Seabiscuit
30-06-2003, 22:00
This from www.aapracingandsports.com.au It seems NZers have given up on their own racing to follow Australian racing. Something most Australians gave up on 20 years ago.
Mixed horse race betting messages in New Zealand
Story by Steve McGhee
Monday, 30 June 2003: The image of New Zealand racing keeps getting harder to fathom and why in recent weeks has some seriously inane information consistently appeared?
Turnovers are up and things are starting to look up for racing is TAB speak for achieving a yearly target.
Paid for space, advertising and product plugs might tell you wagering spin but regarding New Zealand racemeetings and New Zealand clubs, this is just not true.
Punters are backing the better product, which just happens to be Australian racing and their very strict stewards, who enforce zero tolerance for cheating, drugs and bad horsemanship.
I read an article last week that amazingly plugged on course betting is up in New Zealand and therefore things are starting to look rosy!
The few that still attend can actually bet on other meetings and that includes Australian racing, so with a race every 10-15 minutes, I would hope on course turnover is up, by whatever minor amount.
The strange facts and figures bandied about make New Zealand racing seem like an attractive investment right now, a real riser in the market share and an industry of growth!
The TAB loves this exposure of goal achieving and constant percentage bet and product plugging, by various media sources.
The New Zealand TAB is always the winner and will continue to be, as long as they can fit more offshore racing, into peak viewing and betting periods.
I have always wondered why the TAB does not take over everything, such as formguides and specialist weekly newspapers, so they can get all of the message and information out there.
They could probably put out a cheaper product to buy and sell it through outlets already in place and via a distribution network, also already in place.
I think it would have been done large scale by now except the future may prevent spending a huge amount, on an almost certain money-muncher.
The reason is the Internet and rapid access to information, databases and a never closing betting shop window.
Horse racing in New Zealand and specifically the betting on it, is now a non-attendance sport.
The ranks of novelty are upon us, as evidenced by the delight on network television to show a one-horse non-tote race.
Unless it is an absolute tragedy, an absolute farce or unprecedented scandal, the networks are not interested here at all.
Which brings me for the second week running, when once again I am in disbelief about what is being reported for the masses, regarding the harness tipping story.
The “squaregait-gate” saga, as I am now going to call it, for easier reference in the rest of this article, is still to have the actual hearing.
Incredibly some bizarre excuses or reasons why it took place are already being thrown out there, along with some stunning assumptions.
The hearing has yet to be heard but already blame is being diluted and key players in the saga quoted but not always identified.
The head of HRNZ is getting either a preview of what claims will be argued or pleaded at the hearing or else will be given enough reason, by the time the hearing comes around, to hand out a very low scale penalty.
The chief inspector of New Zealand thoroughbred racing is quoted as saying in the NZ Herald article 28/6/03 “But I have no reason to believe it is a big problem.”
This is a final response about tipping for money in thoroughbred circles and almost seems lax in an industry, which punters want constant monitoring and strong stewardship done on their behalf.
This weekend in Sydney they raided all arriving horse floats at Rosehill racecourse, directly as a result of the John McNair incident, showing when something unsavoury occurs, the reaction is broad reaching and swift.
A thoroughbred investigation or major raid will not take place in New Zealand unless information is provided that warrants such an action and that comes from the top man.
Does this mean New Zealand thoroughbred racing inspectors act only on tips or information they receive?
Punters have every right to ask whatever happened to officialdom actually weeding out the rorters and cheaters, through their own inquiries and follow-ups.
The element of surprise, is such a powerful tool for racing inspectors.
The punters deserve protection from paid officialdom, which is not just re-active but at times pro-active.
Harness and thoroughbred racing both have that all encompassing rule about actions deemed detrimental to the good of racing.
This is the rule that at times can come down on parties found guilty, like a stable of bricks or on other occasions end up simply, as just a slap from dust sheet.
The unnamed punter in the “squaregait-gate” hearing has come out defending himself, the two reinsmen he paid by putting money in their TAB phone accounts and screaming he lost a fortune over a long period of time.
The fact punting nearly sent him broke “he says that alone should be proof enough that the industry is clear of race-fixing.”
I never knew you had to win on the punt to be found guilty and that losing, automatically eliminated other more sinister areas of investigation.
It gets better as the unnamed businessman punter says he has lost most of his savings in the last nine years, even though the “squaregait-gate” hearing is about a period of less than a year.
Losses on galloping tips he did not pay for have no bearing on his win/loss harness column for the period looked into and anything he lost beyond the first TAB phone account payment piece of proof, is worthless.
Betting turnover records highlight one key figure and that is the amount spent versus amount won.
A rather healthy single win can of course lead to a tremendous amount of turnover thereafter and then the losing argument is severely weakened.
If you win big and then lose bigger, that should not concern or affect the judgement of the hearing panel.
The assumption that doing something against the rules cannot be that bad, if you lose on the deal, is a very strange defensive angle.
There is a risk in gambling and high turnover can quickly remove those nice wins and turn them into heavy losses.
“If Peter and Todd knew what they were doing was wrong they wouldn’t have let me give them money through a TAB phone account, would they?”
This is a plea to go easy on the drivers by the man that put money into their TAB phone accounts.
Do people readily give out their TAB phone account numbers these days?
What are these accounts betting on, if at all and when, did they get opened up and by whom?
A thorough investigation should already have most of these things covered and the outcome is eagerly awaited.
HRNZ boss Edward Renell has a hearing that will set precedent or end up yesterday’s story before the new racing season kicks off.
There have only been defensive reports so far on this up coming hearing, which read like preparation for a very minor penalty coming up.
Remove the trimmings and you have actions that are against rules put in place, to stop this sort of thing happening.
The image of harness racing was dumped on the moment the story broke, because of a couple of undisputed facts, so now it is a case of how much more damage has been done.
The two undisputed facts, which should totally eliminate the hopes of those seeking a soft penalty, are:
1) Two drivers and not one, are charged over the same payer.
2) The phone account knowledge of the punter.
No one is going to put money into another persons TAB phone account when they lose, so the fact there is an amount traced, confirms winners were struck.
The perception of two drivers for the same source is like mud that will never go away.
“Fergy and Todd never asked me for money.”
This is one of those quotes, which gets the head shaking in disbelief, if you think about it rationally.
If they never asked for money then how and why did he get their TAB phone account numbers and what the hell else do you put into an account?
I am 99.9 per cent certain you can only put money into a TAB phone account, no make that 100 per cent.
Hopefully some arguments and quotes that favour the attacking team, if there is one, are forthcoming because you would think, after one week that nothing seriously wrong was done!
The New Zealand thoroughbred officialdom are not concerned at the moment, which is disturbing, as I am sure many punters felt they were getting better looked after.
If two jockeys, who regularly ride in the same race, were found to be getting payments into TAB phone accounts from a known high turnover bettor, I would hope at least, some subtle inquiries were made.
The two reinsmen and the now heavily quoted but still unknown punter by picture or name, have certainly had a good say on not believing they had done anything wrong.
The boss of HRNZ charged the two drivers, so would look rather lame, should the pair walk without a penalty.
Weeks out from the hearing and the level of penalty severity is already getting softened, through assumptions and sympathetic claims, which make for reading of disbelief.
The charge of actions detrimental to racing is the crunch one because harsh penalties that ensure you or others, never do it ever again, can arise through the application of this rule.
An argument to soften the already heavily helped case would be that the damage to the image of the sport had already been done, once the announcement of charges came out in the open.
Only two things could do even more damage to the perception of the industry and that is if the thing was kept hidden, which is now defunct, with the story out there.
The other thing has yet to happen because until the hearing is finished and the outcome of the two drivers is decided, the investigation process is unable to be thoroughly inspected.
An investigation that dismissed some sinister possibilities very early on, needs to show it was comprehensive enough to do so.
Punter confidence I believe hinges on the depth of this investigation because scratching the surface is no longer acceptable.
Maybe those softening stories will get the desired result, with the outcome rather unspectacular but then the onus falls on the investigation.
I have a good list of questions already to put to the boss of HRNZ, once of course the hearing and due process is over.
It does not seem right to have the hearing held in print weeks before it officially takes place!
The list concerns the investigation and what was looked into, because it is safe to assume something of a similar nature, will come to light another day and warrant addressing.
Perception of a clean and competently controlled industry is what racing officialdom strives for and this upcoming hearing presents an opportunity to demonstrate the workings of the system.
ends...
Mixed horse race betting messages in New Zealand
Story by Steve McGhee
Monday, 30 June 2003: The image of New Zealand racing keeps getting harder to fathom and why in recent weeks has some seriously inane information consistently appeared?
Turnovers are up and things are starting to look up for racing is TAB speak for achieving a yearly target.
Paid for space, advertising and product plugs might tell you wagering spin but regarding New Zealand racemeetings and New Zealand clubs, this is just not true.
Punters are backing the better product, which just happens to be Australian racing and their very strict stewards, who enforce zero tolerance for cheating, drugs and bad horsemanship.
I read an article last week that amazingly plugged on course betting is up in New Zealand and therefore things are starting to look rosy!
The few that still attend can actually bet on other meetings and that includes Australian racing, so with a race every 10-15 minutes, I would hope on course turnover is up, by whatever minor amount.
The strange facts and figures bandied about make New Zealand racing seem like an attractive investment right now, a real riser in the market share and an industry of growth!
The TAB loves this exposure of goal achieving and constant percentage bet and product plugging, by various media sources.
The New Zealand TAB is always the winner and will continue to be, as long as they can fit more offshore racing, into peak viewing and betting periods.
I have always wondered why the TAB does not take over everything, such as formguides and specialist weekly newspapers, so they can get all of the message and information out there.
They could probably put out a cheaper product to buy and sell it through outlets already in place and via a distribution network, also already in place.
I think it would have been done large scale by now except the future may prevent spending a huge amount, on an almost certain money-muncher.
The reason is the Internet and rapid access to information, databases and a never closing betting shop window.
Horse racing in New Zealand and specifically the betting on it, is now a non-attendance sport.
The ranks of novelty are upon us, as evidenced by the delight on network television to show a one-horse non-tote race.
Unless it is an absolute tragedy, an absolute farce or unprecedented scandal, the networks are not interested here at all.
Which brings me for the second week running, when once again I am in disbelief about what is being reported for the masses, regarding the harness tipping story.
The “squaregait-gate” saga, as I am now going to call it, for easier reference in the rest of this article, is still to have the actual hearing.
Incredibly some bizarre excuses or reasons why it took place are already being thrown out there, along with some stunning assumptions.
The hearing has yet to be heard but already blame is being diluted and key players in the saga quoted but not always identified.
The head of HRNZ is getting either a preview of what claims will be argued or pleaded at the hearing or else will be given enough reason, by the time the hearing comes around, to hand out a very low scale penalty.
The chief inspector of New Zealand thoroughbred racing is quoted as saying in the NZ Herald article 28/6/03 “But I have no reason to believe it is a big problem.”
This is a final response about tipping for money in thoroughbred circles and almost seems lax in an industry, which punters want constant monitoring and strong stewardship done on their behalf.
This weekend in Sydney they raided all arriving horse floats at Rosehill racecourse, directly as a result of the John McNair incident, showing when something unsavoury occurs, the reaction is broad reaching and swift.
A thoroughbred investigation or major raid will not take place in New Zealand unless information is provided that warrants such an action and that comes from the top man.
Does this mean New Zealand thoroughbred racing inspectors act only on tips or information they receive?
Punters have every right to ask whatever happened to officialdom actually weeding out the rorters and cheaters, through their own inquiries and follow-ups.
The element of surprise, is such a powerful tool for racing inspectors.
The punters deserve protection from paid officialdom, which is not just re-active but at times pro-active.
Harness and thoroughbred racing both have that all encompassing rule about actions deemed detrimental to the good of racing.
This is the rule that at times can come down on parties found guilty, like a stable of bricks or on other occasions end up simply, as just a slap from dust sheet.
The unnamed punter in the “squaregait-gate” hearing has come out defending himself, the two reinsmen he paid by putting money in their TAB phone accounts and screaming he lost a fortune over a long period of time.
The fact punting nearly sent him broke “he says that alone should be proof enough that the industry is clear of race-fixing.”
I never knew you had to win on the punt to be found guilty and that losing, automatically eliminated other more sinister areas of investigation.
It gets better as the unnamed businessman punter says he has lost most of his savings in the last nine years, even though the “squaregait-gate” hearing is about a period of less than a year.
Losses on galloping tips he did not pay for have no bearing on his win/loss harness column for the period looked into and anything he lost beyond the first TAB phone account payment piece of proof, is worthless.
Betting turnover records highlight one key figure and that is the amount spent versus amount won.
A rather healthy single win can of course lead to a tremendous amount of turnover thereafter and then the losing argument is severely weakened.
If you win big and then lose bigger, that should not concern or affect the judgement of the hearing panel.
The assumption that doing something against the rules cannot be that bad, if you lose on the deal, is a very strange defensive angle.
There is a risk in gambling and high turnover can quickly remove those nice wins and turn them into heavy losses.
“If Peter and Todd knew what they were doing was wrong they wouldn’t have let me give them money through a TAB phone account, would they?”
This is a plea to go easy on the drivers by the man that put money into their TAB phone accounts.
Do people readily give out their TAB phone account numbers these days?
What are these accounts betting on, if at all and when, did they get opened up and by whom?
A thorough investigation should already have most of these things covered and the outcome is eagerly awaited.
HRNZ boss Edward Renell has a hearing that will set precedent or end up yesterday’s story before the new racing season kicks off.
There have only been defensive reports so far on this up coming hearing, which read like preparation for a very minor penalty coming up.
Remove the trimmings and you have actions that are against rules put in place, to stop this sort of thing happening.
The image of harness racing was dumped on the moment the story broke, because of a couple of undisputed facts, so now it is a case of how much more damage has been done.
The two undisputed facts, which should totally eliminate the hopes of those seeking a soft penalty, are:
1) Two drivers and not one, are charged over the same payer.
2) The phone account knowledge of the punter.
No one is going to put money into another persons TAB phone account when they lose, so the fact there is an amount traced, confirms winners were struck.
The perception of two drivers for the same source is like mud that will never go away.
“Fergy and Todd never asked me for money.”
This is one of those quotes, which gets the head shaking in disbelief, if you think about it rationally.
If they never asked for money then how and why did he get their TAB phone account numbers and what the hell else do you put into an account?
I am 99.9 per cent certain you can only put money into a TAB phone account, no make that 100 per cent.
Hopefully some arguments and quotes that favour the attacking team, if there is one, are forthcoming because you would think, after one week that nothing seriously wrong was done!
The New Zealand thoroughbred officialdom are not concerned at the moment, which is disturbing, as I am sure many punters felt they were getting better looked after.
If two jockeys, who regularly ride in the same race, were found to be getting payments into TAB phone accounts from a known high turnover bettor, I would hope at least, some subtle inquiries were made.
The two reinsmen and the now heavily quoted but still unknown punter by picture or name, have certainly had a good say on not believing they had done anything wrong.
The boss of HRNZ charged the two drivers, so would look rather lame, should the pair walk without a penalty.
Weeks out from the hearing and the level of penalty severity is already getting softened, through assumptions and sympathetic claims, which make for reading of disbelief.
The charge of actions detrimental to racing is the crunch one because harsh penalties that ensure you or others, never do it ever again, can arise through the application of this rule.
An argument to soften the already heavily helped case would be that the damage to the image of the sport had already been done, once the announcement of charges came out in the open.
Only two things could do even more damage to the perception of the industry and that is if the thing was kept hidden, which is now defunct, with the story out there.
The other thing has yet to happen because until the hearing is finished and the outcome of the two drivers is decided, the investigation process is unable to be thoroughly inspected.
An investigation that dismissed some sinister possibilities very early on, needs to show it was comprehensive enough to do so.
Punter confidence I believe hinges on the depth of this investigation because scratching the surface is no longer acceptable.
Maybe those softening stories will get the desired result, with the outcome rather unspectacular but then the onus falls on the investigation.
I have a good list of questions already to put to the boss of HRNZ, once of course the hearing and due process is over.
It does not seem right to have the hearing held in print weeks before it officially takes place!
The list concerns the investigation and what was looked into, because it is safe to assume something of a similar nature, will come to light another day and warrant addressing.
Perception of a clean and competently controlled industry is what racing officialdom strives for and this upcoming hearing presents an opportunity to demonstrate the workings of the system.
ends...