Lydia Hislop's Double Standards Re Binocular & New Approach

[Posts: 4075Joined: 07 Dec 2002, 17:02Location: Talbot Green]

That is a very full reply, Lydia, thanks.

Mind you there some words in there way beyond me.

Colin

PS..............by the way, Mr. Henderson is quite capable of telling porkies.

[Posts: 1271Joined: 04 Jul 2007, 20:30]

On the point of the "greedy" layers - I entirely agree with Lydia.

It amazes me that in this age of supposedly improved integrity, every time a horse gets injured, dies or whatever - you can look on Betfair and almost be sure that all the money on the lay side will have swept up. This is blatant insider dealing (by known individuals of course) and really leaves a sour taste in the mouth - especialy as Betfair are taking a cut of commission on this business...

Before anyone makes the inevitable comment, I am not anti-betting exchanges, but I just don't think the Ante Post concept works at all well on them for this very reason.

Perhaps it is time that an extra responsibility was put on trainers. If a horse is ruled out of a race, then they should have to send a time-stamped scratching to the BHA/Weatherbys (times stamped at the time of the injury), which is then forwarded onto all betting organisations. Any bets struck after this time on the horse in question should be made void.

Maybe if you get a horse that picks up a significant knock a la Punchestowns, but the trainer is not in a position to rule the horse outof a target, the trainer could send a "Horse Doubtful" message to Weatherbys, with all betting on the horse suspended and bets voided (in the suspension period) until the horse is ruled back into the race.

I know it would add more red tape for trainers, but surely it would allow Ante Post punters to bet with much more confidence?

[Posts: 3701Joined: 21 Oct 2008, 00:37]

Lydia Hislop is to me,what Albertas Run is to Trevor Hemmings! I hope you were on this time Lydia!

[Posts: 1271Joined: 04 Jul 2007, 20:30]

I would also agree with that people think they can get away with some pretty outrageous remarks just because they are on an internet forum.

I mean, who would actually want to be a TV Racing presenter? Plenty of them do a very good job - particularly the RUK presenters- but every single one of them gets pulled to shreds by anonymous posters on internet chatrooms.

Just imagine if everyone else was put under such scrutiny for doing their day job...

[Posts: 650Joined: 18 May 2009, 14:37]

Very good stuff lydia

Thanks for posting that.

[Posts: 3895Joined: 22 Dec 2007, 19:24]

TDK,

Lydia has already answered that point.

Henderson had to act initially on what was advised by vets. Had those vets been right, Binocular would have been a non-runner. Are you saying Henderson should not tell the public what the vets have concluded?

If anyone wants a horse to be immediately scratched, then we will never here of any "99% probable" injury, the horse will have to be dead for us to know about it.

Thankyou for your post Lydia. Exactly what I thought you'd say.

[Posts: 1271Joined: 04 Jul 2007, 20:30]

Henderson hasn't done anything wrong in this case imo...

I'm proposing a new system whereby once Henderson had decided that Binocular was extremely unlikely to run, he should have sent a "horse doubtful" message to Weatherbys, so that all betting would have been suspended on the horse from the time he was made doubtful, until the time at which he became a probable runner again.

This system would prevent layers benefiting from simply knowing a horse is dead or injured.

[Posts: 3895Joined: 22 Dec 2007, 19:24]

Must say, the amount of trfers who went to Lydia's defence was disappointing.

Seems to me few members want to criticise other members, and it seems some think it is o.k. to say anything they like about the "establishment" / media / racecourse insiders, no matter how deflametory or untrue those remarks are.

[Posts: 3895Joined: 22 Dec 2007, 19:24]

Henderson hasn't done anything wrong in this case imo...

I'm proposing a new system whereby once Henderson had decided that Binocular was extremely unlikely to run, he should have sent a "horse doubtful" message to Weatherbys, so that all betting would have been suspended on the horse from the time he was made doubtful, until the time at which he became a probable runner again.

This system would prevent layers benefiting from simply knowing a horse is dead or injured.

Realise that TDK, the first paragraph of my post was about your post, the second about others, not yourself.

[Posts: 1288Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 03:07Location: London]

Must say, the amount of trfers who went to Lydia's defence was disappointing.

She has done nothing wrong though? don't see what you're trying to get at.

[Posts: 3895Joined: 22 Dec 2007, 19:24]

Must say, the amount of trfers who went to Lydia's defence was disappointing.

She has done nothing wrong though? don't see what you're trying to get at.

That's just it, Lydia has done nothing wrong, yet there were few members here willing to say so.

[Posts: 2470Joined: 06 Jul 2007, 11:38]

However, what is entirely the same in both cases is my view of those who might potentially have sought to gain an advantage by inside information during these episodes.

I, and many others, will concur with your view.

You have nothing to reproach yourself about.

[Posts: 150Joined: 27 Jun 2009, 21:56]

Must say, the amount of trfers who went to Lydia's defence was disappointing.

She has done nothing wrong though? don't see what you're trying to get at.

That's just it, Lydia has done nothing wrong, yet there were few members here willing to say so.

Well, I'm a big scaredy cat, which is why I gave up my journalism career at an early stage!

I would like to thank Lydia for coming here and making such a clear statement.

[Posts: 8496Joined: 10 Feb 2003, 15:43Location: Scotland]

My very simplistic reading of both incidents is as follows -

1. Bolger gave the impression that he didn't give a jot what anyone thought and had no interest in whether the public were kept informed or not.

2. Henderson appeared to be at pains throughout this affair to keep everyone as fully up to speed as possible.

I think TDK's idea is good but perhaps impractical. There would be a host of 'doubtful runners' placed on hold on betting markets every time they had a slight setback or poor gallop.

As far as I'm concerned you play the ante-post markets at your peril, particularly when you're trying to nick the odd quid at 999/1.

If you want certainty over runners/riders then bet on the day. There is a sizeable element of rune reading when looking at ante-post market.

[Posts: 1271Joined: 04 Jul 2007, 20:30]

Fair comment cormack - the "Horse Doubtful" idea probably is a bit idealistic and impractical.

That said, I see no reason whatsoever why this system should not be implemented for horses who are dead or injured to the extent that their trainers are prepared to 100% rule them out of a race.

The trainer simply sends a time stamped "Scratched" notice through to Weatherbys and all bets are off from that point onwards...