wow jockey bans

Just heard Paul For and Greg Fairley have been banned for 12 years

Hip hip hooray!!-

awesome and another advert for BETFAIR

easy Wrote:

---

> awesome and another advert for BETFAIR

isn't that like using ballistics of a bullet to catch a murderer, and then saying another advert for GUNS ?

Jack

Please enlighten me with your perception of how bad Betfair is for racing.

Easy do you think Betfair pay their proper share into the levy? compared with the market share they have?

JOCKEYS Paul Doe, Greg Fairley, Kirsty Milczarek and Jimmy Quinn have been banned for a combined total of over 26 years after being found in breach of the BHA's corruption rules.

RELATED LINKS

BHA case summary
Penalties in full

Doe and Fairley, who were found guilty of committing the most serious offence of not riding a horse to its merits along with breaching two other rules, were banned for 12 years each. Both quit the saddle earlier this year.

Milczarek has been hit with a two-year ban for passing on information for reward and committing fraudulent or corrupt practice, while Quinn received a six-month ban for his part in the conspiracy.

The corruption case, which involved a total of 13 people, two of which were found not guilty as the BHA published its findings on Wednesday, focused on ten races from January 17 to August 15, 2009.

Former owners Maurice Sines and James Crickmore were both warned off from the sport for 14 years after being found guilty of masterminding a network of jockeys and punters to lay horses owned by them on the betting exchanges.

Trainer Paul Fitzsimons, also a jockey at the time, was cleared along with Darren May, one of the six unlicensed individuals investigated.

Earlier in the day, Milczarek revealed that she was planning to appeal her verdict. Speaking at Lingfield after winning on her second ride, she told At The Races: "I've spoken to my solicitor a couple of times and we are going for an appeal and hopefully it will come my way because it's my job and I love doing what I'm doing.

"There's just a few issues and I was found guilty on one particular thing but it wasn't a ride which I'm quite relieved about."

Doe was found guilty of riding non-triers on two occasions, with Fairley one ride. Both were found guilty of passing on information for reward and corrupt or fraudulent practice.
Former owners Maurice 'Fred' Sines and James Crickmore




Five of the six other unlicensed people - Peter Gold, Nick Gold, Shaun Harris, David Kendrick and Liam Vasey - involved in the case were also found to be guilty of corrupt and fraudulent practice.

Vasey has been warned off for five years, Kendrick four, Harris three while the two Golds have had the decision regarding penalties adjourned pending further written submissions.

All penalties come into effect from Thursday, December 15 and all those found guilty have seven days to appeal against their bans but are excluded from the sport during that period.

Quinn's solicitor Rory Mac Neice said: "The BHA found that Jimmy had ridden both horses on their merits and went as far to say that he did not stop the horses and that if he had been asked to stop the horses he would not have done so anyway and Jimmy is pleased that this has been made clear to the outside world.

"In giving him a six-month ban they have given him the minimum amount open to them and that reflects the panel's view of him.

"He will serve the ban and he will be back at the end of the period."

Paul Scotney, BHA director of integrity services, compliance and licensing, said the investigation unearthed corruption on a scale and complexity unprecedented in the BHA’s history.

He added: “The investigation uncovered a network through which Sines and Crickmore engaged in betting activity, in particular with two riders, Paul Doe and Greg Fairley, that impacted on seven of the ten races in question.

“We take no pleasure in uncovering such serious breaches of the rules of racing. However, the findings of the disciplinary panel vindicate the hard work of BHA’s integrity and compliance teams. In the BHA’s history, the scale and complexity of this case is unprecedented."

Hibs

yes i do, infact i would add that racing as a revenue for betfair is minor. I also believe that racing juristictions like tasmania and soon the usa have doen a proper due diligence regarding betfair and are embracing their innovative and fresh approach.

As for the question of the levy its a pretty sore subject as you know BUT to a man the bookaming parasitical fraternity in the UK ALL use betfair and ALL critisise it publicaly.

The WEAKNESS in the UK and therefor the need for a higher levy comes from the same bookmaking fraternity in the UK socially engineering punters in the UK to take "lucky 15s" and "accas" while at the same time encouraging them to take "frankie dettori 7 folds" (that one did sting them once)

NOW had anyone in the UK stood up to them years ago and promoted the tote then maidens in the UK would not be racing for £1200

Personally i think Betfair has been brilliant. It works for me, me retiurns for the year are their in black and white for me to see. I will finnish this year ahead agin albeit it not by much BUT it is because they have allowed me to become a better punter.

I already commented on this is another thread, but it's a bit sad to see a talent like Greg Fairley dump his career in the toilet. He looked like a rising star when he rode a gazillion winners for Mark Johnston not long ago.

Betfair, the online wagering operation, has made offers to California racetracks and horsemen to apply a 10-percent commission on bets made through its betting exchange, a far higher rate than the company applies to its customers in overseas jurisdictions, the company's U.S. president, Stephen Burn, said on Wednesday afternoon during a panel discussion at the University of Arizona Symposium on Racing and Gaming.

Although Burn said that Betfair is "still a long way away from having anything set in stone," the offer of a 10-percent commission indicates that the company is willing to significantly modify its business model to address the concerns of U.S. racing interests. Betfair currently applies a 2- to 5-percent commission on winning wagers in European countries and Australia, a rate that U.S. horsemen and racetracks contend is far too low to generate revenue that would replace the cannibalization of parimutuel handle that would be expected to occur in the advent of exchange wagering.

Under the model, the U.S. racing industry would retain two-thirds of the commission, and Betfair would retain one-third, Burn said.

"For every dollar we earn, the sport should earn two dollars," Burn said.

The 2011 symposium was the third in a row in which Betfair officials encouraged the U.S. racing industry to strike agreements that would allow the company to operate in the United States. So far, two states, California and New Jersey, have authorized exchange wagering - in part because of aggressive lobbying by Betfair. But the launch of betting exchanges in both states is predicated on the operator reaching agreements with racetracks and horsemen, a prospect that has so far proved elusive for Betfair because of the concerns over the impact of its business model on the industry's revenue streams, which are eroding under a 25-percent decline in handle over the past three years.

Betfair, which bought the account-wagering company TVG in 2009, is focusing its efforts on reaching a deal with tracks and horsemen in California because the state is the largest parimutuel market in the United States. But it's still far from unclear when or if the company will be able to strike a deal in the state, as horsemen and tracks have yet to provide any public support for Betfair's entry. In any case, the legislation passed late in 2010 would not allow exchange wagering until May 2012, at the earliest.

Betfair's strategy to change its business model for the United States will also likely complicate its already contentious relationships with the racing industries in foreign countries. Many overseas racetracks have complained that the company's commission to racing in those countries - 10 percent of gross profits on horse race wagers - is far too low, and at the end of the panel, a representative of British racetracks asked Burn to explain why the business model offered to the U.S. racing industry was so much more generous than the one offered to tracks in his country.

Burn, who is British, countered that he did not believe that the models differed to a great degree, citing fees the company paid to the British racing industry in addition to the commission. But the exchange between the two officials clearly illustrated that Betfair's model will continue to face pressures on both sides of the Atlantic.

Burn also stuck to his guns on the benefits that betting exchanges would offer to the U.S. racing industry, citing the younger demographics of the typical Betfair customer when compared with a typical racing fan. And he also said that if racing is going to survive, the industry will need to adopt innovations to keep pace with the evolving tastes of the gambling public.

The U.S. racing industry, Burn said, needs to partner with Betfair instead of "pretending we're some 19th-century doctor in Europe, where we cut our patients, bleed them, and apply a bunch of leeches, and when that doesn't work, cut them and bleed them some more. When the patient is dying, you need to do something other than cutting and bleeding them."

No Jack it isn't....if you're USING ballistics ,it's an advert for ballistics................perfect simile!

Rob starange why bookies dont want betfair in sa wonder why they so scared of competition? Normally thats because product not too strong lol