From RP - just show the lack of betting knowledge at BHA.

"The panel's findings went on to consider the meaning of this information, noting that Ladbrokes shortened Tango Sky's price and duly increased the rule 4 deduction when he was eventually pulled out around an hour later, but concluded in this instance: "The only actual losers from this, however, will be those punters who backed the eventual winner between the time of Mr Evans's phone call to Ladbrokes and the re-formation of the market."

The bigger R4 will have applied to all bets prior to Tango Sky's withdrawal not just those after the phone call and will also apply to the placed horses not just the winner.

The whole thing is appalling and the punishment is just a slap on the wrist. Perhaps they feel sorry for him losing his £6K or did he?

could have saved a bit of face by pinning it on thomas and milburn and emptying the sad sacks. 

end of the day they're not overly bothered about what people think.

And on both Channels today more Reps are wheeled out to peddle their spiel and not, to my knowledge, have they been questioned once by any of the gravy train merchants..Seems quite clear to me who runs racing..

If that's a verbatim transcript of the call then notice that at no stage did David Evans say it was him?

Are you suggesting that Ladbrokes may have edited, redacted or otherwise sanitized this transcript, ima_mazed66?

ima_mazed66    30 Nov 17 14:28 
If that's a verbatim transcript of the call then notice that at no stage did David Evans say it was him?

I rather doubt they are going to publish his security details/account no

But yeah ok you caught them out vwd

I think the press complaints council should launch and enquiry as this would be by far the most important issue to address.

i jumped off.  yeah, but the horse jinked a bit and the saddle looked to have slipped.  and it was quite windy.  and you've not had that many rides over hurdles.

caller recognition?

Do you not think that if it was because Evans was given a special number to ring or that he would call so often and be obliged that the trader already knew his voice, isn't significant then dave1357?

It goes without saying that the whole affair was very iffy (which is probably why I didn't actually say it) but if either of the scenarios I mention above were the case, then doesn't that just add to it all and how shady the whole thing was?

kennythebetboy 30 Nov 17 13:17
Was expecting Magic Daps to make an appearance on this thread ... are you still with us mate?


I am still here, but didn't see the point of commenting on the bleeding obvious. The BHA are the most corrupt party in all of this imo, they just let it carry on with not a care in the World for the punter AT ALL. Yet it's 1.001 the next appearance we see from a certain Mr Rust will be telling us all how straight the sport is now, and how everyone should have such great faith in the Integrity of it!!!!! Whilst he is saying it all with a straight face and nose not actually growing, the presenter (whoever it is) will just be nodding like a lapdog and not question a single thing. Case closed and that will be the end of it.

No doubt if that transcript would have had a certain Mr Best/Curley involved it WOULD be headline news, and an investigation with a lengthy ban (if they didn't balls it up as per).

Get Sepp Blatter in charge - it couldn't be any worse (NAP)....

I cannot work out why the sport is going down the toilet...fast...

Only 3 parties were involved here ie Evans, Ladbrokes and the BHA. Even a moron can dismiss it was at the behest of Evans - what the heck for (?)...incurring a £3k fine in the process; neither the BHA as they do not have access to the daily goings-on/recordings at Ladbrokes, thus leaving the Magic sign themselves ie grassing/screwing up Evans, and trying to paint themselves whiter than white - a bookie definition of gamekeeper turn poacher!

yes - impossible ...

That, "3 parties," prognosis holds water - and is the only one that can 'rationally' be accepted.

However - It does beg the further question ... Just WHY would Ladblokes do it?

The, "paint themselves whiter than white," presumption is far from being a substantial answer - and one that I cannot buy.

After all these DECADES of Ladblokes, and other Bookmakers/Betting Shop owners  operating 'to their own rules' - why the sudden need to come across as the good guys?

Or - have they a skeleton in the cupboard, or something else upcoming, that they are trying to deflect from, or put up a pre-emptive defensive wall against.

It simply does NOT add up that they have 'blown the whistle' on Evans - purely for the greater good of racing in general.

Were that the case, then every other TRAINER who has ever had, or still does have, a bet with Ladblokes should be sh!tting themselves.

There must be much MORE to this than we have been made aware of.

something big happening soon me thinks, brown envelopes already being offered

Whistleblower or Nick Rust related perhaps, he was a former MD of Ladbrokes.

Chapman will be having his friendly chat with Evans in the paddock at Windsor next spring. 'Which one of your three do you fancy Dave'.

Oh yeah rule 4

JT: The first at Wolverhampton. (pause) How much you looking for Dave?

DE: A good bit. Are you in a good mood are ya?

JT: Not really. No

DE: Why? Why? Ain't your money.

Me : It wasn't your money either was it Dave, Don't worry I won't name names

yes this is a most extraordinary episode.

for me the main offence is the manipulation of Rule4 and why the Gambling Commission has not commenced proceedings.

A person could assume that Evans isn't wanted or is co-operating in "further" enquiries given they could've just ended his career with relative ease.