Skip to main content

bizarre tennis result caught up in match-fix allegations because of coaching policy

Weird match this.

Tennis authorities looking into Wozniacki match

US Open finalist Caroline Wozniacki led 7-5 5-0 against local veteran Anne Kremer in a round one match on Tuesday. She was battling with a hamstring injury which she knew she wouldn't be able to play with in the next round (these things almost always get worse once the athlete has cooled down and tries to play again). During the coaching breaks which are allowed in the WTA, her father, speaking in Polish was clearly telling her to retire because she wouldn't play the next round anyway. I applaud her father for doing that - firstly, it's to save her from further injury and secondly, it gave a local player, who will probably retire soon, the chance to play in R2 instead of having that match given as a walkover. There is honour in that approach in my opinion.

But because the rules say that microphones must be able to pick up what is said during coaching breaks, sharp viewers who can understand Polish would have picked up on what was said and cashed in by laying her at a very short price. Wozniacki is Danish by nationality but Polish by birth and it's well known in tennis circles that she speaks to her father in their native tongue.

I don't see how she could be charged for 'lack of effort' in the match as per the article. She wouldn't stop trying, her dad had to stop her for her own benefit!

Unfortunate more than anything, I don't think there is anything sinister in this at all, other than her dad being caught out by the WTA's open-mic policy. If there's a suspicious WTA match they want to investigate, try the Vinci - K.Bondarenko match from Tuesday. The betting on that match told the story...

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Spot-fixing - you will never, ever be able to stop it

According to this report , IPL tournaments so far have been rife with spot-fixing - that is fixing minor elements of the game - runs in a single over, number of wides bowled etc. The curious part of that article is that the Income Tax department are supposed to have found these crimes. What idiot would be stupid enough to put down 'big wad of cash handed to me by bookie' as a source of income? Backhanders for sportsmen, particularly in a celebrity- and cricket-obsessed culture like India are not rare. They could come from anything like turning up to open someone's new business (not a sponsor, but a 'friend of a friend' arrangement), to being a guest at some devoted fan's dinner party etc. The opportunities are always there, and there will always be people trying to become friends with players and their entourage - that is human nature. This form of match-fixing (and it's not really fixing a match, just a minor element of it) is very hard to prove, but also, ...

lay the field - my favourite racing strategy

Dabbling with laying the field in-running at various prices today, not just one price, but several in the same race. Got several matched in the previous race at Brighton, then this race came along at Nottingham. Such a long straight at Nottingham makes punters often over-react and think the finish line is closer than it actually is. As you can see by the number of bets matched, there was plenty of volatility in this in-play market. It's rare you'll get a complete wipe-out with one horse getting matched at all levels, but it can happen, so don't give yourself too much risk...

It's all gone Pete Tong at Betfair!

The Christmas Hurdle from Leopardstown, a good Grade 2 race during the holiday period. But now it will go into history as the race which brought Betfair down. Over £21m at odds of 29 available on Voler La Vedette in-running - that's a potential liability of over £500m. You might think that's a bit suspicious, something's fishy, especially with the horse starting at a Betfair SP of 2.96. Well, this wasn't a horse being stopped by a jockey either - the bloody horse won! Look at what was matched at 29. Split that in half and multiply by 28 for the actual liability for the layer(s). (Matched amounts always shown as double the backers' stake, never counts the layers' risk). There's no way a Betfair client would have £600m+ in their account. Maybe £20 or even £50m from the massive syndicates who regard(ed) Betfair as safer than any bank, but not £600m. So the error has to be something technical. However, rumour has it, a helpdesk reply (not gospel, natur...