Sport is made for betting

When I was at high school, I fancied the idea of being a lawyer, probably from watching too much LA Law. Once I got to uni I realised it was never going to happen and soon changed my career plans (which I then did a few more times before stumbling into the betting industry, an option I never thought possible as a youngster). All the paperwork and tedium of law put me right off it, not to mention the work involved when all I wanted to do was enjoy my first years in a big city. But the idea of being a judge, having a platform to tell people they are fuckwits and should be punished for it is much more appealing. Particularly when their defence is simply pathetic and should be laughed out of court. Take the front page of today's Racing Post , the case of experienced veterinarian James Main, who admitted injecting one of Nicky Henderson's horses with a banned blood-clotting agent on raceday back in 2009. Henderson was banned for three months as a result. Main's case was ...

It really isn't rocket science - when the rewards for competing are poor, then corrupt influences are more likely to be listened to. Sport at the biggest level - the Premier League, NFL, the Olympics, Group I races etc, has little problem from corrupt gambling influences. The incentive to win is so great that competitors are more likely to cheat to win, via performance-enhancing substances or illegal equipment. But when a sport is specifically run for betting and the prizes for competitors are so poor, then can you really blame someone for being tempted by corrupt influences? Harry Findlay reckons horse racing's 'poverty' prize money could lead to corruption Professional gambler Harry Findlay warned on Friday that "poverty" prize money could lead to an increase in corruption in racing. Findlay said that a drop in prize money is likely to lead jockeys, trainers and other racing professionals to be more likely to bend the rules, or susceptible to approach...

Have to give kudos to ATR presenter Sean Boyce for an excellent article picking holes in the petty arguments being put up by Betfair, bookmakers and the racing authorities at the moment over various issues all relating to funding. So much hot air and yet so many conveniently hidden facts are left out of each's argument. A petty fight with handbags and a lot of flimsy evidence. When Two Tribes Go To War . . Exchanges like to point to the price edge their customers enjoy but also insist that, despite the very different MO which makes that difference possible, they should be subject to tax and levy at the same rate as bookies. They also like to offer the more attractive products from the traditional bookies portfolio to their own customers using their own cash and operating as traditional bookies. Hence exchanges are happy to stand multiples to their customers in exactly the same way as bookies do – more about this later. Bookies in turn, hate comparisons with exchanges on the...

A heated confrontation yesterday at Doncaster races when professional punter Harry Findlay crossed paths with BHA Chief Executive Nic Coward. The reasons behind the angst can be found here in a previous post. Findlay accused Coward of ruining his life and demanded the resignation of Coward and BHA Chairman Paul Roy. Now, I'm not one to side with racing authorities very often, but the facts of the matter are that Harry knew the rules, and broke them - not once, which may or may not have been an accident, but twice - and that's only of the times that we know Betfair and the BHA Integrity Unit spoke. And then he had the gall to claim he had special privileges, despite all figures in the racing industry being told very firmly that using inside information to lay horses in the same stable was expressly prohibited. He was given a severe penalty which was later reduced on appeal, but he was still found guilty of the offence. You made your own bed Harry, now you have to lie in it....

Am I Blue, the 33/1 outsider in the morning Racing Post forecast, with a formline of 7-0-0, wins by about 20 lengths (19 officially) in the 3.10 at Hereford after a huge, sustained gamble. Dean Coleman, a 5lb claimer, is named to ride the horse, the money goes on (started 5/1 second favourite) and lo and behold, the jockey is replaced, and on goes leading jumps jockey Richard Johnson. Trainer lying through her teeth after the race to say 'we haven't backed it'. Yeah sure. OK, perhaps she didn't, but it was certainly set up for a sting. Lives next to Tim Vaughan, pure coincidence that the Vaughan stable jockey goes on and it bolts in. 1 - surely an investigation is required after a horse looks completely useless in its previous three starts, and then wins by panels. 2 - it's ridiculous that a leading senior jockey is allowed to take over from a conditional jockey. Ireland and Australia have a 'like-for-like' rule - i.e. a senior jockey can only replac...

Lydia Hislop sinks the boots further into the beleaguered Nic Coward of the BHA in this excellent piece from The Guardian. Plaudits for the paper too, for either having very astute commenters, or maintaining a very high standard of comments they accept - they all make perfect sense! Cheers to Mark Davies for pointing this story out.

I've waited until now to comment since his appeal is currently being heard. For those outside UK racing, this is the case where the biggest punter in the UK, one who trades, nearly every race, every day, was penalised for laying his own horse twice on Betfair. Harry owns (or at least did, until the initial ruling was made) a string of horses with various trainers around the country, and most notably is involved in Denman, the champion jumper. Nobody will disagree that laying your own horse for profit is a bad thing which needs to be heavily punished. However that was not the case here. Both times Findlay had already backed his horse heavily and was reducing his risk by laying some of his outlay back. In both cases, he still wanted the horse to win overall. Mark Davies has commented about the case today - here . There are two camps of thought here - 1. that all betting against your own horse is evil and must be struck out, and 2. that one should only be punished if the owner/punter ...

Yesterday it was Racing NSW expecting punters to allow them to install monitoring software on their laptops if they take them on-course to trade. Today it's British racing's representatives on the Levy Board asking bookmakers to pay up to 76% more to cover racing. Betting companies should be paying for the right to field on British racing, I do not dispute that, but let's be practical about it. The biggest names in the industry are doing all they can to avoid tax and levy, so the industry decides to ask for nearly double the current amount? They have rocks in their heads. Sure you need to start with a big 'offer' as a starting point for negotiation, but it's rather obvious there is no wish for negotiation here, just a demand. Racing betting turnover, as a percentage of business for bookmakers is going one way - DOWN. Betting companies (if I say bookmakers out of habit, I do mean for the term to cover exchanges, totes and bookies) are making bigger profits, but o...