Printable View
http://www.harnesslink.com/www/Article.cgi?ID=99096
Whats the go here? Where is VOR when you need him?
Jackson Painting fined for backing his drive??
when did they change the rules? used to be if you got questioned about a dodgy drive they wanted you show evidence that you had backed it
Hope this explain's the ruleI believe this rule has been there for a long time.
173. (1) A driver shall not bet in a race in which the driver participates.
(2) A driver engaged to drive at a meeting shall not enter the betting area of the racecourse during the period commencing 60 minutes before the time fixed for the first race and finishing at the completion of the driver’s engagements at the meeting.
(3) A driver who fails to comply with any provision of this rule is guilty of an offence.
G'day Greg,Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Hando
this rule always was,
173. (1) A driver shall not bet in a race in which the driver participates, unless the bet includes the horse for which the driver is engaged.
The rule was amended October 2005 to remove the "unless the bet includes the horse for which the driver is engaged."
That one slipped through my guard...and I'm unsure of the reasoning behind the amendment unless it was to copy the gallops..which,in my opinion would be a dumb move.
Cheers,
Dan
On face value Dan I think that it's a bit tough for any fella to get jammed for backing to win the horse he is driving and then duly winning on it...as to tell you the truth I'd much rather know a Driver had his hard earned down on his charge. If they have nothing to hide then ponying up the phone & betting records shouldn't be an issue at all.
Personally as a participant I couldn't give a bugger who looked at my betting account, save the abject embarressment that would come it being identified as continually suffering from malnutrition as a direct result so many losing ones having been placed.
Phone wise, again...who gives a bugger ? Mine are all pretty pedestrian. The last calls in and out I can see here were either to or from my brother, my wife, my daughter, Harvey, Jackie Gibson, Brett Coffey, my Dad, voicemail, Mark Denyer, my father-in-law, a bloke that I work with, our Farrier & finally another mate of mine. Boring bastard. I need to get something a bit more saucey on my phone records. A few calls to Dot's Museum of Jatz Crackers perhaps ? That should do it.:rolleyes:
For this race and the way it panned out I understand the point of view (except that it is a breach of the rules). The wording might have been changed to prevent lets say reckless driving - backed your drive, get crossed at the start knock down anyone in the way far enough from home to avoid a successful protest, win the race, take the fine or suspension, keep the rest of your cash. OR have someone try to hold you out for the lead, cross down anyway and take their legs, cause a real mess going into the first turn.
Just a thought.
Thanks for inviting me on this one Danno trouble it is not a simple fix for many reasons... try not to nod off to sleep.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno
A jockey can not bet end of the rule and simple so it would seem simple enough to follow the long and tested road and have the same rule in harness
Problem is a jockey can not train or own his horse either so a ban on drivers who either own or train their own horse is a complete joke.
As an outsider looking in I was never really able to see how this rule rule change got through with virtually no complaint, perhaps the fact it has not been enforced may explain that.
If I can now move onto the old rule it in a modern betting society can not work either with exotic betting I could be driving the $1.10 chance and not have him to win in any trifecta or first four bets. Now I can explain the bet or bets away by saying I thought I could win, I hoped I would win, but this was my form of saving so to speak I wanted to get more than just the second or third prize money if I was beaten, short of a substandard drive the stewards become powerless to act.
I do not know where the answer lies but if I was a trainer driver taking one to a Muswellbrook non Tab for no prize money and I had worked my tail off for months and knew this was the right race, even though my old mate "China"who would not bet evens the sun setting in the east, I would still be keen to be having something on it without breaking the rules.
It is agreed that most interest in Harness Racing is from its participants, its also agreed turnover is dropping, so effectively we have a rule saying if your " too interested" you can not bet. That should drive turnover, actually it will, drive it down
Haven't seen Greg around for a while, and your right he'd only give 6/4 on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thevoiceofreason
So VOR, you'd agree it was a "dumb move" ? I can definitley see why it is seen as appropriate in the gallops, but our game is so different, I mean we race horses against each other but thats where the similarity ends. I don't want to be telling anybody how to do their job, and I'm absolutely certain Reid Sanders has plenty on his plate at the moment, but I reckon somebody ought to work on reversing this ridiculous rule amendment.
Cheers,
Dan
I agree with VOR but the rule in the gallops has only turned every single jockey into a criminal in that code . I don't think there is a jockey on Earth that dosn't have someone put their bets on , even DB , God bless him . The same will be true with drivers . If you want to keep it above board don't force them "underground"
Hmmmmm. Perhaps a Driver putting his/her hard earned down on their charge should be incorporated in the ongoing jokes currently comprised of the pre race Change Of Tactics announcements & Gear Change notifications?
I can hear it now..."Harry's Boy, Rogue's Hood off, head check off, steel to aluminium shoes, hopples let out 4 holes, livened up with a stock whip, to be driven further forward, Bob Smith in the bike and Minty Man Number 1 from TAB Sportsbet reports that Bob's had a Gorilla on it at 7/2 fixed odds". :rolleyes:
Heartening to know that Rule 147 is still in the rule book, shame the stewards don't have the balls to throw it out there every now and then. It must be a harder charge to prove than the immaculate conception itself! Not that this rule applies one iota in this case.Quote:
Originally Posted by aussiebreno
Rule 173 is there for a reason, but in its current form is detrimental to the owner/driver who is doing nothing more than what the average Aussie does...has a punt on something that is close to their heart, in this case their own SB. In my eyes they are doing nothing wrong, in fact I am more likely to support the stable that punts on its own animals. They are just as bad a judge as the rest of us anyway, proven in this case by Paintings own records.
In regard to the charges 1 - 5, only one of those bets were successful and he drove all of them. Poor bugger has done his own hard earned and then copped a $400 fine for each of the charges. In this day and age, that is just dumb, unfair and borders on discriminatory. Just as an aside it is hard to compare the financial impost of these fines against the featherweight charges of improper use of the whip, or slow sectional fines issued when again you are only protecting your own interests by rating your horse to give it the best possible chance, but that doesn't belong in this thead.
In charge 6 it gets a little murkier with quaddie bets placed. All of us and I mean ALL of us have multiple selections in our quaddies, so in charge 5 for a total outlay of $25 he supports ALL of his drives, plus a couple of others. Big Deal, I don't think so, unless the stipes can prove any of his drives were substandard (as that appears to be the preferred terminology these days). Have not looked at these races, so will let that one go through to the keeper.
Charge 7, he supports his own horse plus a couple of others in the first leg and doesn't have drives in the other three legs, again if there is an issue with his own drive, I cannot see any great problem with his actions here. Its a $50 quaddie for which he has very little vested interest in. If there is a problem here it is the charge which states Painting only drove in one leg of the quaddie, he did in fact drive in two, one of which happened to be a $2 fav which broke at the start and ran a great race under the circumstances. Witch hunt material.
Charge 8 onwards and we start running into problems. He has NOT supported his own drive. He has in fact backed the winner into a successful running double, the second leg driven by himself. Surely this is what the rule is intended to outlaw. Supporting another horse in the race in which you are driving. This opens up a can of worms that can be interpreted by Joe Average as something untoward. The fact that he led but handed up to the horse he supported financially is a double edged sword. If I was on Jacksons horse, I would have handed up as well, to trail the best horse in the race and wait for a run to come. Aurora Bell was given every possible by Jackson, the horse itself was under pressure a long way from home under hard sustained driving and failed to improve its position. So under Rule 173 Jackson Painting is guilty as charged. He is also completely innocent of any wrong doing by way of inept, substandard driving or indeed not allowing a horse to run on its merits.
The rule needs re-jigging to suit todays standards of acceptable betting practices. With exotic forms of gambling in vogue, quaddies and trifectas need to be addressed so as not to villify an industry participant for JUST HAVING A BET in much the same way as others buy lottery tickets. The chances of cracking either are pretty difficult for most of us. But first the authority needs to look at what is acceptable betting within the industry. Completely acknowledge for a start that trainer/drivers can and do bet on their own animals and rework the rules to allow for that to occur, but find a way to stop supporting another runner(s) in the same race that they are driving in. But again with exotic betting forms the driver should be able (like most of us) have a couple of savers in his multiples if his horse does not perform. It is THEN up to the stewards to do their job and ensure that the drivers have given their own animal every possible chance.
Some of you may think this is in contrast to what I might normally say but in reality it is not. Just looking for fairness and consistency across the industry.:D
Enlighten us wagga circus...whats about to hit the fan this time?
I have missed the Wagga Circus posts and they all seem to be gone now so it seems the name he chose for himself to some degree was self proclaiming ... he must have been the clown.
Bill you may be able to answer these, why was Painting charged $400 per occasion he backed his own horse and Jones charged $500 when Jones did it less frequently?
Also 6 months disqualification seems awfully steep when you actually break down the bets. Sure the wrong thing has been done but looking at the bets it is blatantly obvious that Jackson was hardly trying to pull off the worlds greatest rort. His bets totaled next to nothing and only show us that he can't pick a winner. Why the harshness? Was there not a case in the last couple of years in Vic of a well known driver copping around 3 months suspension for a very similar act?
This just all seems way way out of proportion.
What I find puzzling here are posters on this forum and others, screaming out for honesty, integrity and transparency among all participents. Suddenly when stewards come down on some for flouting these rules, posters declare they were hard done by. Unbelievable! What and how much they were betting on, and whether their only crime was being a bad punter, in my opinion is totally irrelevant. These people know the rules. The same rules most of us abide by. It aint no hidden away in the back of the pantry rule. Either they were incredibly cunning and manipulative, or incredibly stupid.
Leigh I have no doubt what people want more than any of the things you have stated is consistency. And there is none. To say the level of bet is not the point is straight up ridiculous. There will always be different levels to which people break a rule. Your ridiculous statement will have a driver suspended for a slight inconvience for the same stretch as someone completely pulverizing another runner. That doesn't happen and nor should it. If Jackson had laid his runner on betfair for thousands than that is very different. He had a small bet on another runner amongst many losing bets. Hardly a cheat. Hardly a grub. Not the type of person I want to see rubbed out. I cannot fathom how a disqualification was come to as opposed to a suspension. Each to their own though....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gtrain
Gtrain
I have said earlier I do not like the spirit of the rule when a trainer can not back his horse to win or place so I admit to some bias there.
Not having heard the evidence makes it hard but my guess would be the stewards felt compelled to apply some leniency to Painting in regard to the monetary penalty as a recognition of time spent in the industry he has been around longer than Jones and as such probably deserves some discount for that.
I just hate the rule in its present structure and always have and I remain mystified how it ever got changed.
haha this is a good ideaQuote:
Originally Posted by Triple V
Yes Leigh, the rule IS crystal clear, black and white " a driver shall not bet in a race in which the driver participates." Acknowledged.
But surely the rule should read "a driver shall not back any other runner in the race in which the driver participates except his own.' Knowing your driver has financially supported the horse he is driving would give me with more confidence about that horses chances.
Surely the intention of the rule is minimise any corrupt conduct that may affect the outcome of a race but doesn't it unfairly penalise a trainer/driver by denying them the opportunity to support their horse, yet a trainer and owner can bet freely on a race, and just thinking about that, the trainer or owner can back whatever bloody horse they like in that race. It does not make sense to me.
So instead of driving (pardon the pun) the driver underground to bet secretly, the AHRC should make provision for the driver to support their horse and as you said, with transparency. Their betting transactions should be open to scrutiny to stewards etc and if they can prove they have only supported the horse that they have driven, I cannot see a problem. But the pitfall here is some will scream they don't trust these people with this information or flatly refuse to offer that information up. So, where do we go from here? Do we just ignore the situation and ALLOW drivers to CONTINUE to bet, using agents to do their business until the next driver gets caught doing the wrong? thing again, or in this case just bet blatantly in direct contravention to a rule that is unfair and cop the consequences. To me, if the driver has given his horse every possible thats good enough for me, if he has backed it or not.
On the other hand if he has backed another horse in the same race that is a BIG problem. If he has failed to give his horse every chance and has unfairly affected the outcome of a race, then he deserves to have the book thrown at him.
Interesting reading on harnesslink today regarding corrupt activity and what can be expected if found guilty. I think the Painting case falls a long way short of it.
http://www.harnesslink.com/www/Article.cgi?ID=100431
Oh, you're one of those grey area people. I don't do grey. I like the way also,you trotted out the 'driver suspended for slight interference same as severe interference' line too. If that analogy were even in the same galaxy as driver betting on a race, I may have provided a rebuttal. Now seeming you know him so well by stating he is not a cheat or grub, I'll assume he is not running on all cylinders by not knowing the rules as a fully licensed person.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gtrain
Brad, I understand where you're coming from. But as it stands, the rules are the rules. Don't you think that by allowing drivers to bet on their own drives, that it will 'muddy' the waters. Stewards rooms will be busy picking apart every dubious and non dubious drive. Now I'm not naive enough to think that drivers never bet on races they're in. But do so at your own peril.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncobrad
Yep the rules are the rules. And anything up to the point when any rule is actually changed, should stand. Yep.
Just different lines of thought, because I know where you are coming from too Leigh.
If the rule should ever change (and I doubt that it ever will), it should always protect the punter. If, just if, drivers are ever sanctioned to place bets on their own drives, surely a system could be developed where drivers declare who they are betting with, what they are betting on and all the details are made available to the stewards. Really, stewards already look at betting trends and records when conducting inquiries...it is just the next step in transparency.
In my eyes the current rule doesn't address what is actually happening at every meeting already...bit like prohibition in the States, nobody could buy a drink but everyone knew where they could get one.
Leigh I am not professing Jacksons innocence. He may be a cheat. He may be a grub. I don't know. But on the evidence put forward in this case I would not label him as either. What I am questioning however is the harshness of the penalty. That is not black and white as you state. Penalties are completely subjective. I have not seen a precedence set in this (I'm not saying there isn't but if anyone knows of a similar case I'd certainly like to read the details of it) and it certainly seems like Jackson is being made an example of and hung out to dry. A first offence and certainly not a major one has stripped a young bloke of his right to earn a livelihood. I cannot see the merit in this. I may be comparing apples with oranges but Jackson would have got off lighter for doping one. I know what crime I see as being the larger issue to the industry.
Grant, with the ongoing investigation into race fixing in Victoria. The new anti corruption laws in NSW. I feel these will be the normal penalties from now on. Now whether they are fair, I don't know. I do not know of any other precedent. I would have thought it would be easier to 'pull' a horse with betfair around nowadays, than 'juice' it up and hope for the best. Note. I have nether done this or know of anyone doing this OK.
If we as an Industry are going to persist with the ridiculous Change Of Tactics rule then is there any stopping us extending that approach to a Driver speaking to the Stewards prior to a race & telling them he is intending to or has already had his hard earned on his charge?
I don't have any problem with that. It's naive and rather obtuse to boot for Harness Racing Officialdom to attempt to portray an image to the wagering public that Drivers don't bet. The exact same thing applies to Jockeys. For the TB Stewards to continue with that pretence, well, it just makes them look ridiculous.
Scenario VVV. A driver has a modest wager on his drive. He informs the stewards of this, and also of a change of tactic. A tactic he knows will disadvantage this horse. Meanwhile he informs a friend/associate, who proceeds to lay it for heaps. Stewards question the said reinsman regarding the seemingly poor peformance of the horse, and he states 'but I backed it myself'. Thus giving him an alibi if you will. Is this too far fetched? Look I dont know what the answer is. But I do know giving your opponents the heads up on your tactics is crazy, just to appease the punting public who have not paid a cent to the preparation of your horse. But on the other side of the coin, as someone who follws the form, and knows what has gate speed and who doesnt. Who can do some work and who cant. Finding out after the race that the horse you expected to lead was grabbed hold of is very annoying. Several weeks ago a certain horse I expected to lead and be very hard to run down was jagged back to last and stayed there. He's drawn to lead again on Friday night, so I'll be on him again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Triple V
I am not sure if you are familiar with the Astronomer case currently in the gallops Leigh but I seriously doubt a very similar defence to the one you have hypothesised is going to work in their favour.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucky Camilla"s Lovechild
So theres no point in changing the no betting rule then? Or do drivers try harder when they've backed their own drive?
[VVV] I very much doubt that would fly Leigh. Not every Steward going is the sharpest knife available in the drawer but even they aren't going to buy into that one. Insofar as supporting a beaten horse who's effort is subsequently queried, it is being done now anyway, it has been done for years. How many times have you read 'Connections produced evidence which showed they had supported the horse' or some such comment in a Stewards Report. What I am suggesting would just bring it out into the open, that's all. Why not allow the Drivers to take a swing up front and out in the open. The restriction should be you back your own horse ONLY. The whole 'keeping up appearances' routine that we see at the moment is IMO just ridiculous on the part of Harness Racing and TB Stewards. Of course Drivers bet, of course Jockeys bet. It's not exactly late breaking news.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucky Camilla"s Lovechild
I don't condone what old mates down in the Riverina did but I don't think it's the crime of the century either. If anything I feel somewhat relieved that despite all of his ability in the bike and all his racing connections, apparently Jackson Painting backs as many winners as I do...which clearly, if they were meals, would see us both starve to death. ;)
So do you think Mr Painting punts like that all the time, or this was just a 1 off occasion? I'd also be interested if stewards looked into Betfair betting as well.
I obviously have no idea Leigh. You'd have to ask him that question yourself.
I do know that I punt like that (strike rate wise) all the time. No doubt I have for example contributed considerably towards the pay packet of the genius who came up with the earth shattering idea of colour coding the NSW & VIC TAB logos. That fact in itself leads me to shame. Unlike his Naturalist/Film Maker namesake, the TAB CEO is not out ahead of the pack and more's the pity, but I digress.
Punting wise, I'm just glad that should I find myself in need there's always the nightly BBQ at work to fall back on...and if not then of course there's The Matthew Talbot Hostel or Singo & Rev. Bill Crews joint, The Loaves & Fishes Restaurant, they are but a leisurely 45 minutes drive away. Should Jackson keep up that same strike rate no doubt we'll see each other at one of those fine establishments at some point in the future. ;)
I've got someone on another forum trying to tell me jockeys should be banned from entering all gambling establishments.
It's driving me crazy arguing with him. Am I in the wrong here. Is his suggestion a good one or am I right in thinking his suggestion is absurb?
I also think the suggestion is absurd! This is the very industry they are in - I am trying to think of something relateable but its almost like telling a hairdresser they can cut hair but they arent allowed to get their own hair cut??
I initially thought people should be allowed to back their own drive, but where does it end, what if they back their drive for a place only?
Has this policy been updated by any chance lately? https://imagicon.info/cat/10-3/smile4.png
i have backed horses i drove in the past never new i could,nt oops
Hi Adam,
Back in your day u were allowed to bet.Rule was brought in after u were "retired".
Besides u were only making a charitable donation to those needy bookies anyway. lol
i thought that was the case LasseQuote:
Originally Posted by lasse
yes thats true lol