Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
From the Racing post:
Bookmakers may find their rules on non-runners forcibly changed by the Gambling Commission if they do not heed the lessons learned from the controversial Black Dave case.
The commission found that Ladbrokes had deliberately shortened the price of a known non-runner in order to maximise a rule 4 deduction – but it has not taken any more stringent action against the firm.
In January 2015 trainer David Evans placed a bet on his horse Black Dave in a 6f handicap at Wolverhampton with Ladbrokes, who were then told by Evans that stablemate Tango Sky would be withdrawn from the same race.
Ladbrokes then shortened Tango Sky to 3-1 (from 7-2), leading to a rule 4 deduction taking 25p from every £1, rather than 20p, on all winning bets in the race before Tango Sky was officially pulled out.
Having completed their inquiries into the events, the commission said on Wednesday: "We have previously stated we would be concerned if there was evidence that bookmakers had deliberately shortened the odds of known or likely non-runners in order to maximise rule 4 deductions for their own commercial gain to the disadvantage of consumers.
"We commented that such actions would be contrary to the statutory obligation to ensure gambling is fair."
The commission added: "Based on the evidence available, we concluded, and Ladbrokes accept, that a Ladbrokes trader deliberately shortened the price on Tango Sky in order to maximise rule 4 deductions."
The regulator also found that Ladbrokes had "failed to appropriately review all information available to them prior to initially providing the Gambling Commission with what were proven to be inaccurate explanations as to the reasons for the price shortening on Tango Sky".
The commission told operators they must take note of what had happened in the case and the actions Ladbrokes had taken to remedy their shortcomings, and reminded them that the industry's long-term viability was built on customer trust.
It added: "We will continue to monitor the situation. If we become aware that our expectations are not being met, we will consider exercising our formal regulatory powers on both the bookmaker and wider industry.
"This could include, for example, seeking a licence condition that mandates a specific approach to rule 4 that would mitigate the evident risk; namely, applying rule 4 based on the price of the withdrawn horse at time of bet placement or the price of the withdrawn horse at its official withdrawal time as recorded by the BHA."
The commission said they had not imposed a financial penalty because there had been no breach of licence conditions.
A spokesman said: "We have taken what we conclude is proportionate and appropriate action, having considered all the circumstances involved.
"The incident happened over three years ago – and pre-dated our previous public statements around the fair application of rule 4.
"The conduct does not amount to a breach of the licence conditions and codes of practice."
Ladbrokes Coral – their merger took place after the events being investigated – said they had co-operated fully with the commission and accepted the findings.
Speaking on behalf of the company, Simon Clare added that the episode came to light only because Ladbrokes brought the issue to the BHA's attention.
He said: "The Ladbrokes Coral trading policy is very clear, that we will never knowingly shorten the price of a suspected non-runner to benefit from an improved rule 4 deduction.
“Furthermore, the Ladbrokes Coral trading policy also states that if the trading team received information similar to this in the future, the markets affected should be suspended immediately and no price changes made, with the market re-opening only once it was clear whether the selection in question was going to participate or not.
"All the members of the Ladbrokes trading team have had this policy re-briefed to them in the light of the Gambling Commission investigation."
In the BHA hearing last year Evans was fined £3,000 for conduct prejudicial to the integrity, proper conduct and/or good reputation of horseracing, and £140 for not immediately notifying the Racing Calendar office of a non-runner.
The BHA endorsed the commission's findings and said it was important the sport is seen to be run with integrity across all aspects.
A spokesperson added: "The BHA works closely with the Gambling Commission as the regulatory body for bookmakers and with the betting industry to protect the integrity of British racing."
Bookmakers may find their rules on non-runners forcibly changed by the Gambling Commission if they do not heed the lessons learned from the controversial Black Dave case.
The commission found that Ladbrokes had deliberately shortened the price of a known non-runner in order to maximise a rule 4 deduction – but it has not taken any more stringent action against the firm.
In January 2015 trainer David Evans placed a bet on his horse Black Dave in a 6f handicap at Wolverhampton with Ladbrokes, who were then told by Evans that stablemate Tango Sky would be withdrawn from the same race.
Ladbrokes then shortened Tango Sky to 3-1 (from 7-2), leading to a rule 4 deduction taking 25p from every £1, rather than 20p, on all winning bets in the race before Tango Sky was officially pulled out.
Having completed their inquiries into the events, the commission said on Wednesday: "We have previously stated we would be concerned if there was evidence that bookmakers had deliberately shortened the odds of known or likely non-runners in order to maximise rule 4 deductions for their own commercial gain to the disadvantage of consumers.
"We commented that such actions would be contrary to the statutory obligation to ensure gambling is fair."
The commission added: "Based on the evidence available, we concluded, and Ladbrokes accept, that a Ladbrokes trader deliberately shortened the price on Tango Sky in order to maximise rule 4 deductions."
The regulator also found that Ladbrokes had "failed to appropriately review all information available to them prior to initially providing the Gambling Commission with what were proven to be inaccurate explanations as to the reasons for the price shortening on Tango Sky".
The commission told operators they must take note of what had happened in the case and the actions Ladbrokes had taken to remedy their shortcomings, and reminded them that the industry's long-term viability was built on customer trust.
It added: "We will continue to monitor the situation. If we become aware that our expectations are not being met, we will consider exercising our formal regulatory powers on both the bookmaker and wider industry.
"This could include, for example, seeking a licence condition that mandates a specific approach to rule 4 that would mitigate the evident risk; namely, applying rule 4 based on the price of the withdrawn horse at time of bet placement or the price of the withdrawn horse at its official withdrawal time as recorded by the BHA."
The commission said they had not imposed a financial penalty because there had been no breach of licence conditions.
A spokesman said: "We have taken what we conclude is proportionate and appropriate action, having considered all the circumstances involved.
"The incident happened over three years ago – and pre-dated our previous public statements around the fair application of rule 4.
"The conduct does not amount to a breach of the licence conditions and codes of practice."
Ladbrokes Coral – their merger took place after the events being investigated – said they had co-operated fully with the commission and accepted the findings.
Speaking on behalf of the company, Simon Clare added that the episode came to light only because Ladbrokes brought the issue to the BHA's attention.
He said: "The Ladbrokes Coral trading policy is very clear, that we will never knowingly shorten the price of a suspected non-runner to benefit from an improved rule 4 deduction.
“Furthermore, the Ladbrokes Coral trading policy also states that if the trading team received information similar to this in the future, the markets affected should be suspended immediately and no price changes made, with the market re-opening only once it was clear whether the selection in question was going to participate or not.
"All the members of the Ladbrokes trading team have had this policy re-briefed to them in the light of the Gambling Commission investigation."
In the BHA hearing last year Evans was fined £3,000 for conduct prejudicial to the integrity, proper conduct and/or good reputation of horseracing, and £140 for not immediately notifying the Racing Calendar office of a non-runner.
The BHA endorsed the commission's findings and said it was important the sport is seen to be run with integrity across all aspects.
A spokesperson added: "The BHA works closely with the Gambling Commission as the regulatory body for bookmakers and with the betting industry to protect the integrity of British racing."
Show More
taken 3 years to decide their gunna do jack sh1t about it
Are they going to clamp down on shortening horses without taking any bets?
I particularly enjoyed the GC statement that they would be concerned "if there was evidence that bookmakers had deliberately shortened the odds of known or likely non-runners in order to maximise rule 4 deductions for their own commercial gain to the disadvantage of consumers". My recollection of the case, from the transcript available at the time, was that this was as a matter of fact what happened.
At first glance it's not clear to me how this ruling meets the Gambling Commissions stated objectives of " ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way". Did Ladbrokes compensate the winning customers for the unfair deduction or did they just pocket the money? To my mind this lack of detail shows that the GC does not meet it's own self described "fair and open" objective.
At first glance it's not clear to me how this ruling meets the Gambling Commissions stated objectives of " ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way". Did Ladbrokes compensate the winning customers for the unfair deduction or did they just pocket the money? To my mind this lack of detail shows that the GC does not meet it's own self described "fair and open" objective.
I've posted this before Betbright shortening an Alan Swinbank horse the day after his death to 7/2 from 7/1/13/2 general was a fcuking disgrace and nothing was said.
DP,
As this was a clearcut case, I think it tells you everything about the GC's ability to meet it's fair and open objective and to protect consumers. The GC license includes a condition:
Social responsibility code provision 4.1.1
Fair terms
All licences, except gaming machine technical and gambling software licences
1
Licensees must be able to provide evidence to the Commission, if required, showing how
they satisfied themselves that their terms are not
unfair.
I would have said in this case that the absence of Ladbrokes Rule 4 price manipulation and deduction policy, unless it's included in their standard terms and conditions (?), was an unfair term and so the GC could have fined them for a breach of their license.
As this was a clearcut case, I think it tells you everything about the GC's ability to meet it's fair and open objective and to protect consumers. The GC license includes a condition:
Social responsibility code provision 4.1.1
Fair terms
All licences, except gaming machine technical and gambling software licences
1
Licensees must be able to provide evidence to the Commission, if required, showing how
they satisfied themselves that their terms are not
unfair.
I would have said in this case that the absence of Ladbrokes Rule 4 price manipulation and deduction policy, unless it's included in their standard terms and conditions (?), was an unfair term and so the GC could have fined them for a breach of their license.
the gambling commission knew that Ladbrokes dont take any bets so no punters were affected financially
scaredmoney 04 Jul 18 23:08
taken 3 years to decide their gunna do jack sh1t about it
More like a hundred years.
Well I've been betting since the early 1960s and it happened on a regular basis then.
taken 3 years to decide their gunna do jack sh1t about it
More like a hundred years.
Well I've been betting since the early 1960s and it happened on a regular basis then.
Could start with rule 4 being commensurate with odds instead of all being in favour of punter, ie, evens deduction 45p
Could start with rule 4 being commensurate with odds instead of all being in favour of punter, ie, evens deduction 45p
A classic Simon Clare statement: "The episode came to light only because Ladbrokes (his employer) brought the issue to the BHA's attention."
Really? Ladbrokes brought the issue to the BHA to try and "screw" the trainer of Black Dave ie Dave Evans eg to instigate an investigation by the BHA on David Evans.
This sharp practice has been ongoing for a long while now and still is, similar to the present account closures and restrictions of recreational punters and avid followers of horse racing/punting by the bookies. I'd be extremely surprised if this sharp practice had not been in action even when Nick Rust was a senior employee at Ladbrokes.
Really? Ladbrokes brought the issue to the BHA to try and "screw" the trainer of Black Dave ie Dave Evans eg to instigate an investigation by the BHA on David Evans.
This sharp practice has been ongoing for a long while now and still is, similar to the present account closures and restrictions of recreational punters and avid followers of horse racing/punting by the bookies. I'd be extremely surprised if this sharp practice had not been in action even when Nick Rust was a senior employee at Ladbrokes.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539