There are rules and regulations around that and it is regulated by the FCA who are monitoring so there is a big difference. Also the analyst can talk a stock up but can’t directly affect the end result where as a jockey can. It’s like comparing apples and pears.Originally Posted by SlimChance
No it's not. Ruby Walsh is not going to throw a race for PP. Any reasonable person can work that out. Paddy Power Betfair is a billion dollar company. They literally don't care about any one result in the bigger scheme of things. Ruby is a greedy ******* for taking the 50k for essentially whoring his image to PPBF. The fault with PP is that they are so obsessed with content and especially social media content. Ruby is an easy click and they are getting a fair return for their money. If you ever spend more than an hour in a bookies you will soon see that punters are the ultimate cynics and don't listen to a word Ruby says. Lets not pretend anyone is being put away by his blog or comments.
For PP no.
Last edited by redundant pal; 11th November 2018 at 6:27 PM.
I think he's at the stage of his career now where he is beyond throwing races. Luke McMahon and him have enough money.
I agree with you although the optics of his rides on Quick Grabim and Getareason last week (both weak second favourites) are poor at best.
But trainer & jockey are above questioning these days.
I thought the ride in the first today was really bad but I backed the horse and I certainly don't count my own interpretation of a ride as gospel. I'll be interested to hear what a few good judges I chat to think.
No one said he was throwing races. You’re missing the point content or no content he has the biggest impact on the horse in any race he may have commented on. It isn’t rocket science it’s a huge conflict of interest. This isn’t just about Ruby it’s about every trainer and jockey that has one of these deals. How can the racing authorities on one hand ban jockeys from passing on information to punters but then allow trainers to write articles about their horses which the bookies will see before published. That’s not to even mention the without doubt conversations that go on in those relationships and please no one give me any bollocks about that not happening as there are multiple public examples.
To be clear as well I would never back or not back anything on the basis of what any trainer and or jockey would say. It’s madness half the trainers out there can’t train ivy to climb a wall so how they’d know when something is a good thing is beyond me.
Let's start with your opening statement that he has the biggest impact on any race he partakes in. You are saying this causes a conflict of interest. On that basis:
a) Should Ruby Walsh be allowed to do Cheltenham previews.
b) Should Ruby Walsh be interviews by ATR. RUK. RTE or ITV before any race takes place.
Last edited by SlimChance; 11th November 2018 at 7:55 PM.
Again apples and pears but for the sake of argument.
A. I don’t believe he should. He is paid for them by the sponsors of them who are usually bookmakers. Even if it isn’t bookmakers he is potentially passing on information which is prohibited by the authorities. Why should it be ok because it’s a Cheltenham preview and lots of people watch them.
B. IMO no. After yes and he should be questioned on rides like today.
So jockeys should not be interviewed before races? You don't think the racing and betting public after entitled to know what they have to say. That causes far more problems than it solves I don't know what it is you're trying to solve.
I personally don’t believe they should. The time for interviews is post race for both winning and losing rides. The betting public are much more entitled I’d say to an explanation for his ride today than what he says before a race.
I’m not trying to solve any problem I just believe and I feel a great majority of people outside of racing as well as inside would agree with me that trainers and jockeys being paid by bookmakers in any shape or form is a monstrous conflict of interest and shouldn’t be allowed.
If I was paying a jockey and having conversations with him whilst acting on Betfair and affecting the market and then putting those conversations on Twitter or a blog would that be allowed?
What about when Twiston-Davies announcing after a race that the horse that just bolted up recently had a wind op. These horses get smashed off the boards. Who does it help knowing after the race? Let's face facts. No connections of any horse is going to admit to doing anything wrong in a race. I agree the blogs etc are bullshit but I also believe no punter worth their salt pays any attention.
Last edited by SlimChance; 11th November 2018 at 8:56 PM.
Aren’t wind ops meant to be declared now? I agree it’s no good after the race but let’s be honest if you’re planning on smashing one off the boards then you’re not going to advertise it on some **** blog so what’s the point of them anyway? I think we’re viweing this from two different points one being the punter and one being the integrity / transparency.
From an integrity point of view they’re a conflict and if we ran a poll on here I’m certain the result would be conclusive.
As I asked above if I was paying a jockey / trainer and betting and laying and blogging I’m pretty sure I’d be in front of the bah pretty quickly.
In terms of info it’s all a joke really when I hear John Gosden after the Arc win of enable saying they’d had another hold up after Kempton. Where was that before the race?
For me racing needs a new set of rules and procedures as at the moment the ones they have aren’t fit for purpose in this century with the advent of Betfair and social media but to name a few.
I agree we're probably not too far apart but there is a section of the game (boolmakers) that are obsessed with clickbait. That's why we have these blogs and endless Chelteham previews. They all do my head in because I know it's absolute lies. I've heard people criticise Chris Hayes for being too forthcoming in his interviews. That's what we're up against. Those that are on the inside want to stay there and **** the punters and race going public.
Agree everything you’ve said there. Especially the inside part it’s a gravy train if you’re the right side of it. The fact racing has so many families that are interlinked probably sums it all up nicely.
I do hear some very good 'inside" stuff but it's not enough yo win. The best punters in Ireland (Top 10 for sure) are all betting predominantly on what they see in the formbook and they're own eyes. Yes a few of the top 10 have some toxic relationships but these guys bet biggest in the liquid markets at the festival's where everyone is trying.
Last edited by SlimChance; 11th November 2018 at 9:40 PM.
At the risk of rattling cages again, for me what's wrong with racing is that bookies run it and are 'way too powerful.
Illegitimi non carborundum
Scenario, there was no such thing as gambling, people paid to watch horse racing and cheer a horse as they would football. Do you believe the outcome and winners of races would change? I've always thought yes.
Hindsight Is a wonderful thing, and now understanding racing a little bit more I now say no. But I was shouting to high heaven that Ruby came off Annie Power deliberately that day. Undoubtedly pocket talk, but such things do make you wonder. I'm still convinced the smaller meetings have some dark arts at work.
If you confine it to big off-course bookmakers, DO, I agree with you.
Ah! but a man's reach should exceed his grasp......
If you're referring to the final flight at the festival, there's no way [in my opinion] Ruby came off deliberately. It would have been too dangerous. I reckon I've seen jockeys jump/fall off suspiciously but they usually do so out in the country when the pace is still easy and they tend to take them to the outside so that they're not falling into the path of another. I think they're also less likely to do it when the ground is on the fast side.
Outside of Saturdays, festival meetings and big money races, usually only a fraction of any field is trying. There was a shocker of a race at Sandown yesterday in which I reckon I saw more non-triers in a big field than I have for a long time.
As for the initial scenario, I'm not sure the analogy can apply but I would say multiply the prize money and you would often see a different result.
Last edited by Desert Orchid; 12th November 2018 at 9:09 AM.
Illegitimi non carborundum
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote