Mick Channon stopped punting RP

Maybe his no lose account was stopped first

GC mob laughing merrily…..

One person decided to lay lay lay all day and done the lot.

Couldn’t handle and paid the ultimate leaving his wife in bits,now the punter pays too…..(imo)

I hope he avoided backing his own Runners.

1.If you believe that to be fact,don't!!
2.If he and others are jumping ship on the pretext they cannot bet......bullsh!t.
3. This was covered hours ago!!!

Just saying Quixall!!

by next week all these owners/trainers who never bet,not my money,dont no where money came from,will have outed themselves

Won some good races as a trainer.

Like you in your night classes for Math and English 1st tp?

ive had 50 yrs of listening to trainers,/owners/yard connections telling us /me 24/7 they dont gamble not my money,no idea where it comes from now apparently the games up /finished if their not allowed to bet the money theyve never bet in last 50 yrs

Believe everything you read 1st tp and sorrow like a single magpie sure to be the result, just look at Cider as an example of BBB and a L/Cpl with a clipboard and pen?

so do we believe theyve never punted ? like they told us = lied
or their packing in punting = lying,
you cant cry wolf twice you begin to lose track and look like idiots

“ not my money” zzzzzz trainer’s fav saying ffs

Tbh most Trainers are lousy punters.

= Nobody's fukcing business maybe?

Or maybe you think a trainer knows everything an owner does or does not do?

Maybe you confuse a trainer saying "We are not a gambling stable" in terms of not laying out one for a gamble?

Does not make anyone a liar btw!!!

Mr Channon blamed the bookies for their interpretation and execution of AC. Of course, the majority of owners and trainers bet otherwise the prices of their runners would not yo-yo for a lack of betting activity.

Posted about this and a link to article at 9-30 this morning on the AC thread !!!  YAWNNNNN.

Forgive me ffs

Some on here need to read his article, he said he enjoyed backing his own horses, its the intrusion into his privacy that he won't go along with, and I imagine he is just another casualty in a growing number of those that have fallen foul of this complete and utter nonsense.

The list will grow unfortunately and the RP and media will highlight a ‘name’ but the fodder will continue to be ignored…imo..

All the snidey backbiting by a few seeming puritans on here, commenting as though they support these restrict measures.

The comments don’t even make sense; what if on the occasion they said ‘not my money’ it wasn’t?
And besides those comments are made when a price shortens, meaning somebody fancies it and backed it….what’s wrong with that? It’s the laying that would have been an issue ffs.

There are also trainer’s who admit to having a few quid on…

and you think the laying isnt taking place and the betting to win is easy peasy even if you refuse AC in betting shops,on course,etc,
laying them to lose not so much so makes a cynic like me wonderwhat their really bemoaning the loss of ?

You coming up with your own machinations helps nobody.
Do you bet? Because this is an affront to anyone who does.
It’s simple ‘I’m alright Jack’ principles like yours that assumes you’ll always be alright but these proposals show intent.
Everyone who uses the exchange should be against them not willing them on.

And how much is on the pink by some yards….a few I bet,unfit,not ready and a silly odds on price….

racing/punter imo was better in the 200 yrs before the exchanges, the exchanges are a licence to cheat/con/defraud the punters you seem so keen on protecting, exchanges went tomorrow punting/racing would continue on and for the better imo

And not a single trainer or owner had an arrangement with bookies before the exchange 1st time P? What universe did you live in before exchanges?

in last 48 hrs ive heard trainers williams.channon,plentyon here say racing is finished,their finished because they wont travel a mile to a bookies or put their few 100 £ bet on course or through a 3rd party etc etc
if you told me because they wont agree to AC and by doing that it stops them laying horses they no wont/cant win ,i,d believe it in a second and glad to be shot of them

This same witch hunt nonsense was the go-to line of TM who baited every bookie who spoke out about these proposals.

Now you are bobbing around on an exchange like a fetid turd willing them on based on what you think happens but don’t know.

Well these threats are real and will negatively impact everyone betting.

If you think the majority of trainers would risk their business and being warned off for laying their horses you are deluded 1st tp.

CagliariG 22 Aug 23 08:35 
If you think the majority of trainers would risk their business and being warned off for laying their horses you are deluded 1st tp.

Yeah of course they don’t,not directly anyway……

Quixall, even if indirectly it would be for buttons on here, any more and it would stick out like a sore thumb over a fairly short period. Not the same liquidity to hide in as when Greg Chung and co were caught.

A steady flow…..

Not everyone wants the carpets off the betting shop floor….steady fills the bucket

liquidity Is not that bad on the big day….and don’t say they don’t’pull’ in important races…..ffs

I like The Exchange. It gives me convenience (very important); ability to compare prices; ample time to place a bet; no ambiguity of bet; knowledge of exact return. The last two named are important because some high street bookies are manned by clueless individuals not well versed with English. Also, less likely to be cheated on final return like my friend in PaddyPower (Morden).

On the flip side some unscrupulous characters with big stables info "cheat" regularly from non-antepost runners; non-triers; welfare of key runners. Of course, these characters also lay these horses on the day of the race.

But, the major culprit or facilitator of the "cheat" is Betfair; Betfair, for reasons known only to themself, never seem to want to follow the money. A different matter if a genuine betting activity in progress.

It's universally accepted Betfair is in a spiral decline eg more bots operating; liquidity lacking; used as a barometer by professional bookies; etc. Similarly, the horseracing and punting game.

If bf were the major culprits do you not think the clear paper trails available would actually be the responsibility of the GC to properly investigate?

Rather than conjure up 2 bit responses to a problem that largely doesn’t exist and punish bettors without a problem?

I was referring to the existence of The Exchange and its importance to me - not Gambling Commission. The Gambling Commission (GC) with its then head honcho were in collusion with the BHA, and the bookies on fobt - the instigator/reason for AC. This is a fact, and no dispute about it either.

Now, with a new broom at GC GC wants to distance itself from the old GC, and its then incumbent. The new GC wants to kick problem gambling and addiction asap; GC also knows the bookies are the main issue here eg the bookies' reluctance and persistence in allowing their "selective" clients to lose excessive amounts over a short period. Some steal from their employers to fund their gambling problem or addiction; repeated fines for repeated offences were no deterrent to bookies.

The chicken has come back to roost. However, despite being caught red-handed on many occasions and given massive fines with no avail the bookies are still in denial. Instead, and given the  mentality of bookies, bookies are retaliating by exercising over  zealous AC on virtually every horseracing punter even though AC was designated mainly for fobt and online games.

When one buys an item from Ebay or Amazon the fund would be held for a certain period incase a dispute arises about the item or seller. Why Betfair cannot/do not do the same if the market activity indicates something untoward has happened? It's pretty easy to follow the money here. It's not the trading of crytos on some dodgy platform.

Why would the BHA collude with the GC or the bookies on FOBTs impossible? You make no sense whatsoever, what possible gain would the BHA benefit from?

In terms of the GC, there is a pending cabinet reshuffle which will be too late in terms of their proposals.

Blimey

Firstly where I’d agree would be to assume the GC are looking after their own arse appearing to dance to the tune of punishing gambling. Whether that was as a result of doing nowt re. Fobts is actually in some doubt since they had a chance to define the issue…but didn’t, they are seemingly happy lumping everything together and punishing those without specific income father than wealth and disproportionately attacking winning which is completely ludicrous.

Another totem that has been used in error is the assumption that gambling is to blame for theft. What a person does with stolen money has nothing to do with what they end up spending it on. Theft is a crime, they are not victims.

What this actually looks like is similar in principle to the ‘plastic bag’ blame. Where customers at shops were assumed to be at fault for the overproduction and handing out of plastic bags by supermarkets. Here the non problem responsible gambler is being attacked after much fanfare of the impacts on a tiny minority of problem gamblers.

i,m deluded if i think trainers would risk it
we havnt enough times in our lives left to discuss the amount of times hendo,s yard have had it right off ,without a horse having never even set foot on a horsebox, if the  yard of the queens horses are unafraid to laugh at public and get the lot in plain sight,your the deluded one if you think struggling yards arnt doing the same, some of the laying on betfair can only be done by those closest to the horses. who lays,sanctions the actual bet doesnt really matter,we no where  its come from

Get your tinfoil out 1st tp, you and cider both!!

The bookies fund horseracing to a large certain extent. Most of bookies' revenue/profits derive from fobt. The BHA "supposedly" run horseracing. Yet despite revenue from bookies ie fobt (Ireland do not have fobt) the prize monies in Ireland are significantly more than here except in the Racing Series sponsored by a bookie.

Is the BHA underselling horseracing? Are the bookies contributing their fair share to horseracing? If not why not?

Bookies, BHA and GC are inextricably linked eg what one entity does impacts on the other two eg money received influences prize money. GC could reduce fobt stake again = lesser profit by bookies = lesser contribution = lesser prize money.

The old incumbent at GC expressed his approval for a £50 stake per spin. Is not collusion when the damage by fobt on society is ginormous? how could the then head honcho get it so wrong ie £100 -> £2? Was he out of touch or in the pocket of bookies? Even any fool on the high street and maybe here could see £100 was criminal and insane to be allowed in the 1st place. Personally, I'll have a compulsory time-out/period of 3 mins in between each spin on the machine.

To steal from one's employer to fund one's gambling problem or any addiction one could reasonably and possibly safely deduce the instigator or desire for money is gambling eg no gambling = no thieving. A classic example is substance abuse: Why do drug addicts steal to fund their addiction?

Impossible, the Levy is a charge made upon leviable bets, bets defined as those which relate to horseracing in the UK!! HTH

A drug user that commits a crime to fund the habit doesn’t get absolved of the crime, they get sent to jail.

Consider a bank robber who chooses to steal and run away to the Costa Brava. He’s a criminal who has simply chosen another activity with which to spend I’ll gotten gains

Just because gambling exists, it doesn’t make the crime of theft to fund it any less of a crime first and foremost.

It’s a nonsense to legitimise a criminal act and blame gambling.

banks dont groom would be bank robbers with vip nights/days outgive them free money
a drug pusher,pimp who groom their customers/workers with fre gifts,money,free drugs etc to get them hooked are deemed to be breaking the law, why shouldnt bookies be treated the same

Drug dealing is illegal irrespective of enticements.

Bookies sell a licensed product, if the regulator can’t regulate it doesn’t absolve blame of the person who didn’t seek help by telling the bookie to stop.

It’s utterly pathetic in this age to unilaterally apportion blame just to suit an argument of diminished personal responsibility.

You are years out of date 1st tp, like impossible you do not appear to understand simple fundamentals!!

^^I understand. Sometimes one has to link an item with another to achieve or maximise return eg a loss maker in retail could generate extra profit for the retailer eh in supermarkets. As for betting, fobt is trading at the same betting licence as horsetracing. And, no doubt horseracing fans/punters have had a go on fobt too. I have, and luckily it did not float my boat; Ive had many freebies on fobt, and each time conevert any return into horseracing.

Now, can you see how a betting product is inextricably linked to another esp if operating under the same betting licence/platform using the same device eg mobile/laptop/tablet using eg Betfair/The Exchange/Oddschecker.

I firmly believe the levy ought to include fobt as I've little doubt horseracing fans occasionally dipped their toes into fobt out of boredom, etc, because of its convenience and accessibility. However, if fobt operates under a different licence, a different platform and only on certain online bookies eg sportsbook (not The Exchange). And, any bookie offering sports and games betting must have two entirely different platform; each govern and access using separate platform and log-ins. I'm certain this application will negate the convenience and accessibility to fobt.

I can’t seem to say this enough; but what point is talking about fobts when the GC propose a disregard to wins more than 7 days previous on sports events?

Or for that matter don’t define what is in-affordable about wealth?

At last you are making sense impossible, it is something I advocated years ago on here and more recently in terms of the GC and ACs. A separate licence and separate accounts with no cross over of funds allowed between accounts seems a simple solution for racing to become a completely stand alone product.

If it happened then the ACs might be proven to be unnecessary or at least tailored when the evidence is considered over a period of time if showing that the horse racing bettor was a completely different entity.

why would a fobt player be groomed /enticed by a freebie day out at ascot,or free football tkts ?
of the much publised cases of punters doing their nuts, on tv/MSM losing 100 grand + ,none of them mention losing it on casino games they talk about racing,football,sports betting

Now I hope you understand why I believe the bookies, GC and BHA were/are too chummy. I hope GC does not jettison AC but instead apply it stringently on fobt online and high street. I'd like to see GC applies here on big punters eg owners/bookies/big layers here.

Also, AC carried out by an entirely independent agency with qualified personnel governed by the code of the FCA. This could be funded by the bookies and fines from bookies presently absorbed the many "fake" entities set-up purporting to assist and to reduce problem gambling and addiction to gambling. These invertebrates/fraudsters only care about money.

There are loads of examples of “VIP” casino and slot players being given incentives, tickets, and all expense paid trips by betting companies. Spend 2 minutes on Google and you will find them.


Don’t see what the big deal about it is to be honest, it’s being going on since forever. Before online casinos etc, if you wanted ring side seats for the big fights in Las Vegas, you had to go and prove your worth to the casino as a high roller. Louis Theroux did a documentary about it years ago.

I think it would be worse if they gave them nothing back, and just let them do their money, or just move company and carry on doing their money there instead. Any business is going to look after its best customers. Obviously, if they have self excluded, or said they don’t wish to be contacted or don’t want to gamble any more, then that’s out of order.

Though most of them only claimed they were groomed in hindsight, once all the money had gone, and they wanted it back. They never turned the tickets down, they never complained about getting the high roller treatment at the time. They still took the perks and had a go at winning their money back first. Then decided after that they were victims.

Mick C putting his own money on?

Thought all these trainers had a "go to man". Met one at the races one day and overheard him say he could get £30k on any race. Had people in Ireland putting money on for him. No doubt did it for a bit of commission and the useful info.

Not many avenues open for them anymore, it would seem.

I was told of another trainer at Newton today who's allowed his account to be closed rather than submit to affordability checks. It appears to be a common thing.

The head honcho at the Gambling Commission (GC) indicated only 3% of punters would be subject to Affordability Check(AC). However, the reality is very different. Who is telling the truth, Gambling Commission or the bookies being overzealous and disingenuous?

Now, the bookies' mouthpiece and betting paper The Racing Post is claiming that some losing punters are using AC to demand their money (lost) back from the bookies as a threat against the bookies' fear of a big fine by GC for not subjecting the losing punters with AC. How one-sided the Racing Post is?

The Racing Post would print this "far-fetched" accusation but would not print when punters were complaining AC was being used to restrict or close accounts of recreational punters. Pathetic!

What % is it 123 ?

Where do we get the figures ?

It states in the same article that bookmakers are also using the checks to restrict and make life difficult for accounts that they dont want.

However, you’d have to be extremely naive if you don’t believe there are any punters out there who wouldnt try such a thing. You’ve clearly never worked in the industry, not even at shop level. There are punters out there who would try anything to get their money back or take advantage. It’s certainly not as far fetched as you think it is.

3% is very misleading and I would imagine deliberately so.

There are probably millions of dormant accounts and a similar number that are practically dormant (used just once or twice per year). If you include all of those in your workings you can probably justify 3%.

If you look at people that are genuine punters (i.e. have a bet every day or even just every week) - the % is probably frighteningly high.

The dealer, I think the 3% figure the gambling commission use includes all accounts. Once a week players, and possibly even dormant accounts. Nobody has published a figure for how many active accounts (ie daily users) will be caught in the affordability net, though it’s clearly going to be a lot higher than 3% under the current proposals.

The same thing happened with self exclusion, bets from self excluded customers were originally void but that had to be changed because self exclusions were coming in saying it was there bets placed by someone else and when they lost they wanted their money back

Bookies ain't stupid. They are one of the most unlikely entities to be harassed and intimidated by AC or anything legal; the fines that were incurred were blatant disregard to aml, and problem gambling over a short period of time eg a clear indication the punters were chasing losses and addicted to gambling eg placing bets at all times of the day regularly and for long periods.

But, the present AC methodology and stringentness are bookies' alone to frustrate punters, and intimidate GC and government into believing they are only doing what's necessary in fighting problem gambling and addiction.

But, we know bookies speak with forked tongue.