Congratulations to Mr Curley

It's the good news story of the year
Well done Barney and co

None from me, could never stand his hypocrisy.

Nor from me

This could split the camp!

I'm with COT.

Sad to see so many so jealous of Barneys success

I loved it - fair play to them.

its fellow punters hes fleeced shirley??

To construe a dislike of the man as 'jealous of his success' suggests that the dislikers are jealous of other successful bettors in general, utter twaddle.

It's jealousy mate pure and simple. At least have the gumption to admit it. The man has pulled off some of the most memorable coups of all time and donates huge sums to charity. I have no doubt there'll be a movie made one day

No, it's simply a dislike of hypocrites.

As for the charity stuff, I'll start off by saying that all charitable acts are good, so what he's doing in that department is a good thing, obviously. It's a fact, though, that not all charitable acts have entirely selfless motives and I'm never surprised by the good deeds an apparently god-fearing man will do when he feels he's that much closer to meeting his maker

For me its a complete dislike of anyone who tarnishes the reputation of horse racing.This whole episode has done exactly that.
And anyone who agree with it,is simply not bothered about the sport.

Jealousy???
Good luck to anyone who wins money,but to do it at the expense of fellow punters who have backed others in the races and backed these horses over time when they have been deliberately prevented from winning? Nah, no jealousy, just contemnpt for greedy,selfish people, of which a lot seem to be on this forum.

A very well prepared coup, immaculately prepared.

How does that tarnish racing?

I mean the fantastic Gay Future coup in the past is now legendary and inspirational ; Mr Curley will be remembered very fondly for his numerous attacks on the profits of bookies.

Regards figgis, I have enjoyed our interactions and am certain jealousy has nothing to do with his views. A hypocrite is someone who habitually says one thing and does another. Mr Curley's dislike of, and stated intention to take money from the bookies is long standing. He merely has yet again done what he said he would. Not sure I would go along with his being a hypocrite.

Regards fleecing punters, I am not sure what the issue is. Thousands of punters who manage to spot his coups as they go down make a load of money. Sadly I am not one of them but do not begrudge anyone who managed to latch on to the latest brilliant effort. Without doubt the main losers of Barney's bets are the layers.

Now I admit I am biased. When you get your account closed down after 25 years by OK Korals, and are limited on one occasion by Boylsportz  to a bet of 21p (yes really 21p) and see markets manipulated ruthlessly by the big bookies for years, and see the total scam that is the CSF returns, you tend to applaud a clever man who stuffs the bookies very hard and very often! I do anyway!

Let's get one thing straight Mr Curley is a genius and to call him selfish is utter rubbish! Look at all the charity work he has done. The fact is Barney Curley plays the game as well as anyone and it is a game. Any punter who thinks every horse is trying is either stupid or naive and would be better off buying scratch cards ;)No one forces you to place a bet it's all part of the conundrum which is punting. I'm pretty fed up of listening to hearing about what someone that owns horses should do, if you pay the fees it's your choice! On judgement day I'm certain the big man upstairs won't allow him entry because he has done what most people would do given half a chance. Playing the game isn't murder, mind you it's probably worse according to some on here. Most of the successful punting owners play the game and fair play to them, it is jealousy of the fact that the less fortunate aren't in the position to do so!

Hi, cryoftruth.

It was a well prepared coup, but with the dross that passes for much all weather racing it doesn't take a genius for somebody with the inclination to get one capable of winning at that level when the handicappers are so willing to assist. When a horse has been off the course for so long it also gives the opportunity for other kinds of assistance to be applied.

As for Curley being a hypocrite, in the past he has put himself forward as some kind of champion for the average punter in the battle against those evil bookie chappies. However, it's obvious that Curley doesn't give a flying toss about such punters when he's organising one of his sly plots. Let's be clear here, a lot of the cash he wins off the bookies will be cash that other punters have placed on opposing runners in the same races he plays, usually runners with better public form. And let's not forget how a lot of his runners that seemingly have a chance on form drift alarmingly, hoovering up as much backers money as possible before running suitably deplorably.

It's no surprise to see the old excuse doing the rounds, "If those punters knew their racing then they'd know what to expect", etc. Obviously there is some truth in that, nevertheless, to glibly dismiss any criticism of Curley with such remarks ignores the bigger picture. Not all punters operate on here for 8+ hours a day monitoring all the moves. Many punters have a bet for fun or an interest while getting on with the rest of their lives, going to work, etc. I've seen many such punters dismissed on here as mugs but those people are vital to the health of the game, if some people think racing can be sustained by the input of pro punters alone they're severely deluded.
Also, even serious punters start out punting as a side interest, I know I did. I don't see how such incidents do anything to help to attract young blood into punting on racing when there are lots more punter friendly sports available without the skulduggery involved.

I'm not saying Curley necessarily has to care about such matters, but again in the past he has voiced concerns about the health of the game and where it's headed, a hypocrite in my book.

The bigger hypocrites of course, though, are the BHA, who not just allowing this to happen have created an environment where it positively thrives.

Yep,
pretty much sums it up.

Figgis whilst I admire your passion for the game I have to disagree with you regarding this episode. I cannot see how this will put any punter off backing a horse. You either do it or you don't some will come some will go Mr Curleys actions will not stop anyone gambling.Look at how much FOBT's take and lottery cards. As for them betting on other sports well of course some have gone to that but I cannot think of any that give you the quick fix that racing gives or the level of choice.

I agree that the drops in handicap for these horses did seem leniant but unless Mr Curley has handicappers in his pocket then I cannot see what he has done wrong. The 1st horse was a German GP2 winner and did have a favourable mention in spotlight another one of the four was tipped by spotlight so they were hardly unnoticed. I don't know what kind of other assistance you mean by them being off so long.

It became clear to a few on here the night before what was going on and a few latched on(not myself) even if they backed all 4 in acca at SP they got 16-1. 

Curley can still care for the game and pull off a coup like this in fact he is showing it up for what it is.

organized crime against racing IMO, BC has obviously shown how the game can me manipulated to such an extent that he can use
numerous trainers all on the same day to make easy money and has ruthlessly carried out this betting coup and although genius
in the planning and execution, not difficult to do on the all weather as has been mentioned, corrupt and dishonest what has been
done, also within the rules of the law and so he has got away with this crime against racing.

Mixed feelings about this. I was not in from work until it was done & dusted. Bookies losing their money no probs. Punters' who laid it or backed against it, I feel for. But one thing we have to agree on. If we feel this is a coup, then any gamble from now on, when there is no form, we have to accept it is a coup. As for the charity, we do no know if anybody else who has pulled of a coup, has not donated some to charity, but may be more private about it. Just a thought. So to some up,
Barney has done it for his own wealth and DAFA. As for some who on other threads think he is a punters' pal.............I would trust him as a person as much as I would baldy.

*sum*

Curley has shown over the years just what he is and anybody who applauds this man is an ar5e licker.

The BHA is to blame here, a g2 winner from germany with a rating of 112 runs over here like a complete drain for 6 starts and they don't just let it happen they actually aid the cause by dropping the horse 56lb. When horses with previous form of a certain level start running so poorly they shouldn't just the drop the horse in the weights, they should get the trainer in and say what is wrong with that horse and tell connections to get the horse sorted out and make sure it shows a lot more next time or action will be taken.

Steamship

I'm not saying that Curley's actions alone will put punters off, but he is a part of it and unlike some other connections who take advantage of the system his whole modus operandi is geared around it. Of course die hard punters such as us will not be put off, we either avoid such races or some will probably even turn them to their own advantage. I'm talking about people who are putting their toes into the water of the game, like we all do at the start.

I also think that a lot of casual punters are put off by these shenanigans. Of my own close friends I have three who were keenly into racing during the 80s and 90s. They never got into it as much as I did, admittedly, but it was a keen hobby for them, betting regularly and attending racecourses. All three have got sick of how the game has gone. One, who was always more of a jumps fan, now only has the occasional bet in a race like the King George and at Cheltenham, the other two now only bet on other sports. Now I'm not suggesting that my own experience will be the same for everyone, but I'd be surprised if it's unique.

Figgis how would your friends say how the game has gone since the 80s 90s?

Betting Exchanges, TV in betting shops, 2 dedicated racing channels, internet replays, form easy to find, meetings when there is bad weather, no tax on bets. We had none of these when I started. The only thing is now we have a lot more choice of sport to bet on. I also have friends that have moved on from it but that is because they have settled down.

Curley has done this but it is not happening even every year from him. I would hope that people putting their toes into the water would be more out off by the terrible deaths of horses this week rather than a group of people winning a load of money.

I do however think Stevie Gerrard has a pointin BHA telling trainers/owners to get the horse sorted out as they have been able to ban Mad Moose for his non participation. Nothing to do with this group who by doing this may help shape the handicapping systenm for the better and it has created a cracking debate.

Steamship, none of those improved benefits matter a jot if people don't have confidence in the integrity of the product. The thing that has deterred them most is the massive increase in the amount of racing, obviously mostly consisting of bottom of the barrel racing that is a breeding ground for insider bandits. They find the amount of racing nowadays difficult to keep on top of when they have jobs to do, etc, they find the quality of most of it unappealing, many results unfathomable on form and even though there is more good racing on Saturdays there is so much of it squeezed into the same tight time slot that it is difficult to enjoy it or find the time to study it.

Some people can say "well if they don't like it...", which is fair enough, but anybody who wants racing to have a decent future has to be concerned about the way things are.

Integrity is no worse than it was back in the day when horses were getting doped. Its just that we see every ride now and get to judge it then come on here and engage with other forumites about a pulled favourite or not breaking quick enough.If a trainer does not want a horse to win he does not have to rely on a jockey doing the job for him.

Why has more racing stopped casual followers of the sport? If I'm interested in Cheltenham then I can forget Southwell. Can't people ignore the AW altogether, do they feel the same about point to pooint meetings?

Would you close some AW tracks, or remove from from TV?.

The too much racing on a Saturday is wrong apart from 2 or 3 weeks in summer when it gets crazy. Again due to dedicated channels we seem to be pushed to enjoy it whereas the old BBC gave us 10 min lead into the big race but we only had 3 races from them and the ITV 7 which had a race every 15 min so terrestrial TV, lets say C4 are now like ITV. There would have been at least one other meeting on so there would have been clashes if all races were shown.

I think people can always recall races were the results are unfathomable no matter what era but the big races nowadays produce rare shock winners.

There are maybe 10,000 races a year to bet on. Apparently, Curley last pulled off something similar 4 years ago. 40,000 races run since then. An average of 1 Curley coup per 10,000 races. The man is hardly damaging punters interests, especially if even with half a brain its possible to see it coming and to steer well clear of those 4 races.

A veritable storm in a teacup with lots of noise coming from a relative few. Every day BM's (inc BF with the PC) inflict considerably more  damage on punters by manipulating markets and closing accounts of anybody who can string a few wins together.

Steamship

As I said before I'm not talking about people who "see every ride now and get to judge it then come on here...", I'm talking about the casual racing fans, who are equally important to racing. Of course people can recall results that were unfathomable on form in any era and gambles have always been pulled off, however, it's obvious that many more results that are unfathomable on the form book today appear to be not so unfathomable to some judging by betting market moves, which is the crux of the matter.

What happened to my post about the handicap system?

Just as some punters expect every other punter to be as heavily involved as they are and consider them to have "half a brain" if they played in those races (I emphasise I had no involvement), it could equally be argued that anybody who can't find a way of getting their bets on are lacking a few brain cells, Curley always manages it for large amounts.

Figgis

I have never seen anything about Mr Curley claiming anything other than a dislike for the way the bookies behave and make a firm commitment to punish them. However I do respect your view - just disagree with it.

Regards the general principle of trainers and/ or owners getting horses well handicapped, this is nothing at all new. Nor is it confined to Mr Curley. Amongst the great exponents of the handicap system is Sir Mark Prescott. Nobody seems to argue he puts people off racing when a 3yo, generally in midsummer suddenly runs up a sequence when stepped up to the trip they are bred for.

The low level poor racing on offer is a symptom of the ills of racing that have gone on for years. The big bookies have bled and bled the sport, ever fighting to fleece punters through dubious and definitely immoral practices and fighting as hard as they can to pay as little through the levy as they can get away with.

If you own a poor horse, the ONLY way you can begin to pay the training fees is to organise a decent win, not of a race when the prize money is £2K for a race but a decent bet.

Cryoftruth

I'm certainly not sticking up for some bookmaker activities, but as far as Curley horses go would you be willing to lay one of his bets knowing of the way he operates? I know I wouldn't. I don't think he had too much trouble getting his bets on when he was backing his judgement of other people's horses on the formbook, something I don't recall him being particularly good at, which was probably the reason he concentrated on getting his own ready. Also some of the laying activity in the win and place market on some of his runners indicates that it's not only the layers who get punished.

As for Prescott, I'm not saying I'm a fan of those methods but I think people are more accepting of it as they generally know where they stand with his runners, the market isn't anticipating which way his runner will go in the betting five minutes before the off and the horse has been readied for a successful 3yo career, rather than to hoodwink the market for a personal gamble.

I certainly don't blame connections for organising a plot, it's human nature, like you say the prize money is poor and the opportunity is there for them to do it. I do, however, blame the racing authorities for making it so easy and following policies that have created an environment where it's rife.

About 5 years ago I was involved in a horse who had been off the course for 2 years, I won't mention the trainers name because it will cause more fury! Anyway the trainer was very confident she would win first time out and she duly hacked up at 10/1. We backed her at bigger prices and had a great day. The trainer had a reputation for being a fiddler ;) but not once was she pulled! That season she won 5 races, three times 2nd, 3rd twice and unplaced 3 times. The prizemoney she won for what was a terrific season meant we broke even! Pathetic it encourages people to play the game and fair play to them. The bookies are bleeding racing dry and have been doing so for years.

Too many punters think because they invest their hard earned that they are entitled to the inside track, get real, you pay the fees then you are. Mr Curley is disliked because he is succesful and he doesn't pamper to the masses. The comment about people who stick up for him are rselickers!!! well I'd rather be a rselicker than an idiot like the retard who made that comment.

Another failing of the handicapping system, imo, started with the move to clobber winners. Yes I know the idea was to make races more competitive with the probable intention of creating more turnover but all it's achieved is to treat honest connections unfairly, treat consistent winners harshly and encourage deception leading to more inconsistencies in public form and less confidence in it.

Racing is also more insipid and much worse off because of it. Those runners that managed to run up a handicap sequence, Chaplins Club being an obvious one that comes to mind but there were many others not quite so prolific, were mini stars in their own right and a boon to racing. It's not as though they were all going off at odds on prices either.

slowman

That would be me and I'm no retard. I suggest you have a look at the rules of racing before you embarrass yourself further. Horses should run on their merits and not be stopped by any two bit con men who because they run off with "bookies" money are deemed "one of the good guys". It is genuine retards like you who can't see that the bookies don't have money that they haven't first taken from someone. Traditionally that someone being the average punter and for every sad sack turned on by dodgy rides and other trickery there are dozens turned away from the sport because it just appears rotten.

Ar5elickers often do okay for themselves because they get into places most decent people don't want to be but they remain ar5elickers who are without principle. I don't expect any inside anything. I want the rules of racing strictly enforced. I want horses racing on their merits and any trainers and jockeys on the fiddle slung out of the sport for good whoever they are. Maybe then the droves who don't bet because they are sickened by the antics of some may be able to have a dabble and be reasonably confident that whilst they may lose in the race they won't have lost before the race even begins.

The only issue which I can see may need to be looked into, is whether, in preparing these 4 horses, any of them have been deliberately not off in any of their previous runs in order to secure a lower handicap mark and subsequently a bigger price

Stopping a horse from winning a race, which it might otherwise have won or gone close to winning, is the crime which must be banished from racing with lifetime bans imposed. Presumably, the BHA's integrity unit will be taking a close look at the case from that standpoint.

The skill involved in laying out a horse for a race,legitimately, and getting bets down successfully,is one which need not be criticised. It is the very essence of horseracing's attraction, imo, and should be applauded not criticised.

Anyway,no need to get on any moral high horse for something that is a very rare occurrence on such a scale and which will not make much much of a dent in the pockets of other punters except for those who knowingly or unknowingly got involved with either laying Curley's horses or backing others in the races.

No doubt it will reinforce the opinions of those who believe that a general conclusion can be drawn which is that all racing is corrupt, but we should not act just to satisfy the views of a few anymore than a few letters to the BBC complaining about some programme or other should be mistaken for the views of the majority, and who did not write in.

If anyone thinks the man who trotted off to the Jockey Club to report the ride on Robin Goodfellow (only 'cos he'd backed it of course) would be so foolish as to leave his jockey's prints at the scene then they're living in cloud cuckoo land. I think we all know there are other ways of getting them beaten.

interesting thread i hadn't read any till today as so many curley threads

for me the gambles that took place are the BHA fault and there own system...

what i didn't or don't like is a lot of the horses were coming in off of long absences but had shown previous form that was far greater than there official mark which stevie points out earlier...i do feel when horses have been dropped like eye the tiger had, 56lbs they shouldn't be able to run in a handicap until being evaluated...eye of the tiger himself had never even run on the all weather so what does the handicapper know about his ability, as he hasn't seen him for 3 years or seen him on the aw

very similar to a novice he should have to run in a certain race in order to get a mark then this sort of s,dugg that occurred 3 years previously with the said horse would make it much harder for the connections to humiliate the system

figgis's points are valid in regards bringing people into racing but i have to say racing has gone down this route on it's own accord and is a daily occurrence imo...most of my betting now is still done on form, then on what is trying its best on the day

i have no problem when horses improve through the ranks winning races through improvement and good placement from a shrewd trainer

of course as figgis points out the horses would be hit by the handicapper years ago, this i slightly disagree with as have always believed this is down to the trainer to place his horse to not win so easy...if you want him to win easy by 6l at say 5-2 fav what do you expect the handicapper to do? this is just poor placement by the trainer...the day you want the horse to win 6l is in the best race similar to how haggis placed the winner of the november handicap this season as an example

for what it is worth i had a bad taste in my mouth as seemstar was a strong fancy, but how the winner had been dropped 19lbs from a run when he ran well 5 runs previously i don't know and got dropped 3lbs for the privilege, this was a tad annoying and wish i hadn't been playing on the said day tbh as long day

anyway not sure it was a bad day for racing, more a wake up call to the BHA to police there sport much better

not an avid fan of curley at all, as have seen this caper from him for years but they got the money and that is that

Harry, I wasn't referring to easy winners being clobbered, I meant the move in general to handicap winners more heavily than used to be the case.

Did Curley not attack a certain Graham Bradley for stopping a horse he backed?, talk about pot kettle, the myth that surrounds Curley is entirely unjustified, a failed bookmaker who became a failed punter, then his only real brainwave was to oust the middle man and own and stop his own horses until the BHA hanciapper who at least one of them was in his pocket made it so much easier for him to pull off his shady antics.

No wonder he could afford to be patient?.

Curley cheated and defrauded bookmakers and punters alike. Not just on the big day, but on many previous occasions when these horses were sent to the racecourse with zero intention of running on merit.

The BHA should be asking serious questions of not only Curley, but the current trainers / registered owners who are "supposedly" responsible for the training of these horses.

Mitigate this clear fraud with the possibility that some of the winning proceeds may have gone to help the poor in Africa.

Does the end justify the means?

I'm no fan of Curley (or McManus, O'Brien etc) but you have to admit they're clever

Silver from memory Robin Goodfellow was  the horse in a novice hurdle @ Ascot trained by Toby balding backed by Curley and went off around 13/8 mark.
Certainly a bit rich of Curley accusing brad of not riding the horse to win .

apologies Figgis you highlighted this in your  January 25, 2014 11:40 AM GMT post

No need to apologise, Geoff, I hadn't stated the link between Bradley and the horse.