I've given up backing Ballydoyle horses, just can't judge them right.Well done to Barney Curley I say, something about the huge "touch" that I've always admired from afar.
I've given up backing Ballydoyle horses, just can't judge them right.Well done to Barney Curley I say, something about the huge "touch" that I've always admired from afar.
"Have a little each way on the filly" D.K Weld
Curley, AOB, Prescott... you know where you are with them. You know there'll be three wrong distances or going, then a 'shock' smash on the SP into favourite, and a win. Simples!
Power is good. Control is better. (Lenin)
does it look good to those outside racing who we maybe ought to be trying to coax in though?
you get the..I pay the bills so I want inside info carry on..does that look good..does it make the game look straight
maybe no one is bothered about the game looking straight
like i said..I accept racing for what it is..but anyone reading this and seeing support for coups or deception of any kind are hardly going to want to be involved with horse racing in future are they?
maybe no one is bothered about the image of racing anymore...there are a few issues here aren't they?
its ok..I know who the fiddlers are and so avoid them..yes..so do I..but does it look good to the outside world?
I would say if this makes the papers it wil attract a certain amount of new punters who like the idea of million pound coups.
If we roll this out into putting aside personal gains or losses, and look at the ethics of it, EC, as I think you're doing, it's not good in the sense that the horses are not being run on true merit. They're being artificially manipulated to produce a result to benefit a very tiny group. In that, it's not good, full stop. Every horse should be presented to do his best to gain a position on the day - within reason, of course, of knowing when to ease up if he's plainly not handling things and out of contention.
As for the outside world, what it doesn't know, it doesn't worry about. First-time racegoers wouldn't have a clue - they'll be steered by tipsters presenting ideas before racing or they'll be like the lovely lady at Plumpton who backed BLUE-EYED ELOISE "because my grand-daughter's got blue eyes and is called Eloise". It's when punters get to the level of expertise as per those on this forum and others that these things rankle the most.
Possibly it's best to swerve these trainers entirely when punting, or to watch the market closing in and have enough to make you happy if you're right, but not suicidal if you're wrong. We've all had a good moan about 'Sir Bloody' for years, playing the handicaps like a game of chess. We know Curley's a heavy gambling yard, and we know that AOB is using some races as a prep run, not running in all seriousness, for many of his animals.
I don't think this info gets to the outside world, because the outside world isn't reading the racing press. It's not until we hook newbies from being first-time racegoers to steady attendees and then more canny punters that the penny begins to drop, as it has here, that there are a small number of trainers, mostly gamblers themselves, who couldn't give a flying fart about what the public thinks or does.
The BHA can launch any number of inquiries into the running of this and that, but there's always the old Column A and Column B List of Excuses to fall back on. Resented the kickback, didn't handle the turn, didn't like GF, jockey thought he heard the horse gurgle or whistle Dixie... you know the routine. The favourite being 'trying to find the right trip' - as if early homework hasn't indicated to the trainer whether the horse, bred to stay, isn't going to be too handy over 5f!
Power is good. Control is better. (Lenin)
Plenty of punters would have latched on as the winners started going in.Take away the insider bets and the bookies would still have lost on these races in my opinion.
I agree with Luke on this.... I dont have much of a problem with these coups, lets be honest here, how much of the 25s was laid??
The horses's SP were what they were partly is aprtly due to the offices smashing it in as well.
We are focusing on how it looks from the outside but consider it from my father's perspective. A life time racing fan and 50c cross doubles man. Puts his bets on around 11am each morning having studied some form. Will pick out ten horses and split them into two groups of five.
He'd have looked at AOA and said to himself "I wonder will he be given a hard race. He's a decent horse but it's a long season and you know how Fame & Glory went on his first run. but at the prices, I'm willing to take a chance". Now he gets to the Chris Grant runner and says "duck eggs, not out for two years, interesting jockey booking but who else would he have ridden in the race, no chance. Better go for the fav who has form in the book". Now he was making a judgement on AOB's runner of lengths i.e. would he be fully ridden out, whereas with the Grant horse there was nothing to go on. sometimes 50/1 shots win after 2 years off, but they aren't normally backed into 2/1 in a scam, which is what it is!!
So it's not just the outsiders you wonder about, but the average punter who doesn't gamble with the computer in front of them. I used to think "well done lads, taken the bookies for a ride" but it happens so often now with the like sof Byrnes, Curley, Martin and AOB (if you want to include him in), that something needs to be done. Remember, they changed the John Dunlop/Mark Prescott rule which stopped them upping a horse from 7f to 1m6f, so they can implement change if they want to.
So long as gambling is linked to the sport, then landing coups will always be part of the game. I don't have a problem with it if it's all done 'within the rules'. I wouldn't be surprised if the bookies were the reason the other one got beat.
Illegitimi non carborundum
Any idea how much the loser saved the bookies?
Welsh and Proud.
Ww, are you seriously suggesting bookies don't ensure certain horses don't win?
I got it straight from thje mouth af a bookie acquaintance one day at the racing.
Quote: We can get anything beat here.
Illegitimi non carborundum
If that is true then the Fraud Squad should be interested, let alone the racing authorities.
I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
I don't think bookies can guarantee that a certain horse will win (or lose) any more than the weight of punters' money and hopes will, DO. Too many variables. They could bribe a jockey to do his best to lose, but if, say, the plot was for the horse to be sent too soon to the front and burn out, they'd be left with egg on the faces if the horse was tactically boxed by other jockeys riding to true orders. They must certainly come up with offers that will interest some trainers, though, who may well pass specific instructions to younger riders with no say in accepting or rejecting them. I'd like to think that the older hands would give bookies the 'on yer bike' treatment, but I imagine that when they were apprenticed, especially to gambling yards (which has been mentioned on here previously), then yes, there'd be some hokey going on.
Power is good. Control is better. (Lenin)
I would have doubts about it-not doubting it was said but if it was as easy as that we would see a lot of high profile cases.
It doesn't have to be often.
That bookie acquanitance got me a couple of times before I wised up. I'd see his pitch (he didn't own it, he just worked it) was offering a slightly better price and sidle up asking for a tenner at the price. He'd say to the main man, "I'll take this one myself" and stick the tenner in his pocket. Needless to say the horse was never sighted. I think it happened twice. The first time I naively thought he was doing me a favour since we knew each toher from his shop, and the second time was enough to open my eyes. I never bet with him again but did speak to him in very general terms at the next meeting. He mentioned he'd be taking on an odds-on shot later in the day. when I asked him why he replied, "Oh, we can get anything beat here. [X] (another racecourse) is different."
Illegitimi non carborundum
I think they would have stopped two out of the four, if it was that easy for them to do it. I'm sure the gamble by the stable/cartel would have allowed for one loser.
I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
The fact of the matter is the horse still has to go out and win, which isn't guaranteed and if Curley and his associates are willing pile the money on and try and get one over on the bookies I for one am not bothered at all.
The bookies fix SP's and betting terms have been getting progressively worse for the punter for years so I have no issue with them getting done over once in a while. In a mature market like horse racing you would expect that prices and terms would become increasingly competitive but the SP system does not reflect this. It's basically price fixing which firms like the airlines can't get away with.
Tete a tete...An eye for an eye an all that...
I'm clever enough to ask the questions i'm too stupid to answer