Jockeys Paul Doe and Greg Fairley have been banned from racing for 12 years for "not riding a horse to its merits" after an investigation into corruption. Two other jockeys are among 11 people barred from the sport following a British Horseracing Authority probe. Jockey Kirsty Milczarek has been banned for two years for committing "corrupt or fraudulent" practices and passing on information for reward. Trainers Maurice "Fred" Sines and James Crickmore have received 14-year bans. The pair were found guilty of betting against a horse they owned. Jimmy Quinn, the fourth jockey among 11 people to have been found guilty of corruption, received a six-month punishment for his involvement. Five others - Nick Gold, Peter Gold, Shaun Harris, David Kendrick and Liam Vasey - were also found guilty of "corrupt or fraudulent practice". Paul Fitzsimons, now a trainer, and Darren May were cleared of all charges. All those found guilty have seven days to appeal against their bans but are excluded from the sport during that period. The verdicts were delivered on Wednesday as the BHA published the findings of its long-running investigation into race-fixing in 2009. This investigation is the largest of its type ever undertaken in British racing. It stemmed from suspicious activity on betting exchanges, where money can be gambled on horses losing races, as well as winning Joe Wilson The investigation centred on horses being backed to lose races on betting exchanges between 17 January and 15 August 2009. Milczarek vowed to appeal against the verdict. Her charges relate to her ride aboard Obe Gold at Lingfield on 15 August 2009. Trained at the time by Debbie Mountain, Milczarek finished fifth on the even-money favourite in a six-furlong race. She told At The Races: "I've just spoken to my solicitor a couple of times. We are going for an appeal. It's my livelihood. "I was found guilty on one particular thing but not a ride, which I'm pleased about."
Toppy for me this again brings into question the "ethical viability" of the Exchanges - if individuals are allowed (within a relatively lax security framework) to lay horses then the opportunities for skullduggery are widespread. It is much easier to "ensure a horse loses" than to "ensure a horse wins". I'm sure this kind of thing will become more prevelant and, although the notion of "the purity of the turf" may sound outdated I think it is a cornerstone of the horse racing industry. Take it away and everything falls down. Commendable that the miscreants have been punished but they really need to look at taking away the opportunity for crime.
I expect that most people will welcome the fact that the BHA has been successful in cracking down on ‘corrupt’ goings-on in the sport, although this will raise the question of where the line is being drawn. I think there is plenty of ‘corrupt’ activity taking place every day that is ignored because no gambling is involved in running horses down the field to benefit in future. OddDog, I am not inclined to believe that Exchanges per se are causing more ‘corrupt’ activity. The people running the Exchanges will soon spot dubious betting patterns when a small number of individuals are laying horses that always run poorly. It is a completely computerised system, which makes it very easy to scrutinise. It would be much easier to disguise dubious laying practises if one involved a couple of crooked bookmakers laying the best odds on a horse that they knew was not going to win. Horseracing may be the single biggest betting activity, but it would be no surprise to find that various other sports are the subjects of ’corrupt’ betting activity. There are betting markets on the number of corners and throw-ins in football matches – that seems like something that must be easy to manipulate. In the lower divisions of the English Football Leagues, where players do not make millions, there must be some temptation to cash in. If the cases all arose from investigations of Exchange betting patterns is that not evidence that ‘corrupt’ activity on them is more easily detected? Successful prosecutions surely deter future skulduggery.
Horses failing to run on their merits is a daily occasion and infuriates me.Drives me f****** mad how the epidemic attracts so many apologists and ignorant saccharine sweet platitudes praising connections for their "tender handling" of their newcomer.B******* frankly. This practice is bolstered and further popularised by TV pundits,and ordinary punters (heard the cliche many times on here!) ,complimenting jockeys on the "kind introduction" debutants have been given and the fact that they have not been "knocked about"...merely euphemisms for schooling in public,ergo not trying...if it happens in a h'cap everyone is referred to the stewards and the same clowns,who were practically incontinent in their praise at the promise shown by a non trier in the maiden 30 minutes earlier,want capital punishment reinstated for non triers..twits. Re football QM,I can state for a fact that in the decisive rubber,involving Athletic Bilbao v Levante at San Mames,in the 2006/2007season,the match was thrown by the Valencians.They had secured,against the odds,their La Liga survival the previous weekend.They fielded a weakened team and when the Basques failed to score in the first half they turned their ball into their own net in a most peculiar og(pp in Spain). They then proceeded to gift a second.It is something I have discussed this with my Uncle,who was for 20 years a senior member of the club,and it is not a big secret amongst anyone...common knowledge in fact.Athletic,third richest club in the division,are alleged to have made the cash poor newcomers a healthy donation. Official betting was suspended before the game but since most gambling in Spain in underground,who knows how much was rinsed from the naive/innocent. A lot like the corruption over here except no one gets their panties in a bunch over it...
Personally, I think non ethical practices in racing are thick on the ground. As Dex pointed out, the "kind handling" of a runner is rampant. It is not true that this is a non issue if the connections don't lay the horse. True, they make no profit, in fact they make a loss on the day, but the performance of the horse affects more than just the owners and trainer. The poor old punter who invests his/her heard earned on the animal, is the true victim here. Where is the protection for them? As for the exchanges, they certainly offer up the chance to rip the system. Betting on horses to lose is a risky business. But the problems of corruption can't be laid at the feet of the just these organisations. As soon a betting on horses came into being, crime came with it. If you want no crime, ban betting. Of course that's never going to happen, so we have to make the best of what we have. And I don't think we're doing that. I might sound like a real pessimist here, but I think I say a while back when this kind of stuff hit Australia and a whole host of people were rubbed out, I don't believe that these offences are rare. They probably go on, on a daily basis, we're just ignorant of it.
QM - I play spreads alot and there have been times when there's been manipulation but if the spread companies had any doubts on these markets they would not trade them. We all remember the infamous West Ham kick off that was booted into row Z and half of Harry Redknaps family had only the day before opened up accounts and sold the time of the first throw-in, but this is very rare these days. The total corners/throw in markets are generally only availble of higher profile matches where it's less easy to manipulate - the lower divisions are more vulnerable and there are a host of games that are under scrutiny/investigation still, usually from end of season dead rubber games. The issue with laying horses on the exchanges is the fact it's foolproof for the 'fixers' which means they'll be laying a 10/1 at 25s which immediately sparks a stewards from Betfair (who have 60 permanent investigators monitoring market activity) - people get greedy and the combination of laying at very odd prices (people laying Binocular 2 days before Champion hurdle at 7/1 when he was best price 11/4 ?) and for very large sums will eventually get them found out.
Athough most of this thread has got on to the betting side of this seedy episode what do we all think to the level of the bans. A 12 year ban is some serious level of punishment. I see that KM is to appeal her ban, 2 years, as she says its her livelyhood... I do think that the BHA have issued a real 'do the crime, do the time' message here but in a day and age of Human Rights it will be interesting to see if the bans actually stick...
redcgull - both Fairley and Doe retired before the punishment was announced so it's almost a cop out they got 12 years, sending a strong message is one thing but it hasn't hurt either of them as they're already pursuing other careers. In fact, had they still been riding I would have thought their bans would have been much reduced. This stems from the owners and their 14 year ban is good news - coups like this are only possible when the prospect of rich reward to entice key players (jockeys) exists, take the string-pullers out of the equation and jockeys are not led astray. But this kind of thing will not go away and I strongly believe will only get worse as the invent of exchanges allow everyone to play bookmaker....
Certainly is in most countries in mainland Europe. Horseracing is a pretty minor thing, betting-wise...................
Only seen ths thread now. The day that it was decreed you could bet on a loser was the day that everything went downhill in my opinion., It's much too easy to do and the only way you get caught is if you're stupid.
