose horses were in trainingwith David Evans, in breach of rule 247, which imposes a prohibition on an owner laying their horse to lose, and disqualified him for a period of three years.

Having considered the evidence, the panel found Brookes, who did not attend the hearing on Thursday, in breach of the rule in that he laid to lose Man Of Gwent, whom he owned, on three separate occasions.

Brookes risked a liability of £3,000 to win £200 on the horse on August 23, 2008, risked £1,441 to win £149 on September 10, 2008 and risked £990 to win £55 on February 4, 2009.

The owner also risked £2,562 to win £205 on Trimlestown on February 23, 2009.

The panel did not accept Brookes's explanation that he shared his Betfair account with a friend and it was the friend who had placed the lay bets on Man Of Gwent and Trimlestown without his knowledge.

Brookes was also found in breach of rule 241(i) in that he had failed to provide any reason for refusing to produce his telephone records.

The disqualification started on Friday, December 4 and will end on December 3, 2012."

Tough imposition for such a trivial gain.

racingguru 07 Apr 04:25
Is this the same Magician that so "honestly" with his inside info lay Carruthers off the board when he had info that it wasn't going to run in the Hennessy.
Karma ........
If that's true this is a poor show indeed

artie 07 Apr 10:31
Wow ! Bertrand Russell quoted on this forum. Things are looking up.Anyway nothing wrong with owners laying/backing or organising the occasional coup etc.They keep the show on the road.No I'm not an owner.

NO, **ing owners do NOT keep the show on the road. **ing owners are slowly destroying the game.

I have come to the conclusion that you simply post contrary views for the sake of it. You think if all the **s were banned horses racing would fall to pieces? What nonesense.

Guess they just pass the info on now for a kickback and there is no direct link.

For 200 quid just shows you how greedy these feckers are and using his own account how stupid.

starfish and coffee, I remember the post refered to by the poster above. The Magician was asking if the horse was likely to run in the big race. He had noticed it had been layed at much bigger odds than would have been expected, or he might have layed as a feeler to see if there were any bites which there were not. This followed his posts stating the horse had been heavily laid (by others) in it's preceding race, and did anyone know if it was likely to be suspect (all these threads will be visible on gubbed).

thanks for the clarification muqbil

So Muqbil, is it only "**ing owners" that might wish to lay a horse on here.Don't " straight owners" like to back/lay as well ?

Thats what i think, why shd the honest owners be descriminated against because of the cheets. Its trainers and jockeys that influence races not owners.

wow, them is some life changing sums of money that '**ing' owner was making on laying his horse here......ffs, get a high horse agenda about something worth while magician

You think owners should be free to lay their horses whenever it pleases them, heynoodles?

The question is not the size of the **ing owner's liabilities in absolute terms but in relation to the races' prize money.

When the sums are so out of whack as they are on British racing, it presents an incentive to owners.

Somewhere like Hong Kong is obviously a healthier gambling environment.

I've had some really bad experiences with Horse Racing ....I'm not saying you can't make it work ....but I wouldn't touch it now with a barge pole !

A close friend of mine layed two consecutive 30-1 outsiders at £100 a pop which won !
Almost £6k down ....that cured him !

I think so muqbil. Id rather see the authorities looking into the reasons for a poor run or an improved run than stop owners using their opinion. If you own a horse imo you know the form of that horse better than almost everyone else because you follow it so closely. Then youre told you cant lay it (legitimately).

For example, inside information "it missed a gallop". This shd be in the public domain for everyone.

Like I say I think its trainers and jockeys influencing races not owners.

I think the real question here is the intention behind the original post.

The poster clearly has an axe to grind. We know this from the history of the case and it is evident in the title. The GC clearly do not endourse (sic) 'corruption'.

At worse, the GC could be accused of ineptitude or lack of courage, but endorse corruption they do not.

So, what of the intention?

Its seems to me that this could be one of two things:

1. To highlight in public that a private matter of considerable importance to the poster, has been well and truly scuppered.

2. A belief that publicising the fact in a public forum will attract support for the poster thus softening the impact, justifying the original complaint etc.

Number 1 clearly achieved. Number 2 - Not (so far)

So maybe the poster is now thinking that it might have been best to keep matters closer to his chest, most unlikely as that might seem to some, especially those that believe the poster is rather full of his own importance. Not that I am one of those people.

insider dealing is rightly illegal. Apologists for horse racing "insiders" just make their sport look even dirtier.

Poster above has it right, dont touch it with a barge pole

If owners were allowed to lay their own horses it would lead to total meltdown.

Scenario;

Owners horses is trading 1.10 in the win market. Tells trainer to give it two good gallops and a dozen buckets of water before the race then drive round the m25 for nine hours before arriving at Kempton for the race. Owner lays his horse to win 100k for only a 10k risk that is in fact no risk. No questions asked as the owner has broken no rules.

How would that be a fair rule?

Like I say I think its trainers and jockeys influencing races not owners.

Bizarre nonsense. The jockey is working for the owner and is paid by him. Owners often speak to the jockey in the parade ring before the race.
Large owners often have their own jockey under contract whom they use overriding any trainer preference. McManus and Sheikh Hamdan for example.
Large owners often have multiple trainers and employ a racing manager to place their horses for them.
Obviously with small owners the balance of power is often reversed. Few trainers will try to stop the owner speaking to the jockey he has just paid for, however.

looking into the reasons for a poor run or an improved run

Race 1:
Owner: "Finish last".
Jockey: "OK guv'nor".

Race 2:
Owner: "Finish last".
Jockey: "OK guv'nor".

Race 3:
Owner: "Finish last".
Jockey: "OK guv'nor".

A handicap mark has been obtained.

Race 4:
Owner: "Win".
Jockey: "OK guv'nor".

Journalists (chorus) "A wonderful touch has been landed by connections! Bravo!"

Honest owners (chorus): "This is a mugs game. We're getting out."

In both the scenarios mentioned by moonlight and muqbil dishonest trainers/jockeys were required, imo. If you can explain how an owner influences a race on his own i'll concede the point.

...and if a jockey deliberately finishes last that is when the authorities shd step in

racingguru 07 Apr 04:25


Is this the same Magician that so "honestly" with his inside info lay Carruthers off the board when he had info that it wasn't going to run in the Hennessy.

Karma ........




care to try and justify this potentially liablous remark - which you have made on two threads?

tobermory 07 Apr 01:07

wtf does it take a year to complete a case?


excellent question? especially when the legislations only allows 6 months to void unfair bets.

you can void '**ing' bets beyound the 6 month limit - but the case of **ing is presumably more difficult to prove that 'unfair'

sufice to say the GC have confirmed in writing an owner laying his own horse is NOT **ing

Beetle

Thanks for the questions about my motivation.

It is good to see people with clear questions to me about my interest past and intent, rather than people saying " corruption is great" which I hope oir assume they do not really believe.


As to my intentions - I notice you have been here since 2003, But you dont post often... I remember you recent thread baout your concerns that Peple where beating the Clock in soccer betting.... If you have read many of my past threads you weill also realsie that the fairness of IR has been perhaps my biggest issue of the last 5 years. I wrote an 11 page submission to the GC on this very issue.

As to my motivation.....

I think racing should be fair and transparent ( strangle two of the ideals of the GC)

I think when owners lay thier own horses those bets should be void because a) it is in breach of BHA rules ( that they agree to) - some would call rule breaking **ing, and b) it is more than likely they have non-transparent information about that horses chances.

I have bene trying to get such unfair/corrupt or at least unpalatable bets cancelled for 5 years.

I have been clokced at almost every turn by Betfair, and the BHA. more recently Betfair have become less of a barrier and more of an alie on these issues.

but I thought the GC - would be an alie also.

but they have been untransparent, evasive and finally dismissive, and have most disturbingly confirmed in writting it is NOT a breech of section 42 of the Gambling Act for an owner to knowlignly may his own horse

...

so my motivations following this GC confirmation

1) let everyone know it is not a breech
2) promote discussion on it
3) highlight the difficultyl of voiding under the lesser charge of 'fairness' given the BHA only hope to conlcude nequiries withing 1 year - when the legislations has a 6 month limit

[i]Don't " straight owners" like to back/lay as well ?[/]

Since laying one's own horse is against the rules, any owner who does so, instantly ceases to be a straight owner. This much is obvious.

I haven't studied the text of the Gambling Act, but I doubt that the GC are the final authority on the precise meaning of the new offence of **ing. That should be the courts. According to many on here, the GC is infested with former employees of the High St bookmakers.

I agree with Muqbil that the idea of a punters representative organisation should be proceeded with if at all possible. Lobbying Parliament is the obvious way to go with these issues, esp if amendment to the Gambling Act is req'd, eg extension of the 6-month limit for voiding bets.

Oops. Only the first line of the above was meant to be italicised.

I think that is one massive advantage the big3, the GC, the BHa and every other group within racing have is a collective voice, Moonlight. Ok maybe on most occasions the factions are at war but those who supply the levy (us) don't have a voice to be heard.

It was telling, during Paul Dixons atr 'feature' he talked extensively about how important owners were to the sport and it's ever so imprortant to keep them sweet etc. He talked about every component of those who make up racing and how they received a bad deal yet never mentioned the punters!

Magician. The Gambling Commmission only has the power to void within 6 months of the outcome of the bet being determined. However a bet made illegally is still void, so one could perhaps still go to court any time within 6 years?

There's no shortage of things to bet on, why bother with horses at all?

So it is not illegal or regarded as '**ing' for owners to lay their own horses on Betfair?

It's a breach of BHA rule 247.

Frog2

The gambling comission have confirmed in writing it is not '**ing' or a section 42 breech for a layer to lay his own horse on betfair.

They have confirmed they will not use section 42 in such cases

Magician,

I admire your position and your persistence in this matter. I'm just not sure how discussion on this forum is going to help you.

I also abhor corruption of any sort and would love to see the day that all sport was cleaned up. But, it is a simple fact that where money or power are concerned there will always be big players trying to dominate and small time **ers trying to rip us off.

I also think that you do come across as someone with an air of importance and this acts against your aim to get full, free, honest discussion. That's just a bit of feeback which you can take or leave and it is not meant with mal intent.

If you want to take this on, which I believe you should and hope you will, have you considered a private prosection under Section 2 or the Theft Act? Have you had any (good) advice?

There are a number of disadantages and potential pitfalls to a private prosection which are mostly financial but the impact of a conviction would be considerable and would really raise the profile of your cause. The burden of proof in criminal law (beyond reasonable doubt) is higher than in civil cases, and without being fully conversant with the facts I cannot say whether you have a prima facie case but someone who knows this area will.

The advantages to you of obtaining a criminal conviction are considerable.

It would raise the profile of this matter considerably. Which is, if I read this correctly, the main reason for your persistence. More than that though, it would create a precedent and as such a big deterent to would be **ers. It would put a broom up the backside of the BHA and the GC and things would be different afterwards.

If you succeeded you would put condiderable pressure on the industry, its organisation, its less honest members and you would be doing most people here a big favour for which they would thank you instead of regarding you with some suspicion.

Its a tough nut and it needs a big punch to crack. So, given that you are a man who clearly has the motivation and has first hand exprience of these matters and and unresolved case, I urge you to get going.

I think that it might be necessary to prove that the owner conspired to stop the horse from winning to prove theft or fraud. I don't think the BHA had evidence of that IIRC.

It's not necessarily logically correct to equate **ing with theft. A plausible case can be made for the idea that sporting participants ** by placing bets forbidden by the rules of the sport. Obviously the GC don't want to bother.

The GC don't bother and think they can coast along like nodding dogs as they have absolutely no pressure applied from any groups. Currently they field enquiries and complaints from individuals. History has shown this to be a hopeless form of attack and well they know it.

If all those complaints were collectively mobilised, that is when change would happen, imho of course!.

Muqbil 08 Apr 06:08
It was telling, during Paul Dixons atr 'feature' he talked extensively about how important owners were to the sport and it's ever so imprortant to keep them sweet etc. He talked about every component of those who make up racing and how they received a bad deal yet never mentioned the punters!
It's shocking that the punters always seem to be forgotten, the people who fund a significant part of the sport. In Greyhound racing an independant body has been formed called GOBATA. Greyhound Owners, Breeders, And Trainers Association. the poor old punter is forgotten again. :(
Keep up the good work TM

top

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8574637.stm

strange - the other thread got deleted after being here for weeks

GC must be a little touchy about thier decision

The GC reminds me of the FSA a few years ago.
Imposing huger and unfair burdens on the small independent bookmakers to pay for a big bureacracy, but not really tackling the big issues.

Magic.. Perhaps you can indicate in the "Gambling Act" where it forbids a person betting or otherwise on anything owned or controlled by them. Thanks in advance.

and more...from horse forum thread - "4 exchange layers warned off"

========Guardian Online

Jockey suspected of giving information to punters who layed horses

Magis must be a slow reader!

Yawn Magician, so so boring

Well?

Hazel

I will force the GC to ultimately void bets.... becasue I am morally and legally correct, new request and case is iminant.

They can only protect the corrupt for so long - it is just dissapointing that they even try and protect them at all.

I'm still waiting!

wonby10

there are two specific sections.

1) provided that bets (on the balance of proability) need to be fair - it is highly likely that the GC will ultimately decide that oweners laying is a contrivention of this (on many but not all occasions)

The issue this has a 6 month time limits - and the BHA only attempt to conclude there cases in 12 months, and have been know to take 3-4 years.

The BHA have decided they are not interested in trying to conclude cases within 6 months, so punters can get bets void. I dont know if this is deliberate to ensure cases dont go further, or it is just general slowness and incompitence. either way 12months to 4 years to conclude a case is a scandal


2) the section sections is to do with **ing (section 42)

have you ever read the Act? I have several times

and whiel we are answering questions?

are you from Perth Western Australia, and what if any connection do you have to Alsistaire robertson and the WATC

:^0

:^0

:^0

:^0

:^0

:^0

:^0

:^0

:^0

:^0

:^0

:^0

Magic... I can't see in your response where you indicate the "Act" forbids a person betting or otherwise on anything owned or controlled by them, and to save you reading it again you won't find it.

The point being that the rules of racing may forbid owners backing against their horses (something bookmakers have been doing on horses they own and having an interest in, in the normal course of their business, since Moses was a boy without any penalty) but the Gaming Act does not forbid it and to prove any **ing took place where someone has bet against a horse they own would be very difficult to prove, and that would need to be done beyond reasonable doubt not on the balance of probabilities the onus of proof of course being on any accuser.

Your lack of understanding on the Law in quite a few matters and what the Gaming Commission is there to do is plain to see, and for anyone to say the Gambling Commission endourses corruption would be completly untrue not to mention slanderous.

In my opinion Betfair should ban you from using the Forum all your accounts not just the one where you contravene the T & C's as previously and The Gaming Commission should issue you with a writ for Slander. In closing where I am from and what I know is totally none of your business, of course you could always apply to the Supreme Court in the correct jurisdiction to have Betfair reveal my details, but I don't like your chances.

Wonby10

your paragraph of FACT, is ridlled with erros....


The point being that the rules of racing may forbid owners backing against their horses (something bookmakers have been doing on horses they own and having an interest in, in the normal course of their business, since Moses was a boy without any penalty) but the Gaming Act does not forbid it and to prove any **ing took place where someone has bet against a horse they own would be very difficult to prove, and that would need to be done beyond reasonable doubt not on the balance of probabilities the onus of proof of course being on any accuser.

1) Rules of racing do NOT prohibit owners from backing the opposition. show me where? quote the rule? the BHA have confirmed to me the rules do NOT prohibit backing the opposition.

2) Bets can be void under the act without proof... there just need to be deemed 'unfair' but this lesser offence needs to be void in less than six months

so two critical factual errors from you....

better go read the rules again, if you ever had read them at all

and I notice you dont answer my question.... about your connections?

so why are you stalking me on the Australia forum?

If someone called you an idiot, it would be hard to disagree.

good answer when I ask you to prove something you claim...

Just cut and paste the BHA rule, that forbids an owner from backing his horses opposition? or just reference it.... I will cut and paste it

Yes and you cant prove the

thanks wonby10

but can you post the rule that forbids owners from backing th oppositiong that you claimed was rule?

I cant find it - and the BHA told me it does not exist?

Like I said, If someone called you an idiot it would be hard to disagree.

Magician

Greetings and a sad outcome indeed

The GC is the problem here - this govt appointed quango was introduced to see order in gambling when the big casino boom was about to happen - then some nutcase thought ' ah, and well get the betting operators to pay for it - then the boom didnt happen and we are left with a worthless dept that has shown its ignorance to the Gambling Act in relation to the matter you raise.

Your only redress is to go thru the courts for fraud - Are you contemplating this?
Even if you threaten to start this court process, the exchange sites would be very worried l

wonby10

you stalk me over two different chat rooms. you say my comments are incorrect and offer what you say are the FACTS instead.

I point out that your FACTs are not correct and ask you to Justify your FACTS

you repsonse is to say "if someone called you (me) and idiot I would no disagree"



Clear argument winner - I am sorry to have wasted uor time thanks for educating me

wonby10

no answer to any of my questions.

I hope you understand that going forward I will not waste my time answering yours.

I will add you to the very long list of poeple I spent time justifying my position to, just to be criticised and not answered in return.

you have lost of company, they come and go, good luck

You should get help!

another constructive answer.

How about answering the direct questions?

1) Please tell me and the BHA ( because we both disagree with you) which BHA rule forbids an owner of one horse from backing any or all of the opposition.



I guess not.....

perhaps you might just call me an idiot again. LOL, and I need help.

You appear unable to read, your problem not mine.

wonby10

seems you still cant produce the BHA to stops owners form backing the opposition?

I am not surprised - becuase the BHA can find it either LOL

it does not exist

Magician. Why not ask BF to get all users to reveal their connections if any, to individual horses. Maybe Weatherbys could (for a large fee as is their wont) cross match against BF. In this way any laying of these runners would be known pre race.

The Sydney Arms became yet another two-year-old winner for Richard Hannon at Windsor last Monday and it is fair to imagine there was a bit of a celebration. Richard Morecombe, who owns him with the former trainer Lynda Ramsden's son, James, named him after a pub he owns, just off the Kings Road in Chelsea. Morecombe hopes the pub will become London's top racing drinking establishment.

Owner R Morecombe, J Reus & D Anderson

What a great topic this is. I have learned that I need to get to know some race horse owners a bit better!

Noodles....

Are you saying he owns the horse but is not the registered owner....

If you are it would appear Mr Ramsden has a history of doing that.

we must remember when the BHA tried him for laying "his own horse" he was not the registred owner if I recall correctly

No im not saying that. The BHA appear to have strange rules regarding owners names. If you own it 100% you have to use your own name. Yet if someone else owns a share of it then you can put what you want to go in the racing post etc.

So the BHA may know he owns it but the public gets hoodwinked.

Then again from his point of view maybe he misses his price if punters see the Ramsden name.

Interesting development.

The BHA business partners are refusing to pay out on yesterdays Barney Curley coup until enquiries are concluded.

In summary:

1) The gambling commission endorse cheating and exchange players are fair game for the cheats.

2) First hint of anything a little 'dubious' and the major bookmakers don't pay out!

noodles thanks for the clarification

RP should not say peple own horses who dont.... or the BHA should make the real owners (if the RP knows who they are - must be an open secret) register as the owners.