Interesting

[xptdriver]

That Vengo the horse that was laid for 70 k on Betfair a couple of weeks ago on a Saturday Metro Meeting, in a R1MW and could not win, Could not win a class 6 at Ballarat today.. Actually it's best win is in a Class 3 at Geelong.. on 19/10

Racing Victoria Stewards cried ........launched an inquiry.. because the horse did not win and was laid on betfair.. maybe the stewards should have done their form properly.. instead of blindly following the tote and bookie prices...

I have to say that Racing Victoria Stewards now look a lot like the boy who cried wolf.. and should just pull their heads in, in full knowledge that Vengo just isnt that good.

Time for racing Victoria Stewards to apologise publicly ......... ......I too laid that horse, and am waiting an apology... I wont hold my breath

[Stix]

That Vengo the horse that was laid for 70 k on Betfair a couple of weeks ago on a Saturday Metro Meeting, in a R1MW and could not win, Could not win a class 6 at Ballarat today.. Actually it's best win is in a Class 3 at Geelong.. on 19/10

Racing Victoria Stewards .....launched an inquiry.. because the horse did not win and was laid on betfair.. maybe the stewards should have done their form properly.. instead of blindly following the tote and bookie prices...

I have to say that Racing Victoria Stewards now look a lot like the boy who cried wolf.. and should just pull their heads in, in full knowledge that Vengo just isnt that good.

Time for racing Victoria Stewards to apologise publicly ....... as I too laid that horse, and am waiting an apology... I wont hold my breathX

They just tried to prove their Betfair point of view............ that is the bottom line... and anyone that follows the races can see that (before and after today.....)

[Neil]

Here are some price assessments from our Premium Betting Package (http://www.propun.com.au/racing_services.html) for Saturday 12th. November.

Testafiable - SP $2.15 and unplaced. Our price assessment - $4.80
Purple Dane - SP $2.20. Finished third. Our price assessment - $5.00
Chatoyant - SP $2.60 and unplaced. Our price assessment - $8.00

Would an enquiry be launched if a big punting member decided to lay Chatoyant at $2.80 based on our assessment that it was an $8.00 chance!

[xptdriver]

Neil

I am aware that this is your site and you, in my opinion worry far too much about what is written on your forum.. People may threaten legal action, it is another thing to proceed with the action and another matter again to actually be successful in that action...

You have edited part of my post.. I did not bag any idividual at all... I bagged racing Victoria and their Stewards, which as the public face of Racing in the state of Victoria are fair game.. I said the stewards cried foul.. that is what they did.. fact.. why the hell would you edit the word foul.. ( i did not mention any steward in particular) that has been proven by the performance of the Horse in question today.. I also said that they shamefully (that is my opinion to which I am entitled) asserted that the people laying the horse was somehow wrong... sinister if you like.. their argument has always been about the integrity of racing, when we all know that is an obvious lie... that is pedalled by the establishment of racing around this country.

I feel it is quite inapproprate on your part, to provide a forum that discusses racing topics, then edit posts that discuss what is possibly the hottest topic in racing today... posts that do not defame anyone.. because you fear that racing Vic and its band of pork pie hat wearers make take action... nonsense.

I play by the rules on your forum as you well know
I beleive my post falls within those rules, and would not raise an eyebrow, if published in any other media

Racing Victoria and it's Stewards are subject to criticism, it is part and parcel of the game.. If you don't feel that is appropraite for your website, to post cristicism of these bodies, that is your perogative and I have no control over that but I feel you are,letting your subscribers down badly


I will post a similar editorial on my website, in full knowledge that I will not be called to answer, because what I am writing is considered opinion, that does not defame anyone

[crash]

I agree with your sentiments XPT and if this were a 'public' forum in the true meaning of the word, those sentiments and your argument would have legs.
However, any intelligent member here who has been around the racing game for awhile and has gained a fair insight into how the industry operates [and you seem to meet all three criteria], should also know this is a commercial forum with commercial interests to protect. Altruism in the racing industry, unless it is self-serving, is just as rare in this industry as in any other, which includes the operation and maintenance of a 'public' Racing Forum.

These forums can be found for any number of other industries, to cater for and profit from, enthusiast groups from Computer gaming to Pop culture and I for one, have no problem with that and am a member of several covering various interests. This site and other similar clones like it all over the world, are first and foremost a strictly commercial venture endeavoring to protect it's commercial interests on the one hand and also juggle member 'forum' perceptions on the other to remain viable [not easy]. In this case those interests rely on maintaining the status quo as far as the present Racing Industry make-up is concerned, which naturally excludes Betfair for obvious reasons, even to blind Freddy.

I think even though you have the moral high ground here [which I and probably management too, sympathize with], you are being very naive. The vested interests here, naturally do not support Betfair because it's commercial connections and advertisers have a lot to lose with it's introduction. I think you are trying to put management between a rock and a hard place and you should realize that is a silly exercise that can only lead to one predictable result [odds-on], failure.

All the best, Crash

PS. I will not be in the the least surprised [nor particularly offended], to find this whole thread removed at some time today:-)

[gazman]

i agree with both x and you crash and while neil has this forum as a byproduct of his main reason for having this site,i see that he let xpt's last post pass through. i think you might find as neil cant be there and veiw every thing that is posted he has a set guide lines that he pays people to monitor and when things come to his attention,such as a hot topic like this one he is just watching his ****....but as you say X its a lot cheaper to talk about legal action than it is to go ahead with it...but this is meant to be a free speach land we live in but i'm starting to wonder these days..........cheers.gazman....
ps.i really think those bowler hat boys could do with a gay makeover

[Imagele]

It seems that 8 out of 10 legislative councillors in the Tasmanian parliament have supported the proposal to grant a licence to Betfair.
The bill is set to be passed when it is returned to the lower house today.
Sport 927 will be discussing this subject early to today with parliamentarian Michael Aird.

[darkydog2002]

Have you seen the rubbish written in the nsw Daily Telegraph.?

cheers.
darky

[Imagele]

Have you seen the rubbish written in the nsw Daily Telegraph.?

cheers.
darky
Haven't read that article but apparently one of the arguments put up yesterday against Betfair was that a vet might get a low blood count from a horse the night before a race and not tell the trainer.
He would then lay the horse to lose on Betfair.
No wonder they lost their argument.

[xptdriver]

(snipped)

I think even though you have the moral high ground here [which I and probably management too, sympathize with], you are being very naive. The vested interests here, naturally do not support Betfair because it's commercial connections and advertisers have a lot to lose with it's introduction. I think you are trying to put management between a rock and a hard place and you should realize that is a silly exercise that can only lead to one predictable result [odds-on], failure.

All the best, Crash

PS. I will not be in the the least surprised [nor particularly offended], to find this whole thread removed at some time today:-)

Gday Crash..

I did not even look at the issue from where you are coming from, and probably more fool me... I have read and read topics on this forum, and Neil in particular has always been for finding best odds etc... and looking after the punter.. His post on this thread says to me that he agrees with what I have written.. again that is my interpretation

Having said that.. this topic of Vengo was red hot on the 13 th November, stoked by the officialdom of Racing Victoria, where they cast aspersions on what happened in the race.. and on the people who laid the horse.. I am entitled to take umberance at what they alluded to becaue I layed the horse, and what I did had nothing to do with racing's integrity.. but they painted all layers on betfair with the one brush..

Other forums, and you know about those, were rather scathing one way or the other, of both betfair and Racing Vic, and I think the trainer may have come in for a spray for buying in to the betfair argument. This forum really needs to offer more robust argument on issues that matter, without editing..

Otherwise it does not achieve it's real purpose, which is to provide an avenue for punters, owners and other in the industry, to express their views etc. It is also here to make people aware of the the very good products Neil and his company provide..

All should already be aware, that I am a betfair fan... I like the idea of a 5% takeout, it is easier to beat than a 20% take out... But my post was not a pro betair post... rather it was a post pointing out how the people running racing Vic appear to have jumped the gun and implied things that obviously were unresearched, becaue they are blinkered by their hatred of competition, competition that will destroy, what should be an illegal monopoly inder Australian Competition Rules... Based on the result of the Cl6 at Ballarat yesterday I am claiming a victory for fairness in an argument.... Vengo appears to be overrated at this stage. It had won a class 3 at Geelong as its best win and surprise surprise cannot make the class jump to R1MW Saturday Company.. Talking of Blind Freddy, can't the stipes see that horse was racing well out of it's class, it was also out of it's class yesterday.. I wonder if they will call the connections in to explain why this horse has been beaten twice, in it's last 2 starts as favourite? Or will they blame betfair for laying the horse again ( I did ) ..

My post is about fairness in arguments, and not allowing the establishment to tell porkies to suit their own ends... It is happening all too often today, the natinal government excels at it, and when people pull them up you are branded unaustralian..

Call me an altrusit, an egalitarian or just plain naive, but I wont resort to lies to win an argument, as others appear more than willing to do

If this thread is pulled down so be it.... I cant control that, but if it is, it is a victory for people who don't like the small bloke having his say, ... and THAT I am afraid is UnAustralian

[Neil]

XPTdriver,

On my understanding I believe there was a world of difference between what the stewards said and what the media reported. I am not aware that the stewards said something illegal or corrupt had occurred. That would be putting the cart before the horse.

They wanted to investigate the betting activity in order to see IF anything untoward had occurred.

Crash, you are completely wrong in your assertions. We have always been supportive of betting exchanges. See http://www.propun.com.au/archived_advice/betting_advice190304.html

I also suggest you check out the latest Smartgambler newsletter's editorial comment about betting exchanges.

Cheers, Neil

[xptdriver]

XPTdriver,

On my understanding I believe there was a world of difference between what the stewards said and what the media reported. I am not aware that the stewards said something illegal or corrupt had occurred. That would be putting the cart before the horse.

They wanted to investigate the betting activity in order to see IF anything untoward had occurred.

Crash, you are completely wrong in your assertions. We have always been supportive of betting exchanges. See http://www.propun.com.au/archived_advice/betting_advice190304.html

I also suggest you check out the latest Smartgambler newsletter's editorial comment about betting exchanges.

Cheers, Neil


Gday Neil

they did not have to say it in as many words... the implication was very clear that something untoward had gone on.. and because It was betfair weare going in hard, because betfair has integrity questions... as I have just written in an earlier post, this horse has started fav last 2 starts and been beaten... out of it class mind you.. will they hold an investigation into why it has been an unplaced fav last 2 starts?

If they do and it is open and fair, then the argument changes.. but I dont know that they will

Are all the people who didnt back this horse on the totes around Australia under suspicion of lack of integrity, I dont think so.... But a stack of people won on that race on Totes, but there is no investigation there.

[Imagele]

One of the more galling thing for punters in the Vengo affair was that quadrella punters were transferred onto this horse as the sub at Ballarat yesterday.
It would have been even more galling for those punters that did not include him in the first place.
But for 10 cents the sub would have been the winner Captious.

[crash]

i agree with both x and you crash and while neil has this forum as a byproduct of his main reason for having this site, .......[and]
...but this is meant to be a free speech land we live in but i'm starting to wonder these days..........cheers.gazman....

The 'byproduct' IS the reason for having this site not viz-a-viz and I have watched that 'byproduct' grow since early days on this forum. Byproduct then was skinny and Neil has done a good job while other sites withered and died [or are doing so]. Good luck to him I say. My point to XPT was no more than a gentle dose of business reality about forum content. Not personal criticism. My opinion on the Betfair issue I never mentioned and for the record. I'm all for it, but avoid conspiracy theories about stewards or anything else.

Yes, agreed Gazza, Oz for the moment has free speech [sedition laws will put a stop to all that], this Forum is not the 'land we live in' [well maybe some punters here do:-) ] but a commercial enterprise with it's own rules we agree to when we become members. Just like most other successful sites on anything.
Those rules can be 'stretched' now and then if it's interesting reading and attracts viewers [good for business]. I have had my outs with management and some of my mutterings have frequently bordered on the edge of earning non-membership, but I make sure I never conflict with the commercial interests here ...other people's bread and butter.

Regards.

Gees, about 4 post went in there while I was writing this . So a quick edit.

Neil, Re: your position on Betfair I stand corrected. My other comments about commercial viability and looking after business interests [their views on betfair may differ] though still stand, or we are all naive and spending too much time at the bottom of the garden with fairies.

[slowman]

hey crash=re viz--viz im pretty sure he said this forum is a byproduct of this site.
cheers.....gazman....

[crash]

hey crash=re viz--viz im pretty sure i said this forum is a byproduct of this site.
cheers.....gazman....

That statement makes absolutely no sense Slowman. This 'site' IS the forum. How can it be a product of itself ?????

You haven't been hitting the turps this early have you:-)

[Neil]

Neil, Re: your position on Betfair I stand corrected. My other comments about commercial viability and looking after business interests though still stand [nothin wrong with doing that], or we are all naive and spending too much time at the bottom of the garden with fairies.Thanks Crash.

We look after business interests, like our advertisers. I don't think that is a secret. All businesses do. It's also in the Forum Terms of Use. Unfortunately quite a few people don't read the Terms of Use though they acknowledge and accept them before they are able to register as a forum member.

If we want someone to continue advertising with us and paying for that, we can hardly permit others to come onto our forum denigrating the product or promoting their products for free while someone else is paying for the privilege. If there are concerns about any promotion then Management should be contacted via e-mail.

Neil.

[crash]

Long as they are not Porn adverts. [my wife reads here too] or adverts harboring spyware, key-loggers and other nasties Neil, I have no problems with anything commercial you put up here:-)

[Chrome Prince]

Getting back to Vengo anyway, the media did hype it up as a Betfair issue, I can't recall the stewards actually mentioning Betfair.

This part extract from the steward's report for the day:

"N. Ryan, rider of Vengo which performed poorly, explained that whilst travelling well in the early and middle stages, when asked to improve after straightening Vengo did not respond as he would have expected and weakened badly over the concluding stages. N. Ryan added that in his view, something may be amiss with it. A veterinary examination of Vengo revealed no abnormalities. Mr Michael Freedman, who was representing Mr Lee Freedman, trainer of Vengo, stated that they believed Vengo was their best chance of success today as Vengo had worked well leading into today’s race, and they were extremely disappointed with the horse’s performance today. Mr Freedman added the horse may be better suited to being ridden more quietly in early stages. Mr Freedman also added that he would inform the Stewards should anything come to light in the ensuing days that could account for Vengo’s performance today."

They did say later that there were ongoing investigations, but I've heard nothing since.

In all of this, what the media do not realise, is that there's more than one way to lay a horse. You do not need Betfair if you KNOW a horse won't win.
Betfair is the easiest way to lay a horse, but there are plenty of other ways, which I won't go into here.

Suffice to say, I lay horses often and do not use Betfair, nor any other 'lay' service.

[La Mer]

Thanks Crash. We look after business interests, like our advertisers. I don't think that is a secret. All businesses do. It's also in the Forum Terms of Use. Unfortunately quite a few people don't read the Terms of Use though they acknowledge and accept them before they are able to register as a forum member. Neil.

I either belong to or monitor a number of different forums - many, I suppose, would do likewise.

While there are times when I think management are a little over cautious in their approach in deleting themes, I also well understand the reasons.

Currently there is a dispute going on with another forum, one that involves a prominent member of this forum and actually involves this forum itself re the removal of one particular theme.

It has now got to the stage that the warring parties are now threatening legal action against one another (one the parties runs a commercial website), so while I may disagree with management re their cautious approach, when things of this nature occur, it brings home the point of why management take the stance they do, and in that regard I support their actions on that basis.

[Stix]

Currently there is a dispute going on with another forum, one that involves a prominent member of this forum and actually involves this forum itself re the removal of one particular theme.

Dun-da-dun-da........ Dun-da-dun-da-Daaaaa

Dun-da-dun-da........ Dun-da-dun-da-Daaaaa (Suppose to be suspisous "Who dunnit music" !! :D)

Or a bit of Men At Work's......

"Who could it be, now?....(saxaphone part do-do-do-do-dooo-do-oo).......
"Who could it be, now?....(do-do-do-do-dooo-do-oo).......
"Who could it be, now?....(do-do-do-do-dooo-do-oo).......
"Who could it beeeeeee, nooooowwwwwwww?....

[Chrome Prince]

There is no need to refer to what's happenening on another forum here.

[La Mer]

There is no need to refer to what's happenening on another forum here.

Why not when it involves something that originally occurred on this forum?

Don't be so coy Lindsay/Racestats/Chrome Prince - is it because you are one of the parties involved?

You can run but you can't hide.

[Chrome Prince]

La Mer,

Grow up please.

There is no need to stir trouble on this forum.

What is going on another forum is totally irrelevant to this forum now, and particularly this thread.

You're trying to stir more trouble.

Please leave it alone.

Everyone knows my usernames both here and on the other forum, so you really aren't being smart, just childish.

Ozmium has dealt with any previous issues, and I'm sure does not want it all reignited here.

[La Mer]

La Mer, Grow up please. There is no need to stir trouble on this forum. What is going on another forum is totally irrelevant to this forum now, and particularly this thread.
Lindsay, I'm not attempting to stir up trouble. My original response in this theme was to support management, and in doing so I made mention of what can happen sometimes - a mention that did not include any details other than that it referred to something that had occurred on this forum.

It is you than needs to grow-up. Firstly, you attempted to close down the debate on that other forum - well, bad news for you Lindsay, it is still raging as of a few minutes ago.

Then you attempt to close down the debate on this particular theme/forum.

Now, I don't know and don't really care, other than from being a curious observer, who is right, wrong or if the truth lies in the middle somewhere, but you certainly are giving the impression that you have, at the least, a red face over what has occurred and your apparent refusal to at least take up the offer and discuss the issue with the other party away from the spotlight that a forum can be is somewhat bewildering (from a casual observer's point of view).

But if that's your decision, so be it, but unfortunately for you, it is something that you have to live with and the subsequent consequences of such an action.

If you want to stop the discussion on this issue, then the answer is in your hands, not mine.

[Chrome Prince]

You don't know what has transpired offlist La Mer.

Far from redfaced I can assure you.

I'll ask you one more time to stop causing trouble - politely.

[La Mer]

You don't know what has transpired offlist La Mer. Far from redfaced I can assure you. I'll ask you one more time to stop causing trouble - politely.

Lindsay, I'll repeat what has already been stated - it was not and is not my intention to cause trouble. Had that been the case then I would have worded my original message on this theme somewhat differently.