Bet Exchange News – February  2004

A threat to racing's integrity

This programme took a look at the impact that betting exchanges have had on the integrity of horse racing. Prior to the emergence of exchanges it was far less straight forward to profit from the knowledge that a horse was not going to win. Either you had to decide which of the remaining horses would win, and bet on it, a far from risk free strategy, or you had to have a word with a friendly bookie, and ask him to lay a certain amount on the horse for you. By using a betting exchange you can lay the horse you know is going to lose and profit from a risk free bet.

Pro punter Steve Lewis Hamilton was interviewed and he explained how he had personally seen many races where the betting patterns, and the subsequent result gave the impression of a horse losing a race for the benefit of those who knew it would lose. During the filming of the programme the investigative journalist also received a number of phone calls from an anonymous source again describing himself as a professional punter who gave details in advance of half a dozen horses which he had learnt were set up to lose. The programme was able to track these horses, see the odds drift, and then see the horse lose. One example was at Wolverhampton on October 20th when the informant passed on news that the horse Red Lancer would definitely lose. Sure enough the odds on Betfair drifted, and when the race started the horse got left behind right from the start with the commentator saying that the horse "had a snooze in the stalls".

The involvement of blacksmith Steve O Sullivan's as a heavy layer on many suspicious races was looked at, with particular focus on the high profile case of Hillside Girl which lost at Carlisle on June 15th. Somehow the programme makers got hold of Mr O Sullivan's Betfair account details which showed that he had laid Hillside Girl to potentially lose £35k. It was pointed out that he would be unlikely to have placed such a bet without full confidence that the horse was going to lose.

Clive Reams from Racefax said that his organisation had tracked 888 races over the past year and had identified 171 with "irregular betting patterns". The Jockey Club rejected this figure, suggesting a far smaller number. Ian Davies of backandlay .com was interviewed and said that

"racing's rumour mill suggests that the Jockey Club Security Department isn't making as much of the leads supplied to them by betting exchanges as they might do"

If the JC are failing to take this issue as seriously as they could, the same could not be said for the British Horse Racing Board (BHB). Peter Saville spelt out the risk to the industry is the confidence of the betting public was undermined,

"If you don't protect the integrity of your sport, ultimately public confidence of the betting people will deteriorate to the point where the financial structure of the industry which is very much based on betting turnover will wither away and eventually die and the sport with it."

The feature finished on a positive note in discussing the Memorandum of Understanding reached between the Jockey Club and Betfair which allowed the JC access to the audit trail for all bets placed on races which the JC felt had suspicious betting patterns. This came into force on June 16th, significantly one day after the Hillside Girl race at Carlisle . Steve Lewis Hamilton, the professional punter said that he had noticed a marked downturn in suspicious activity since June 16th, so perhaps this measure is having the impact all hoped it might.

Danehurst Racing Club

The programme closed with a warning about the fraudulent activities off the above so called Racing Club. Also known as the Rosebury Racing Club, they sent out mail shots asking for partners to benefit from their insider knowledge. Those replying were asked to place bets on behalf of the club, bets the people behind it allegedly were unable to place themselves because this would compromise their privileged positions within the racing world. In exchange for placing these bets their partners would receive 15% of the winnings, plus of course the name of the horse on which they could place their own bet. The victim that was interviewed admitted to placing losing bets totally £3,000 on behalf of this club, before he realised he had been conned. He never got this money back, but of course had the horses won, the club would have been knocking on his door asking for their winnings. This was a clever and sophisticated trick by a highly professional conman, who even supplied a phone number and a recorded phone call showed that he was able to put together a very credible story. David Hood from William Hills offered the sound advice that you should never place bets on behalf of anyone else.