Personally I agree with your summary, when you have a few pence on a horse in a race you tend to watch the horse rather than the race itself and I've seen many a favourite be shoved sideways by another horse or boxed in and just give in, you can see the instance that it happens.

I have a close friend who has a share in a horse which competes in Grade 1 races, he is always last out of the stalls but his wins so far have been over the last furlong, he's got a hell of a turn of speed when he kicks on - the three races he's been in this year he's been shoved off his stride and boxed in on the rail twice, you see it happen and just tear up your ticket yet he is highly rated by the tipsters and by his regular jockey - we keep persevering but there's no way I'd ever want to be an owner.

Strange - you DON'T believe that in the pursuit of millions or BILLIONS of dollars of profits people might be encouraged to abandon all notions of morality? You have heard of the international drug trade, haven't you?



I know we wouldn't miss much without you.

Mods can freely insult now?

You are either a construct or something else, sad sad individual.

I did some checking into the question of whether it’s possible for the NFL to legally fix its own games. Turns out there are only two federal laws which have any bearing on this question. The first relates to the furore that was created in the wake of the “Quiz Show” fixing scandal. It states that it is illegal to fix any competition which is classed as an “intellectual contest”. The NFL clearly is not.

The second relates to gambling and sports bribery. It says that it is illegal to offer players money in order to fix games.

Let’s say the NFL sees a story developing (say the impending retirement of Peyton Manning) and wishes to get him to the Superbowl for one last (and very profitable) hurrah. At the start of the season it tells its officials to aggressively protect him in the pocket.

[iNo one is being bribed here. This is purely an employer-to-employee directive.[/i

Anyone who watches the NFL knows that it’s possible to call a holding penalty on just about every play (much in the same way as the corner in football). Bearing this in mind let’s consider the year Green Bay narrowly missed out on a perfect season, eventually going 15-1. In ELEVEN of those games the Green Bay offensive line were never penalised once. Now, I'm not saying this isn't possible in a sport totally free from corruption. But it's precisely what you might expect to see if the NFL were telling its officials to go easy on Green Bay.

Part of the problem (and this is something we are seeing in ALL sports) is the blurring of definitions. It’s now increasingly difficult to know what is and what is not a holding penalty, a grounded ball, an offside etc. etc. Which makes it very easy for referees to make calls which are completely counter-intuitive and yet no-one bats so much as an eyelid.

We've ALL seen this kind of thing … a player clearly has his foot in touch and yet for some reason the referee rules the play valid. Of course, this could just be a mistake on his part. But it's easy to see why many people are becoming increasingly suspicious about professional sport.

And whilst I said it's now difficult to bribe players because of the huge sums of money they are earning. There are plenty of other ways to get at them. Given the prevalence of steroids and recreational drugs (not to mention - gambling, domestic abuse charges etc.) it would be very easy to use good old fashioned blackmail. Think about the number of players who have filed for bankruptcy despite colossal career earnings. Wouldn't these people be incredibly susceptible to ... [iencouragement?[/i

I mentioned the Ernie Els six-putt from less than TWO FEET on the FIRST HOLE of the FIRST DAY at the US Masters. Isn't this EXACTLY the kind of thing you'd expect from a sportsman who is being less than honest?

It would be pretty much the last thing I would expect. Just off the top of my head
1. Is there even a smidgeon of evidence connecting that putting with betting activities?
2. It is ludicrous to think that you could make any money (or even get a bet on) "Ernie Els 6-putting on the first green".
3. The episode was so cringeingly bad, only an utter mad cretin would use that as a method of cheating. It had to be real. Els could easily have dropped half a dozen strokes over the course of the round without anybody even suspecting a thing.
4. In this case, if he was for some bizarre reason intent on six-putting - why the fsck would he start the process by a near-perfect chip to within 3 feet of the hole? I mean, why not get onto the most difficult spot on the edge of the green and bugger it up a tad more believably from there?
5. Els is a bit of a legend and I'd assume an extremely wealthy man, I find it hard to see what would persuade him to do such a thing. So no, it would be the last thing I would expect from a sportsman being "less than honest".

In the case of Els, I suspect he has been struggling with the dreaded "yips", and that this episode was maybe the best (or worst) example in golf to date. I think it is extremely likely to be connected with the game having banned the so-called "anchor putter" which Els had taken to using (exhibit 1 !) and so he found himself wanting the ground to swallow him up, putting as if he was using a mop or something. It was quite hard to watch for me, as he seems like a really nice guy, and I don't believe he did it on purpose, not for a second.

But as almost everybody knows, you are led to believe a wide range of nonsense. I suggest that you cross the people who lead you to believe such things off your list of credible sources.

Or ... was he nobbled? By the world secret order?

As someone who has worked on the IT side for one of the UK's biggest betting companies (and seen every kind of bet possible cycling through the system) I can state categorically that the above is false.

Highly-unusual events such as the Els six-putt are PRECISELY the kind of thing which interest internal security. And that's from the horse's mouth.

Delusional fantasy world, who did you work for, if you're that sure then surely no problem in saying?

Scary Innit

Nonsense. You can't "categorically state" anything of the sort, and it is actually spot on.

If anything, you CONFIRM (sorry for borrowing your SHOUTING technique) what I said. If you can't understand it, that's because OF COURSE internal security would be "interested" in an occurrence like a six-putt - IF ANY BETTING HAD TAKEN PLACE ON IT WITH THAT BOOKMAKER. If they hadn't taken any bets on it, THEY COULDN'T GIVE A FLYING FOOK.

And it is PRECISELY BECAUSE - if they HAD taken bets and stood to lose money - security would be looking at it very closely.

If you really did work as suggested, then you'd know that the FIRST question is whether a bookie would take such a bet in the first place. You don't sound as if you have any clue how that works TBH

There would be no advertised betting on E.Els 6-putting at the first. It is waaaaaay too obscure a bet for any bookie to offer.

So, some punter would have to ASK FOR A PRICE. He would be asked how much he wanted to bet, and may (or may not) be given odds. Other than a "fun" bet, I really don't see anyone ever getting a proper bet on something like that. No pro punter is so stupid as to put significant money on something so outrageously ridiculous, so a fraudster attempting to do so would get short shrift.

I would doubt many, if any, bets on something as stupid as that have ever been taken in the history of sports betting but if one was, it would be a pretty rare if not unique event, and certainly no bet would be taken to lose a significant amount of money on a novelty bet like that. And as a scam medium, how ridiculous! It would be literally begging for an investigation if such a bizarre bet actually won.

Let alone won so much money that it was a worthwhile exercise both for the fraudulent punter, and for Ernie Els to prostitute himself, while making a very public twa=#FFFFFF[size=5.[/sizet of himself, all at the same time.

And as I said, where is the evidence that there were any strange betting patterns on the incident? Or indeed any betting at all?

I think you conspiracy detector has blown a fuse and gone into meltdown here, while simultaneously casting grossly unfair aspersions on Els, who comes across as a very mild mannered and nice guy, and so far as I know, has no form for even a speeding ticket.

good post, i follow racing alot and even had a share in one not long ago.

notice alot that horses get punted around 5-10mins before the off giving the bookies less time to react and not letting the cat out of the bag i.e well handicapped, race fit from gallops or been going very well at home..they then go on and win! but horses are not machines and nothing is a dead cert

Good grief! You really are struggling. What does it matter who I worked for?

Not that I'm all that fussed about admitting that I used to work at BETFRED's head office in Warrington.

Technically speaking I was self-employed providing SQL database support for their branches up and down the country. Which means I saw every kind of bet imaginable as well as some which defied imagination.

Like all of the major betting offices they have their own internal security team (with a police liaison usually present at all times). Those guys were ALWAYS busy because corruption and betting go together like hand and glove.

Whilst I wasn't privy to their investigations (you'd need field artillery to get into the high-security unit) discussions with those guys over the kinds of things they are interested in were a common lunchtime activity. Which is why I KNOW every betting office up and down the land would have been investigating betting patterns in the wake of Els' six-putt.

So whilst you and half of this thread might believe in coincidences I can assure you that the big bookies are far more cynical. Indeed, I suspect most people would be shocked at the EXTENT of their cynicism. The truth is ever since the arrival of spread-betting, bet-to-lose etc. etc. corruption has gone through the roof.

Is that it? Or do you want me to draw you a floor plan including Fred Done's (spacious) office? That's if he's still even there. It was six or seven years ago.

What on earth are you babbling about? Surely you don't need me to explain the difference between acts which could be interpreted as suspicious and genuinely crooked play?

I really have no idea whether Els deliberately tanked the hole or not. Nor do I have any evidence of bets relating to Els. Which isn't surprising given that I'm talking about what interests the bookies.

I mean, maybe you think they are completely disinterested observers but I (along with anyone who bothers to pay attention) know that they scrutinise ALL sports down the micro-level.

Don't tell me that a high-profile former winner of the Masters six-putting the opening hole won't have them scurrying to find suspicious patterns when they routinely do the same for any old football nobody kicking the ball into touch within the first ten seconds of a game.

Do yourself a favour and scuttle back to the kiddies pool with your armbands.

I'm really not interested in your assessment of my knowledge of an industry I've worked in and you have .... [iwhat? [/i



And yet investigations happen each day. Fraudsters are sent to jail. Betting rings are busted open. Crooked sportsmen are banned for lengthy periods etc. etc. etc. Which kind of disproves everything you have said.



Only someone with your limited imagination could think that a sportsman would deliberately underperform for no other reason than money.

I can see this is going to be another one of THOSE threads in which you bore everybody to death arguing the colour of a full stop. Best to leave you barking at your own shadow.

I should really add that the authorities are every bit as interested. Which is why they often have on-site liaison. To say that an "odd" relationship exists between bookies and state governments is an understatement.

Delve down that rabbit hole and I suspect you'd find some interesting things. Although I doubt whether they would be beneficial to one's health.

I'm always impressed with how quickly the online bookies react to live events in horse racing - Flying Officer was a favourite at York last week but he unseated Frankie Dettori when hacking down to the start, then disappeared off up the course for a mile or so and battered down one of the rails, he was withdrawn from the race and because there were only five other horses left the panic button was hit, a rule 4 declared and the chart of odds went crazy on Skybet within 60 seconds of the incident starting, luckily I got a 5/1 on Clever Cookie before they took a new view on everything and he started at 5/2 just a few seconds later - fascinating to watch it happen live.

On the other hand and in a "make it up as you go along" style, at Catterick a couple of weeks ago I twice put a £2 each way on a horse at one of the on site bookies and my mate behind me in the queue had the odds adjusted downwards before he could get in

I'm sure it was a coincidence and that £4 didn't spoil that bookies day but who knows, this was Catterick and they are a bit strange up there.

I'd say you need to explain that to yourself. This started by you casting aspersions against Els which were without any visible foundation.


But if there HAD been evidence of it being a betting scam, then undoubtedly it would have been big news. The fact that there was no such thing is, in itself, evidence that no such betting scam was involved.




Yeah, sure, that's what all but you think. No, really.

You're the straw man specialist!




No, it won't; they'd already know. The way it works is they know in real time what "suspicious betting patterns" may be occurring. The wholepoint is to either immediately react by changing the odds, or indeed to stop taking bets on the event altogether. As a self-proclaimed "insider", it is weird that you don't get that.


And that is just the level you descend to when you're rattled,a nd have been shown up to not known a quarter of what you're talking about. You should just accept some people know better than you, and deal with it. But I fully expect you'll continue to firmly believe you're the fount of all knowledge

I worked (part-time) in betting for 20 years but what i know about security is not only from that but because my best mate ran security for a major bookmaker for some decades before he retired and he will have forgotten more about betting and bookies security than you ever knew.


Indeed

Er, riiiiight. Because I did say that I don't believe crooks exist, or that people don't constantly try to beat the bookie, or that fraudsters don't exist, or that there aren't betting rings or scams. Yes, that's exactly what I said.




As ever, you state the direct opposite of the truth. To remind you, I not only didn't say or think that, I actually put forward (from my limited imagination) my favoured explanation of what seems to me to have clearly happened in the case of Els (yips), and why (banning of anchored putters). In your rage at being shown up, you either forgot that, or hope no-one notices. But don't let the facts interrupt your flow of ad hom drivel


Typical hit-and-run tactics of a defeated argument by you who can't admit defeat.

All I have done is state my opinions in response to your opinions. However, the odd thing about your condition is you feel you have an inalienable right to post pages of drivel, thinking everyone will be spellbound and fascinated by it, but are so up your own arrse that you can't stand anyone taking issue with it.

In this way, you even have what is effectively your own blog on here, a thread where you vent at length, but delete any response that doesn't agree with you. Dissent is banned, and so, delusional Stan apart, it is effectively a monologue. If I wanted the classic example of someone boring everybody to death, or a place where you have left yourself barking at your own shadow, I need look no further. You're almost the forums' Steve Davis of boring people to death, except hardly anybody bothers to play with you.

You really are the biggest obnoxious hypocrite to ever roam these boards. Firstly you imply Mugwump effectively having his own blog, when effectively YOU have your own thread in which you were made a moderator of to STOP me from truth bombing the hell out of it, you vented pandemonia due to me posting ON[u YOUR[/u SCIENCE FICTION ASTRONOMY THREAD. So to assume Mugwump has his own blogs is simply wide of the mark. Hypocrite. And Secondly, I find fractions of Mugwumps postings quite insightful whereas your postings contain a mountain of obnoxious vitriolic ramblings filled with brain insults if people disagree with your close minded, hypnotic fictional parrotings. At least Mugwump is a free thinker who thinks for himself, So if he's Steve Davis, the player most fitting for you is JOHN PARROT. All Gob and no action.

Damned by faint praise.

aye and they watered the track just for clever cookie! i was on flying officer



im sure if your mate asked for the price you got they would have given it him! i had a 100/1 winner at catterick years ago in a 2yr maiden, fond memories of the track!

... says the man who whinges non-stop about perceived [iad hominem[/i against his own drivel



I don't "imply" anything, he very clearly has! Are you saying it isn't basically that?

Wait a minute, what the fsck is your point? If I were COMPLAINING about Mugwump's blog thread then that might be hypocritical but of course I'm not!!! On the contrary! I merely make an observation as to that thread. I would rarely post it it, but have no issue whatsoever with its existence or rules. So what the fsck is hypocritical about that?

The truth is, there are TWO separate threads. The Astronomy thread is for straight, non-conspiracy, information and discussion. The second is for discussing matters conspiratorial. If there is something on the rational Astronomy thread that you want to "truth bomb"

then feel free - but in the thread designed for the purpose!

You fail to see such an obvious point. That not everyone wants every single thread, on whatever news emerges in the world, to be instantly taken over by delusionals such as you claiming to know "the truth" about what really happened, and peddling your mad conspiracist bunkum. You are free to do it - in the appropriate place. You don't need to be able to pollute EVERY thread.

The essential point though is not about whether your drivel is right, or I am wrong. It is about the forum rules which prohibit behaviour such as deliberately diverting threads, etc etc. It's just housekeeping. The Astronomy thread is just ONE THREAD. If you have anything to post on the same subject, you can do so in the delusionals thread, anyone who wants to discuss it with you (self-included) will see it just the same and will post in reply just the same. Everyone knows this.

Mugwump seems happy with his blog thread, and (not that it matters, but just to be clear) that's fine by me. The point is, anyone who does want to stick within the strictly defined rules for subject matter of that thread is FREE TO DO SO. Ditto the Astronomy thread. But I do note you're not calling him a hypocrite for ruthlessly censoring dissent in that thread. Why is that, Stan? Because you operate double standards. It's a thread where you are able to post your stuff, and so that's fine. But you wouldn't, if it was up to you, agree to extend the same courtesy to people who want to stick with the straight Astronomy thread. that is why you are a stinking hypocrite.

The reality is that YOU are the stinking hypocrite, because you want to pollute and smokescreen anything you don't agree with by spewing acres of drivel at it. You are attempting to act as a censor. That is illustrated by your ignoring any questions or points put to you. All you want is a platform for your mad ramblings. You can't deal with criticism, and you won't consider any alternatives.

Nobody is saying you can't put your deluded views. It's not as if we are short of them. Just do it a centimetre down the fscking page.

Just like I said. More obnoxious brain insulting vitriolic ramblings Your so predictable.

This thread is the perfect example of why no-one comes on RLFANS any more.

Interesting goings on in Australia, a couple of games involving Manly are being investigated over match fixing : www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/36432394

Interesting goings on in Australia, a couple of games involving Manly are being investigated over match fixing : www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/36432394