Quote Originally Posted by broncobrad View Post
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
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.