This is already a good read - from irishracing.com ...

The statement released on Tuesday in relation to the suspension of Charles Byrnes’ training licence was ground-breaking in many respects and sets a new high standard for the IHRB going forward. It bucks the long-established practice of only feeding scraps to the racing public about stewards' inquiries.

The investigation into the ‘nobbling’ of Viking Hoard at Tramore in October 2018 took over two years to complete and, while Byrnes’ direct involvement in any wrong-doing was not proven, he was deemed as responsible for all matters concerning the welfare, training and running of his horses and was ultimately found to be negligent in the supervision of his charge at the racecourse and had his licence withdrawn for six months.

The IHRB statement, which totals 14 pages, and can be read HERE, details every aspect of the investigation into the doping of Viking Hoard at Tramore and also raises some important questions into how wide-open racing is to such unscrupulous individuals as those that profited from this criminal act.

Besides the actual doping of the horse which put the safety of many people at Tramore that day at risk, not least jockey Kevin Brouder who could have been killed, it was the betting patterns that were particularly disturbing.

Viking Hoard was laid for considerable sums on the Betfair Exchange on three consecutive race days including the day in question at Tramore. These lay bets were all initially placed by an individual ‘in a distant part of the world’ through a limited liability company which in turn placed the bets on the Exchange.
This shady individual is also known to have previous involvement in ‘match fixing.’

The big question that needs to be asked of Betfair is how this is allowed to happen?

It would also be helpful to know what other horses this individual has placed lay bets on in the past.
Was it just this horse Viking Hoard three times in a row or is he doing this on a regular basis, and is the outcome always the same?

As the IHRB pointed out “this case illustrates the specific and additional challenges and dangers to the integrity of racing posed by the widespread ability to back horses to lose for significant returns. The desirability of this practice or how it might be better controlled within the available regulatory resources is worthy of further, constant review.”

While this IHRB investigation was both thorough and costly in terms of time and resources,it ultimately failed to convict anyone for the crimes committed on the day at Tramore and that has to be a worry for the sport.
As it stands, there is nothing in place to stop this exact same incident happening again. For all we know it may happen regularly.
We certainly see enough alarming drifts in the betting market to suggest everything isn’t always right.

It’s virtually certain from the findings of this case that Viking Hoard was administered a sedative while in the stable yard at Tramore. Unfortunately, there was no CCTV in the stable area, so we will never know who carried out the dirty deed.

This is not the first time that a lack of CCTV evidence from the stable yard has impacted an IHRB investigation.
A few portable cameras set up on race days in the stable yards could easily solve this problem and avoid similar situations in the future.

"initially placed with a limited liability company,
how is this right?

Thosedaysaregone run at Navan 3rd July behind Felix Desjy was a disgrace.  Opened at 5/4 and drifted out to 5/2 minutes before the race.  Never put in to the race.  Comments from Racing Post - Raced in mid-division, kept on one pace into 6th 2f out, went moderate 5th inside final furlong (jockey said gelding was flat out throughout).  You couldn't make up those comments by the jockey if you watch the race.

Anybody able to post the RP article titled "'White label' customers no longer able to place lay bets on the Betfair Exchange'?

'White label' customers no longer able to place lay bets on Betfair exchange

Betfair have said they are unable to comment on the details surrounding the Viking Hoard case, which has led to the six-month suspension of trainer Charles Byrnes's licence.

It is understood the route by which lay bets were placed on the horse via what the Irish Horseracing Regulatory Board (IHRB) has described as a "limited liability company" and then with Betfair has been closed since 2019. The unnamed limited liability company referred to is also known as a 'white label', in this case a business-to-business partner of Betfair.

Betfair's parent company Flutter has a section on its website specific to the 'exchange white label', which it says: "Provides partners with the ability to access and leverage the global Betfair Exchange.

"Partners can offer their customers an unparalleled exchange experience by harnessing Betfair’s exchange liquidity and leading product offering."

It adds that: "Partners can offer their customers access to Betfair's global liquidity pool."

Concerns that such arrangements might allow gamblers to avoid identity checks and risk illegal gambling were raised in a Financial Times article in July 2019.

At the time Betfair insisted their partners were all licensed operators and were required to conduct 'know your customer' checks as part of their licensing and contracts with Betfair.

Betfair also said they had access to the details of any individual customer account. The IHRB has said there is no evidence to connect Byrnes with the betting patterns.

The Flutter website says that exchange white label customers "have the option to 'lay'". However, it is understood that since 2019 the function to lay bets on white labels has been removed by Betfair.

Asked about Tuesday's announcement concerning Byrnes and the Viking Hoard case, Betfair would only say: "We are not commenting on an ongoing investigation."

In August 2006 Betfair signed a memorandum of understanding with the IHRB's predecessor the Turf Club which allowed the body to investigate betting patterns when wrongdoing was suspected.

Thanks Cash Is King

Hi screaming what have you against the second and third names on your list?

But then again, Henrietta Knight was also just a victim of circumstances. When Hachty Boy ran at Wetherby in May 2002, it was found to have the stopping drug ACP in its system. Like Charles Byrnes, Knight had no idea how it got there.

The difference is that Hachty Boy actually won the race, though it was subsequently disqualified.

On reflection all the names on that list should have no aspersions cast upon them.

He may have been got at screaming?Only had one run after that.

What seems to be somewhat unexplained is the betting pattern for two further lay bets placed on the horse, at Sedgefield in October 2018 and at Galway in July 2018. On the former occasion, €30,279 was risked, representing 71 per cent of the lay market, while on the latter €55,000 was risked, again representing half the total market.

Is it understandable that the trainer trainer Charles Byrnes would have no idea about his horses wellbeing whislt at the same time some other individuals were totally confident in laying the horse?

'White label' customers no longer able to place lay bets on Betfair exchange is one thing but of course win lay bets still allowed?? Who thinks this laying mechanism is good for the sport? If individuals want to lay horses to lose no way should they be able to hide behind a "white label" mechanism.

storm alert if layers are not good for the sport there would be no backers explain please?

Of course backing and laying are mirror images in the normal course of events but when one bet takes out 70% of a market, serious questions should be asked.

But can they identify who did it?

A very fair point Storm , do you think Betfair are protecting those who are making such bets is that what you mean...

I'm sure I read that betfair have access to all individual accounts under a white label.

workrider - A very fair point Storm , do you think Betfair are protecting those who are making such bets is that what you mean...

Yes. In recent years I think most reputable bookmakers have a business model to provide a ROI for their shareholders by betting on the outcome of sport results fairly. They can get shafted by dishonesty just as punters can. Sure I am not so naive to realise that sometimes they have more information than me. But on the other hand they bet on a huge set of markets and I can specialise on a few bets.

Betfair exchange is a bit different as it acts as a middle man, they put layers and gamblers together. There are rules that I rely on Betfair applying to protect me such as Owners strictly prohibited from laying bets on horses that they own or asking someone else to do so on their behalf (BHA Rule E 92.2). Once you put 'white label' in the mix my confidence in Betfair policing laying of horses is diminished. I mean Betair did'nt seem to do anything about compelling evidence of very unusual laying of Viking Hoard of several occasions.

It is also comforting that the dopers felt they could not rely on a brown envelope to the jockey.

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/racing/charles-byrnes-plans-to-appeal-six-month-suspension-of-his-licence-1.4462174

He'll nearly win his appeal and his ban will be reduced to 6 days..

Once you put 'white label' in the mix my confidence in Betfair policing laying of horses is diminished.
------------------------------

+ 1.
------------------------
In his evidence Byrnes said that Viking Hoard was left unattended on two occasions, including when he and his son went for something to eat. On Tuesday Byrnes indicated he will appeal the findings but wouldn’t comment further. “I’m going to appeal, that’s all,” he said.

The IHRB’s deputy head of security, Declan Buckley, told the panel of three lay bets on Viking Hoard at Galway, Sedgefield and Tramore that were traced through the Betfair exchange to the same account number.

“These lay bets were initially placed with a limited liability company, which placed them in turn with Betfair, on what appeared to be a combined basis with other such bets,” Buckley told the hearing.
Buckley identified an individual “based in a distant part of the world and was said to be associated with match fixing” as being associated with the combined account.
-----
All the above simply not acceptable in this day and age when we know the skullduggery that can happen with people being able to lay their own horses with insider knowledge.

Thanks for the reply Storm Alert , very valid points also , do you think they protect them because they insert such huge sums into the system and are therefore bigger clients ...