Skip to main content

some substance behind the SPL fixing allegations?

Take it with a pinch of salt though, after all, it comes from the Daily Mail..

Gambler in spot-fix claim is linked to England stars

A gambler with close social ties to Premier League and England footballers is among those under investigation for involvement in an alleged ‘spot-fixing’ betting sting.

The Gambling Commission and the Scottish FA have been passed details of multiple ‘irregular’ bets and attempted bets, many of them allegedly emanating from Merseyside, on a red card being shown during the game between Motherwell and Hearts in the Scottish Premier League earlier this month. Several betting firms have offered evidence.

Motherwell’s Liverpool-born midfielder, Steve Jennings, who was sent off during the game for swearing at the referee, has denied any involvement in improper betting.

The investigation has been described to me by some involved in the ‘integrity process’ as ‘a test of how seriously the Commission and sporting bodies want to take these issues’.

.
.

New figures from the Gambling Commission show a surge in reports of ‘irregular’ betting across British sport since April.

More than 50 cases have been referred in eight months, with football cases prominent. Most are understood to be ‘low level’, namely League Two or non-League.

The authorities have evidence to suggest that at least two matches were fixed: Accrington v Bury in League Two on May 3, 2008, and Grays Athletic v Forest Green Rovers in the Conference on April 26, 2009.


No surprise really, it's the same method fixers use in other sports - get friendly with players in an informal setting, gradually build a relationship and then make improper suggestions...
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Thanks for your comments, but if you're a spammer, you've just wasted your time - it won't get posted.

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, ...
Post a Comment
Read more

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...
33 comments
Read more

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...
14 comments
Read more