The Gambling Commission has entered a heated discussion over events at Cheltenham on New Year’s Day, asking anyone to come forward who may have evidence of bookmakers forcing an unwarranted deduction from winnings on the last race, won by the favourite, Cap Soleil. A deduction of five pence in the pound from winning bets was triggered when Cockney Wren was taken out of betting lists just before the race started but it has since emerged that the horse had actually been withdrawn more than 40 minutes earlier.
While the news of that withdrawal was not widely disseminated because of what has been called a technical fault on the racing administration website, concern centres on the fact that Cockney Wren’s odds shortened from 16-1 to 14-1 shortly before the ‘off’. Had she remained at 16-1, no deduction would have been authorised under longstanding betting rules.
Tim Miller, the Gambling Commission executive director, said on Wednesday: “If there is clear evidence that operators have deliberately shortened odds to invoke Rule 4 and consequently reduce payouts, we’d be extremely concerned as it’d be contrary to the statutory obligation to ensure gambling is fair. We’d encourage anyone with clear evidence of this to share it with us.”
Miller then issued a stern warning to bookmakers generally. “The industry needs to remember that its long-term viability is built on customers having trust that they’re being treated fairly. Anything that is, or could be perceived as, unfair risks damaging the reputation of the industry as a whole.”
Two bookmakers at Hereford on Wednesday said they had been at Cheltenham on Sunday and had decided against making any deduction from their clients’ winnings, as is not uncommon with 5p Rule 4s. James Lovell said one punter who had had £50 each-way on Cockney Wren returned to point out that the horse was a non-runner, then restaked his £100 on Cap Soleil.
“I didn’t deduct anyone,” Lovell said. “I don’t think any of the bookmakers near me did, either. I had 20-1 on the board at the off. I didn’t see anyone shortening it to 14-1.”
Cliff Emery said he had heard no tannoy announcement about Cockney Wren but saw on a big screen that the horse was listed as a non-runner 20 minutes before the race and took it out of his list. Several punters who had backed the horse reclaimed their stakes but Emery said he made no deduction from winnings. “The man who had £1,000 on the winner at 7-4, he wouldn’t have been very impressed.”
But neither man believed they were among the small sample of bookmakers whose odds are used to formulate the official starting price, at which most off-course bets are settled. Off-course bets would also have been paid after the deduction, saving significant sums for high-street firms and prompting one track bookmaker, Andy Smith, who was not betting at Cheltenham, to tell the Racing Post that shortening likely non-runners to force a deduction was a “sharp practice” that is “getting out of hand”.
Betting at Hereford on Wednesday, Gary Wiltshire was prepared to believe such things can happen. “If it was done deliberately, it’s terrible,” he said. “But I don’t think it was. It can happen, but it’s not all bookies. People like ourselves, we’ve been at the game 40 years; one thing we’re not gonna do, and Andy wouldn’t do, is to rob people for 5p in the pound.” Nearby, Stephen Rea said he had not been at Cheltenham but said: “I’ve been in the sample and I’ve never ever been asked to reduce the price of a horse that’s [later] been withdrawn.” Rea suggested that bookmakers in the sample often have lower odds than can be found elsewhere in the ring. “A lot of people come to them because they’re in the best positions, [so] they can lay a horse at 14s when that same horse is 20s elsewhere in the ring.
“And fair dos because, to buy a [prominent] pitch at Cheltenham, you’re talking £100,000 plus. So they have got to get more money out of it. I’m happy to go along and win £1,000. They’ve got to win £2,000 to £4,000 every time they go.”
Source: The Guardian
