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_a...vice190304.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.

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.

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.

dont want to pick bones
 

hey crash=re viz--viz im pretty sure he 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:-)

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.

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:-)

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.

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.