There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
is the British Horseracing Authority run for the good of the,
a) owner
b) trainer/jockey
c) punter
d) bookmakers
I will forward the result of this official survey to Paul Bitter.
a) owner
b) trainer/jockey
c) punter
d) bookmakers
I will forward the result of this official survey to Paul Bitter.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 70
|
By:
The answer has been D since the day Peter Savill pitched his tent in Portman Square.
|
|
By:
According to Hughie Morrison on ATR the answer is most definitely D
|
|
By:
without doubt its D
|
|
By:
I make that a triple D..
Always happy with a triple D.. |
|
By:
Hughie was not a happy chappie with the 48hr decs,
and rightly questioned who was it supposed to be helping, they have been a shambles ever since they were introduced but the BHA don't have the balls to change things ! |
|
By:
Savill thought only owners mattered, iirc.
|
|
By:
DD
|
|
By:
Where's millhouse when you need him?
|
|
By:
its d for me
 |
|
By:
D, followed by B with A a distant third and C treated with contempt.
|
|
By:
Why do you think they changed the result of stewards enquiry to decimate the number of times the bookies paid out on first past the post? That rule alone must have saved the leading bookies millions.
|
|
By:
its D most certainly for me
|
|
By:
Is this a serious question ?
|
|
By:
it's a survey.
|
|
By:
D
BHA work for bookmakers, it's where they get there money . should be the other way around , but like everything in racing , it is all messed up , everyone profiteering except the people who should be |
|
By:
channel4--NAP d.
|
|
By:
D A B ........................... C ( Left poor 4th from start ... Tailed Off )
|
|
By:
The appalling chain of events engineered by certain members of the good old BHA pre Betfair flotation should have resulted in jail time for at least one of them.
D btw! |
|
By:
Tbh I do not think the BHA is in bed with the bookmakers. It is even worse than that.
|
|
By:
High Street Books - The Devil incarnate.
BHA - Goldilocks... |
|
By:
C) Never had any place in the BHA's priorities.
The trainers have a representative on the BHA board. The Jockeys have a representative on the BHA board. The Owner has a representative on the BHA board. and of course the Bookmakers are the puppet master using their financial clout to dictate how British racing is run. Yet the Punter who keeps the Bookmaker, the Trainer and the Jockey in a job, has no voice whatsoever to champion their many grievances, and the owner only owns horses because Punters back on it, and breeders only breed horses because Punters back on it. Strange state of affairs indeed, the paymaster is the black sheep?. |
|
By:
totally agree with you silvergreaser, the punter is treated like dirt, the bha allow the stopping of horses on a daily basis without serious investigation, the stewards , bookmakers , bha , jockeys , trainers and owners are in total cahoots with each other and the punter who keeps game going is treated like dirt and this will continue when you have the likes of paul bittar and his ilk in charge
|
|
By:
Don't get me started on 48hr decs....
Killed the game stone dead.Stopped the bread and butter multiple punters placing bets years ago. |
|
By:
DDDDDDDDDDDDDD
|
|
By:
The BHA and the bookmakers are in bed together.
The problem is, the bookmakers are the one getting all the pleasure out of it, whilst the BHA get whatever the bookmakers decide is worth giving in return. |
|
By:
Bit like my sex life.Only my wife earns over £100k per year....
|
|
By:
The Jockey Club aka the BHA, contain some of the richest people in the country. They had every chance to buy the Tote and create a pure platform for punters and undercut the exchanges and the bookies and make betting on british racing available to the whole world via the Internet. Instead they spewed it and we are now left with the farce of wall to wall handicap racing dross as demanded by the bookies in order to maximise their profits and hence by the gross profits tax vehicle, the levy, at the expense of the punter and a once great industry. They are deadbeats - the whole lot of them.
|
|
By:
Absolutely correct, Myrddin..
GPT was the biggest phuck up of all. And satans army love it.. |
|
By:
The obscene gross profits deal, means that the BHA are inextricably in bed with the bookmaking industry - and as the more profits the bookmakers make the more money comes into racing, you could argue that everyone working in the sport now has a vested financial interest in punters getting turned over whenever possible.
But it's much worse than that, imo. The media in this industry, either have major bookmaker share holders or are in direct commercial partnership with the bookmaking industry. None of them can even be relied upon to report the truth when it comes to the bookmakers, imo. The individuals who work for these media platforms are also commercially tied to the bookmaking industry. Luck, Cunningham, Hoiles, Hunt, Ramsden, Duval, Yates, Stevenson, Dixon are all sending their invoices to major bookmakers currently (and they are just the ones I am aware of). The racecourses have been involved in a scheme instituted by BAGS where they get a payment for every race in which there is 8 or more runners (guess what this results in happening more often), while safety limits have been reduced by some tracks to ensure there are no 16 runner races. Finally, as someone has already alluded to, there can be little doubt that Stewards have been told in no uncertain terms that disqualification of horses costs the bookmaking industry money, and so inhibits the returns to racing. The attitude to punters from every sector of this industry is now entirely exploitative, imo. Our role is simply to have our money removed, and there is now absolutely no one that is ever going to fight our corner... |
|
By:
@millhouse is wrong on the headline even if he is right about everything else. The BHA is not in bed with the bookies, and indeed recently p'd off Ladbrokes by moving meetings around and messing up its sponsorships.
As I said, it's *worse* than that because the BHA -- like the bookmakers -- think the road to salvation is based on robbing the punter, so the BHA leaps on whatever the bookies say will increase turnover. So the BHA *acts* as if it were in bed with the bookies when it comes to ripping off the punter. The bookies, on the other hand, are using racing to get people through the door before shifting them on to numbers games and FOBTs. On disqualifications -- remember the Racing Post and Timeform campaigned for years to let FPP keep the race (one can only assume Phil Bull once did his nuts when one was turned over). |
|
By:
You wont be surprised to learn my vote is D......
I have explained why on my facebook page, because we always get coated for being anonymous on here......... |
|
By:
Ramruma, the deal is that the more punters lose to the bookmakers the more the BHA and the racing industry get - how's that not being in bed with them..?
This issue obviously, was totally ignored by establishment poster boy and son of Jockey Club member Nick Luck in his recent three part interview with Bittar... |
|
By:
@millhouse -- being in bed together implies they plot (or at least plan) together. They do not: ask Ladbrokes!
That is why I say it is worse than that. The BHA behaves as if it has a shared interest in ripping off the punter. |
|
By:
High St Bookmakers = givers
Stupid BHA = Takers (though they THINK they are in cahoots) Someone pass em the anusol & pull their pants up...... |
|
By:
Obviously its D. Mainly because of the gross profits deal.
|
|
By:
Its a juggling act.
I heard some idiot on ruk say the most important group in racing are the owners, for me its always the punter and then the bookie. Without the punter its all a non starter. |
|
By:
The surprising thing here is that people seem astounded that the answer is D.
The vast majority of income for the BHA and racing in general comes directly or indirectly from punters. They are the principle revenue stream therefore I struggle to see what else the BHA could do. Without bookmaker funding the sport collapses therefore the BHA are bound to focus their attentions on keeping them happy. Thinking more widely you can't get away from the fact that if punters don't lose then there is an impossible to fill gaping hole in racing's finances. Winning is what we all try and do however if we were all successful there would be no racing. Punters have to pay for racing one way or another. |
|
By:
A complicated subject,and the interconnectedness between all branches of the industry,Courses ,TV ,Bookmakers is obvious.Punters have their own interests,we would like to have cheaper entrance on midweek non quality meetings(£2-£5 entrance may increase course attendance?)but TV ratings may drop? On course bookmakers probably deserve cheaper costs,they would like too see bigger crowds?. So the answers not easy,but we must be careful that the Bookmakers + TV do not become like the Banks in society and governing the industry?
|
|
By:
Putters-in: owners, sponsors, punters, racegoers.
Takers-out: trainers, jockeys, racecourses, bookies, Betfair, the BHA, the Racing Post. Racing is financed by the first group to pay for the second group. |