Roll With Joe
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 37

Thread: Fined for backing your drive

  1. #11
    Senior Member Horse Of The Year broncobrad has a spectacular aura about
    Real Name
    Brad Leach
    Location
    Northern Rivers
    Posts
    782
    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.

    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.

  2. #12
    Senior Member Horse Of The Year broncobrad has a spectacular aura about
    Real Name
    Brad Leach
    Location
    Northern Rivers
    Posts
    782
    Enlighten us wagga circus...whats about to hit the fan this time?

  3. #13
    Senior Member 4YO Thevoiceofreason has a spectacular aura about
    Real Name
    Bill Williams
    Location
    Sydney
    Occupation
    Manager
    Posts
    400
    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.

  4. #14
    Senior Member 3YO Gtrain has a spectacular aura about Gtrain's Avatar
    Real Name
    Grant Train
    Posts
    226
    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.

  5. #15
    Senior Member 4YO Lucky Camilla"s Lovechild will become famous soon enough
    Real Name
    Leigh Stollery
    Location
    With a Kiwi.
    Posts
    358
    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.

  6. #16
    Senior Member 3YO Gtrain has a spectacular aura about Gtrain's Avatar
    Real Name
    Grant Train
    Posts
    226
    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....

  7. #17
    Senior Member 4YO Thevoiceofreason has a spectacular aura about
    Real Name
    Bill Williams
    Location
    Sydney
    Occupation
    Manager
    Posts
    400
    Quote Originally Posted by Gtrain View Post
    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.

    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.

  8. #18
    Banned Foal timyuan will become famous soon enough
    Real Name
    tim yuan
    Location
    nz
    Occupation
    IT
    Posts
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Triple V View Post
    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".
    haha this is a good idea

  9. #19
    Senior Member Horse Of The Year broncobrad has a spectacular aura about
    Real Name
    Brad Leach
    Location
    Northern Rivers
    Posts
    782
    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

  10. #20
    Senior Member 4YO Lucky Camilla"s Lovechild will become famous soon enough
    Real Name
    Leigh Stollery
    Location
    With a Kiwi.
    Posts
    358
    Quote Originally Posted by Gtrain View Post
    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....
    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.
    Last edited by Lucky Camilla"s Lovechild; 09-06-2012 at 03:43 PM.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts