A recent posting, (although I couldn't find it) was about crooked stables in Australian racing. It went along the lines of the Waterhouse & Hawkes stables (in particular) are crooked because of the number of times the longer priced of their starters wins. Well did anybody catch the result of the Irish Derby yesterday?? The Aga Khan owned 2 runners, the winner at 4/1 & second at 4/7f. Must have been rigged, and A O'Brien had 6 of the 9 runners in the race. His outsider ran 3rd at 150/1. Obviously they had stitched up the trifecta before the race.
I will now remove my tongue from my cheek & restate that just because the shortest price runner of a stable does not finish the best does not mean that racing is cooked. Or maybe it is, all over the world.

And if you're wondering why I'm looking at overseas results...it's because thay bet each-way when there's an odds on favourite, and if you don't understand the mathematical advantage in that then you should not be betting.
:smile:

this post reminds of an age old problem.
back in i think 1966 bye bye a tommy smith runner won the doncaster (i think) and tommy had 5 runners in the race. bye bye was 80/1. there was a huge uproar and a demand that trainers horses be tote bracketed so that it wouldnt matter to the punter which one won.
nothing came of it of course. so this issue will always be with us so we could always bracket them ourselves.
(couldnt we)

I think a trainers runners are automatically bracketed in France (from memory) makes you wonder "WHY"? But in a way I'm glad that it could ( probably is) crooked as that means there is a way to win, you know like the old story of the out of true Roulette Wheel.

i'm a big fan of hawkes but he should have benn hauled in when freemason(after beating northerly and breaking a course record the previous start) didn't go foward in the queen elizabeth stakes allowing lonhro to cruise to an easy victory. that wasn't about betting or profit that was about horse of the year.