Directory of Past issues

29th August - The truth about betting systems

22nd August - My two strong fancies for this afternoon's Ebor at Newbury

15th August - The truth behind winning statistics

8th August - The secret of hitting those lucrative 'sweet spots'

1st Aug - Exposing racing's 'dirty secrets'

RETURN TO MAIN MENU

29th August 2008

Good afternoon, friends,

In today's Horse Racing Focus....

• Three ways to unearth winning systems....

'Betting system breaks the bookies - bankruptcy looms....'

In all my years of following the horse racing I've never once read that headline or one even vaguely resembling it. I don't expect you have either. And, like me, you won't have any high expectations of doing so anytime soon.

What does this say about betting systems in general? Nothing positive. When you consider the sheer quantity and diversity of betting systems in the marketplace - past and present - the fact that we've never seen this kind of bookie busting headline lends some credibility to the idea that systems don't work long-term for punters.

Now, I'm not saying systems can't work. All I'm saying is that those which are available in the marketplace don't appear to. Otherwise we would surely be aware of them? A system that worked consistently, over the long-term would be a licence to print money? Word would get round. If any system out there were that good - we'd all be paying our dues and making hay. Right?

But this isn't the betting landscape we are familiar with - unless you all know something I don't? Consistently successful systems which deliver the goods over the long term either don't exist or are so few and far between they're almost impossible to locate amongst the mountains of rubbish betting products surrounding them.

I veer toward the latter view. Successful 'systems' for picking winning racehorses do exist. Most will not be on the market. But a handful will be. And maybe it's this faint hope of stumbling over an elusive and magical 'system' that keeps so many punters permanently stumbling around in the dark hunting for it.

One thing is for sure, it's the existence of this permanently-hungry market that encourages so many 'system' peddlers to try their hand at feeding it. And punters who place their faith in these people and their magical 'systems' are generally left richer for experience but poorer in the pocket. It's real easy to find systems that don't work consistently over the long term. It can get expensive trying to identify any that do.

That's the system hunter's big problem. How does he get a system that works before he runs out of money, heart or breath? I know of three ways. But before I tell you what they are, let's just have a look at what a system is.

What is a betting system?

I like to keep things simple. A betting system is basically a set of rules that form the basis for selecting racehorses to bet. A good system will produce profits over the long term. A bad system won't.

Back all top weights in handicaps. That's a system. Back all maidens in a handicap. That's a system too.

At Goodwood when races are run over 7f or 1m back all horses drawn in the top 3 stalls each-way when they are priced at 16/1 or bigger. That's a more specific system.

So is this one. Back all horses in 3 mile chases which rate over 79 on your personal ratings and are trained by a handler with a strike rate of at least 20% over the last 14 days.

A system is just a set of rules which are followed to produce selections. The system is as smart or as dumb as the thinking behind it. For example, let's say we back all horses beginning with the letter X on days when there is a full moon. It's a set of rules to direct selection. It's a system. But it isn't a very good one.

Give me interpretation over mechanics....

Here's a system for you. It appeared on the back cover of a book in my local library by David-Lee Priest. The rules were these: 'Back every jumps horse under the age of 9 following a change of trainer'. The results were impressive. A profit of £26,841 to £100 stakes. I'm not sure how wide a period the back-testing of results had covered. But it's an impressive result whatever.

But here's my problem. I could never bring myself to use the system - despite the results. Why? Because on some level I know I could never be satisfied with the selections. I would never have the complete confidence required to back them. The quality of the mechanical selection the system produces would always be open to question.

Say the system produces the name of a horse. If I can see that the trainer is running it on soft ground when the horse's own record screams out that it doesn't go on soft, am I still to bet the selection? What if the horse is trying a trip for the first time? Or is carrying top weight in a handicap on the heavy? Or is a big galloping type being sent out to race around an unsuitable tight track? Or the horse is carrying excessive weight? Or the trainer's not had a winner in six months? You see my point?

I'm just not a mechanical person. I'm interpretive. My methods for producing my own selections reveal this difference in temperament. I don't want a set of strict rules. Every race is unique. And I treat every race differently - adopting an approach based on specific trends, conditions, circumstances and angles I think I can exploit. I need room to think my way around the race and its runners. Strict rules suck. And systems are the product of strict rules. The selections they produce just don't satisfy me on some level. And I don't want to be betting in doubt.

Three ways to unearth winning systems....

But that's just me. It doesn't mean a good system won't suit you - particularly if time is an issue. If that's the case, getting hold of a good system that works and is quick and simple to use can be a smart move.

So how do you get hold of a winning system? Well, there's three good ways that I know of.

1. Identify your own system. This way, if you find something it's likely to be unique - the ultimate edge in the marketplace. The downside is that finding these things takes a lot of work. You've got to come up with the angles, do the research, handle the data and do the back testing. And it can be pretty soul-destroying. Time consuming research can produce nothing but dust. There's no guarantee you'll come up with anything usable or reliable. This is a road for the hard-core punter.

2. Nick Mordin is the Racing Post Weekender's System Analyst. In his column every week he comes up with a winning system. How he keeps on doing it I don't know. But he always seems to come up with some angle he can base a profitable system on. Read Mordin for a while and you'll have an arsenal of systems at your disposal. The problem is that whilst Mordin points to upcoming qualifiers on that week's system, once that pool of horses has been exhausted, you're on your own. If you want to continue betting the system qualifiers indefinitely then you have to do the research and come up with the new qualifiers yourself. Mordin moves on to the next system and the Weekender never provide any updates on selections for the systems Mordin tests. It's something they ought to get online somewhere.

3. By far the best place to get the inside line on winning systems is from What Really Wins Money - a free advice sheet put together by a guy called Clive Keeling. When I tell you that this guy is really unpopular - I mean it in a good way. What Clive does is he tests betting systems and tipsters to destruction - and he publishes his findings. That's why Clive is so unpopular in some circles. If it's a betting product, Clive tests it, sorts what works from what doesn't and then tells it how it is. The shysters don't like it. You can waste a lot of money on the 'magic systems' they sell that don't do what it said on the label. By contrast you don't have to spend a penny to find out exactly what systems, services and tipsters are working right now. What Really Wins Money is free to sign up to. You can check out what Clive has to say for himself and/or sign up here. http://www.canonburypublishing.com/winsletter

Until next time, be lucky.

August 22nd 2008

Good morning, friends,

In today's Horse Racing Focus...

• Your five-minute take on this afternoon's re-routed Ebor...

I can never ignore the Ebor...

So there were a few tears in the Pullen household this week - with the loss of the York Ebor meeting to the weather (not to mention the Twenty20 fixture between England and South Africa).

It's at desperately grim times such as these when a man can be forgiven for shaking his fist at the black skies and letting rip with an unabridged volley of agricultural expletives. At least that's what I've told the neighbours - and I'm sticking to it.

But all is not lost. The Ebor field will now contest the 3.25 (a replacement race) to be run at Newbury this afternoon.

The Ebor is my favourite punting race bar none in the racing calendar and has been the source of some fantastic profits over the last few years. Only 2 out of the last 10 favourites have won the race. Intervening years have thrown up winners at 11/1 (twice), 16/1, 20/1, 25/1 and, in 2006, at 100/1. It's a great race in which to latch onto live runners at big prices and I can't resist wading in.

Newbury, like York, is a left-handed galloping track and though the distance the horses will cover at Newbury is slightly less than would have been the case if the race had gone ahead at York - I'm
willing to trust that the general statistics will hold true, enable me to split the field and give me a steer on runners at big prices with live chances.

I don't like to tip and I offer my conclusions purely for informational purposes - with the intention of helping you with your own punting by showing you, step by step, how I go about reach my own betting decisions.

My general strategy with these big handicap betting heats is a bit like the words of that old Johnny Mercer standard:

You've got to accentuate the positive...
Eliminate the negative...
Latch on to the affirmative...
Don't mess with Mr In-Between...

Accentuating the positives and eliminating the negatives...

The top and bottom of it is this: I want to identify horses with strong positives in their favour and to swerve horses with strong negatives going against them.

90% of the Ebor winners over the last ten years were 5-years old or younger. That's a compelling statistic. It strongly suggests that younger horses have the edge in the Ebor and I want to be with that strong trend rather than kicking against it. So, on the basis of age, I'm going to strike a line through all the horses older than 5 - Carte Diamond, Wing Collar, Young Mick, Pevensey, Bureaucrat and Formax.

80% of the Ebor winners over the last ten years carried 8-12lbs or less to victory. Again, the statistical trend is strong and convincing. What it tells us is that it's the relatively unexposed horses down the handicap with plenty of progression in them which have the advantage in the Ebor. I'm not going to fight the numbers so I don't want my dollar on anything carrying in excess of 8-12lbs in this year's renewal. That means Yellowstone, Bauer, All the Good and Ajaan are dumped.

Scrutinising our reduced field of 10...

My first thought on looking at the remaining runners is to scratch Richard Fahey's Smart Instinct. Fahey's yard is in poor form right now. He's had just 3 winners from his last 40 runners at a strike rate of just 7%. I'm not willing to risk my cash betting on him reversing this negative trend today.

A J Perrett is another trainer toiling under a cloud at the moment. She hasn't saddled a single winner on the turf during August. And I'm not betting on that run ending today. I'm scratching her runner, Camps Bay.

I've also scratched Tropical Strait. It won at Newbury in a hard race just a week ago. Connections were initially lukewarm about the horse contesting the Ebor at all. The abandonment of the York meeting has given the horse a couple of extra days rest but I still think the race - a tough test - has come too soon. Nor do I like the booking of Fergus Sweeney. Seb Sanders rode Tropical Strait to victory last week. Sweeney's record riding for Tropical Strait's trainer, David Arbuthnot, is a single winner from 19 rides this year - not a statistic to go to war with.

My shortlist is down to 7 runners.

Who's booked to ride...? And what tale does it tell...?

Looking through the Ebor race card last night my attention was drawn to some of the jockey bookings. They tell an interesting tale for those alert enough to unravel it.

For example, Jeremy Noseda has two runners in the race - Milne Garden and Minkowski. Now, if Noseda had a live one out I'd expect it to be ridden by Shane Kelly or Tom Queally. Those are the jockeys he's used most this year. But neither rider is up for him today. Instead, Neil Callan will ride Milne Garden and Hayley Turner takes the ride on Minkowski.

Callan has only ever ridden 11 times in the last 5 years for Noseda and Turner has never ridden before for him. Given the Ebor is a big race, these bookings scream 'spare ride' to me and tell me connections can't exactly be oozing with confidence and expectation. I'm going to swerve both the Noseda runners.

Shane Kelly, who I'd expect to ride for Noseda, is booked instead to ride Pippa Greene for Paul Cole. This looks like a really significant booking to me.

Kelly has ridden 20 times for Cole over the last 5 years. He's won 6 of those races at a strike rate of 30%. He's not used too often by the Whatcombe handler but, when he is, it's proved profitable for punters. Kelly's rides for Cole have produced a £29.90 profit for backers to a £1 level stake. The booking of Kelly suggests to me that Pippa Greene is heavily fancied by connections. I'll be keeping the Cole runner onside.

Another booking that's caught my eye - but for a different reason - is that of Patrick Hills on Players Please for Mark Johnston. The 3lb claimer has ridden 24 runners for Johnston this year - but struck gold only once. That's not a record that fills me with positive vibes and I've struck Players Please from my list.

That said, the Johnston yard is really firing right now. In the last 7 days the Middleham handler has notched 5 wins from 26 winners at a strike rate of 19.2% - with 12 placed horses to boot. Johnston's other runner in this afternoon's Ebor is Record Breaker.
The horse is 40/1 with race sponsors Totesport as I write but I'm not going to let that put me off - not in the Ebor. The yard is on a hot streak, the yard's up and coming top jockey (with a 20% strike rate from his rides at Newbury) is onboard and Record Breaker stays on my shortlist.

The Handicap Masters...

The remaining two horses to consider are Sir Mark Prescott's Wicked Daze and Tony Martin's Salute Him.

It's dangerous to oppose Prescott in any handicap race - particularly with lightly raced animals. He's the master of plot and placement and over the years his runners have been the subject of many a punting plunge. Right now, Wicked Daze is shortish in the market and I expect the horse to get shorter as the race approaches.

But I'm going to oppose the horse. Prescott boasts almost unbelievable winning strike rates at almost every course his horses visit. But Newbury is not his happiest or most popular hunting ground. Over the last 5 years he's had only 12 runners and just 1 winner at a strike rate of 8%. Jockey Seb Sanders' record at the course isn't much to write home about either with just 9 winners from 116 runners at a strike rate of 9%. Something tells me the course is a hoodoo for trainer and jockey - and I don't think Wicked Daze will win.

It's real easy to scratch the Tony Martin runner, Salute Him. Phillip Robinson is onboard. As I highlighted last week he doesn't go too well on horses outside the Michael Jarvis yard. I'm not going to bet on that changing this afternoon.

Everybody has a view... now what about you?

That's my take on this afternoon's Ebor. My money will be on Pippa Greene and Record Breaker and I'll be punting them both each-way.

But this isn't a call for you to follow my lead!

Just a demonstration of how I sometimes get it right and how I sometimes get it wrong - hopefully more of the former than the latter. I urge you to take a good hard look at the race yourself. You may see something I missed. You may see a lot of things differently.

I would advise any punter to do his own work and reach his own conclusions. It's the only way. And solving the race on your own is a big part of the buzz. But if, after your own careful consideration, you still find some validity in my take on the race, then by all means lump on. Whatever happens it's sure to be a thriller.

Word to the wise: Pippa Greene and Record Breaker both conform to positive age and weight trends. Shane Kelly's booking on the Paul Cole horse is a strong signal of connections' confidence. Record Breaker looks to me to be the number one runner of a Mark Johnston yard on a hot streak of form.

Until next time, be lucky.

15th August 2008

Good afternoon, friends,

In today's Horse Racing Focus...

• How to work with numbers...
  
• Turning the flat jockeys' championship upside down...
  
• Jockies and the hidden patterns you can cash in on...

When the numbers don't tell the full story...

Statistical analysis is not just about pinpointing individual winners - though that is always our overall objective. Study of the racing 'numbers' also serves to strengthen our knowledge and improve our understanding of the sport and its nuances by providing the basis for insight, overview and perspective.

This week I've been studying the flat jockey championship. Right now Ryan Moore is running away with the title. From 619 rides he's had 116 winners - 28 more than his nearest rival, Richard Hughes and 34 more than the next man on the scoreboard, Seb Sanders. Indeed, Sanders (last year's joint champ with Jamie Spencer) conceded this week that Moore is already out of his or anybody else's reach.

The flat championship is decided on the sole basis of winners ridden. If, by the close of the season, Jockey A has ridden more winners than anybody else then he will be the champion.

In my opinion this system doesn't always produce the right result. Here's what I mean. Let's say Jockey A has ridden 100 winners from 790 rides during the season. Now let's say that Jockey B was placed second in the championship. His record was 99 winners from 467 rides.

What that means is that Jockey A had a winning strike rate for the season of 12.6% whilst Jockey B hit a 21.1% strike rate - a significantly bigger proportion of winners to rides. Yet Jockey A is the champ - and leaves with all the girls and the glory.

The fact is that the number of winners against a jockeys name doesn't always tell the full story. Numbers are like that. What they reveal and what insight they offer very much depends on the way you approach them, the way you look at them and the way you use them.

It pays to walk the uncultivated path...

Looking at and using data and statistics in a different way than the rest of the market is doing is a real edge - giving you a unique vantage point and ready access to information, angles,patterns, trends and hard facts that the rest of the market simply isn't aware of.

I make a point of not taking numbers at face value. I like to take my time with them and see what's under the surface. Strip them bare, break them down, shine a light in their eyes and interrogate the bejesus out of them.

It's hard work but if luck is on my side I might identify a hidden route to winners or an angle I can work on. Or I might get an insight or reach a new understanding I didn't have before. Even if I come up with nothing I can really use in my betting, the downside is pretty positive too. Dealing with the detail of racing and form strengthens my knowledge of the game and the complex undercurrents that run through it.

Adopt a different focus... Get a different outcome...

Let me show you what I mean. Here's a table reflecting the records of 14 top jockeys this season. Ryan Moore is out in front whilst the others play catch up. Phillip Robinson is 14th of the 14 riders, based on the fact that he's ridden just 43 winners this season.

Now let's take a look at another table. This one offers two different ways of measuring the same data contained in the table above. First, we have each rider's % of winners to runners (or strike rate). Second, we have a rides per win figure (identifying the average number of rides each jockey needs before he hits a winner). The results are a bit different.

Moore is right up there. But on the basis of these measurements, Phillip Robinson is the top man with a 19.5% strike rate which equates to a winner every 5.1 rides he takes.

George Baker is also some way better than his bare showing in the flat jockey championship suggests. His 17.6% strike rate and a winner every 5.7 rides put him in the first division of jockeys in riding - not the perception the wider market would have of Baker.

The way the championship is decided at the moment focuses attention solely on winner numbers and diverts it from the number of rides it takes a jockey to actually get his winners. Jockeys who don't get the volume of rides to be competitive in the championship end up sitting off the pace in mid-division - underestimated, under-
appreciated and undervalued.

But not by us. Having looked at the numbers a bit differently we probably have an appreciation of Robinson and Baker that most of the market doesn't. We know they are amongst the most effective jockeys out there right now. We know it for a fact. We extracted it from the numbers.

Granted, this isn't knowledge we can use to strike a winning bet this afternoon. But it is a useful and advantageous insight that isn't immediately evident to punters relying on the orthodox source of information about jockeys, their value and their ability - the flat jockey championship table.

Digging just a little deeper... And finding the nuggets...

If you want to take away a serious betting angle then make a note of this.

Phillip Robinson gets most of his rides from Michael Jarvis, the Newmarket-based trainer. To date this year Robinson has ridden 140 horses for Jarvis - winning on 37 of them. That equates to a strike rate of 26.4%.

But it's Robinson's results on rides outside the Jarvis yard that have got my antenna twitching a bit. This season Robinson has taken 80 rides on horses not trained by Jarvis. He's won on just 6 of them - at a lowly strike rate of 7.5%.

Robinson is at his very best when riding for Jarvis. But when playing away from home his performances drop off significantly. It might pay to bear that in mind. When riding for an outside yard Robinson's mounts can be opposed with some confidence.

Another jockey who struggles when deprived of his home comforts is Joe Fanning. The bulk of his rides come from the Mark Johnston yard. This year Fanning has ridden 255 for Johnston - winning on 36 at a strike rate of 14%. When taking rides outside the Johnston yard Fanning's record looks like this - 169 runners, 12 winners at a strike rate of just 7%. Next time Fanning gets on a horse that isn't Johnston's - make sure your money isn't on it.

Ryan Moore is the daddy - or at least one of them - when it comes to winning on rides from outside of the 'home' stable. Michael Stoute provides the bulk of Moore's rides. This season so far he's provided 168 mounts and Moore has won on 37 of them at a strike rate of 22%. But his rides for outside yards stack up too with 79 winners from 451 - a strike rate of 17.5%

Darryll Holland is another who can do it consistently outside the home yard. Mick Channon is his main patron - providing 115 runners this season on which Holland has obliged 15 times at 13%. Away from the Channon yard Holland has taken 217 rides and won on 38 of them at 17.5%

Word to the wise: Learn to look at numbers from different angles - using them in different ways can produce unique insight. Phillip Robinson and George Baker are very effective riders whose figures compare with Ryan Moore's - but the evidence is hidden beneath the orthodox numbers. Oppose Robinson and Fanning when not riding for Jarvis and Johnston. Bear in mind that Moore and Holland are not reliant on their 'home' yard for winners.

Until next time, be lucky.

8th August 2008

Good afternoon, friends,

In today's Horse Racing Focus....

• Checking out William Haggas....
• That was then....What happens now?
• The sweet spots....

Haggas working his high summer magic....

When a trainer hits a 20%+ strike rate this is a sure sign that his string is going well. Right now, Jeremy Noseda is in the pink and hitting winners 26% of the time. Michael Jarvis is firing them in at a strike rate of 22%. And Tom Dascombe isn't doing too badly either with a strike rate of 21% from his 114 runners.

But the handler who got under my microscope last night was William Haggas - currently occupying 12th spot in the Trainers Championship. He's flying high right now - and has been for a few weeks. If you'd backed all of his runners this year to a £1 stake you'd be £78.53 in profit.

His figures for the season to date look like this:

Haggas is no flash in the pan either. He's put in consistently decent performances over the last 5 years. Take a look:

Few trainers hit a 20%+ strike rate over an entire flat season. Some months will be better than others. Form ebbs and flows. A seasonal strike rate in the high teens is a good performance. Doing it consistently is the mark of a decent yard.

What to expect from the Haggas string during August....

Horses come into and go out of form in cycles. Since the beginning of June, Haggas and his equine team really have been on an upward curve. Here are the numbers:

If Haggas can keep his horses in this kind of form then he's going to record his best season ever. But I don't think it will happen. In fact, I expect a significant drop off in his performance over the next few weeks. Take a look at the following statistics. They show the combined records of every William Haggas runner in the months of June, July and August from June 2004 to right now:

These numbers are why I won't be making any plans to side with Haggas runners during August. He's started off the month pretty well to be fair to him. But the longer term trends within his performance suggest his string tends to come off the boil at this time of year.

It's not a time to be jumping on the Haggas bandwagon. It's time to get off. We may already be witnessing early signs of the rot. Over the last couple of days Haggas has seen two of his horses go off at shortish prices and get beaten. Tanto Faz (7/2) was beaten into 3rd place at Sandown yesterday. Demand (3/1) was sent off favourite at Pontefract on Wednesday but finished well down the field - admittedly missing the kick, running green and getting hampered.

So how can we use what we know?

Well, I'll be giving some serious thought to laying any short-priced Haggas runners over the next couple of weeks. His big current strike rate will tempt a lot of backers to blindly support his runners - helping push the price down.

Few of these backers will have given any thought to whether or not the trainer's run of form can continue. Fewer will have looked into it. Hardly any will be aware - as we are - that a great June, a good July and a poor August is the typical Haggas return. It's a great advantage and I expect to profit from it.

We also know, if history tells us anything, that the optimum time to be onside with Haggas runners is during the month of June. The evidence of the last few years tells us it's the time of year when we can expect his string to be finely tuned and ready to produce.

Ok, I can't make use of that right now. But it's something definitely worth knowing and bearing in mind next season. Come June 2009 I'll be watching closely for signs of the Haggas string coming into top form. And when it does I'll be looking to capitalize.

Where are the sweetest spots...?

When looking through trainer records and statistics I like to find what I call the 'sweet spots' - rich seams of winners and profits hidden within the trainer's wider record. And there are some nice sweet spots in the Haggas record - specific circumstances which produce a manageable number of bets and a track record of producing winners and profit.

For example, Haggas doesn't place many of his charges in selling races. But, when he does, it's worth having a look. Here's his record in sellers over the last 5 seasons:

And there are a couple of specific racecourses where Haggas runners have excelled over the last 5 years. At Folkestone:

And at Warwick where the record over the same period is:

Even the negative micro-trends can prove informative and useful in the search for betting profits.

One course where Haggas doesn't do well is tight-turning Chester. His 5 year record at the track reads like this:

If and when Haggas saddles short-priced horses at Chester, this record suggests they can be looked at as potential lays.

Word to the wise: Expect the performance of William Haggas's horses to drop off during August. The trainer's historical record reveals that this is the time of year when winners dry up. In the coming weeks the trainers short-priced runners are of interest to exchange layers.

Until next time, be lucky.

1st August 2008

Good afternoon, friends,

In today's Horse Racing Focus...

• Layers, players, riders and insiders...
• Corruption or colourful laws of the racing jungle?

Paul Kenyon Investigates...

I watched Panorama's expose of Racing's Dirty Secrets on Wednesday night. It has to be said that evidence presented in the programme suggests that corruption is indeed alive and well in racing.

The BBC's Paul Kenyon revisited the recent case of Miles Rodgers, Kieren Fallon, Fergal Lynch, and Darren Williams. Rodgers, a businessman, gambler and 'warned off' ex-owner of racehorses, and the three jockeys had been accused of race-fixing and defrauding customers on Betfair.

It was alleged that Rodgers had laid horses on the basis of information received from the jockeys riding them - defrauding Betfair customers in the process. The trial at the Old Bailey collapsed owing to lack of evidence in October last year. All the co-defendants were acquitted. But Wednesday night's film warned that the acquittals should not be confused with racing being given a clean bill of health.

Kenyon and his team reviewed evidence collected by the police during investigations of the alleged betting ring - evidence that didn't come out at the trial. The content of a phone call between Lynch and Rodgers after a day's racing at Ripon certainly suggests that Lynch did indeed stop a horse and that Rodgers laid it to lose on Betfair. Lynch is heard to remark on the action costing him a winner.

Kenyon also drew attention to Bruce Bennett, another big gambler and racing enthusiast who is being investigated by the racing authorities. He came to their attention at the same time as Rodgers - and for very similar reasons. His success rate with laying horses ridden by a small pool of jockeys raised suspicions at Betfair -
where analysts were monitoring his betting patterns.

It might be dirty but it's no secret, surely...

If the title of the Panorama film is anything to go by the objective of the film was to expose the dirty secrets of racing.

But is there a secret to reveal? Racing has its dirty edges. But it's no secret? Is it?

Skullduggery is part of the fabric, tradition and history of racing. Like it or not, that's the truth. All the time I was growing up I read everything I could find on the dirty secrets of racing - the coups, the scams, the scandals, and suchlike. It's a big part of what attracted me to the sport and kept me in its thrall.

Throughout history shrewd or unscrupulous gamblers have sought to get the ultimate edge in a race - the razor sharp advantage that stacks the odds in their favour. Some have gone further than others. Some have bent the rules. Others have broken them.

Nowadays, with the advent of betting exchanges, skullduggery is always going to be at work. Betting exchanges allow you to lay horses - to bet on them to lose their races. In this climate there's always going to be a small proportion of people who seek to enjoy an unfair advantage. Rodgers and Bennett are said to have sought out information that gave them an unfair advantage.

If it gave them an advantage - it didn't always give them certainty. Rodgers lost over £500,000 on four of Fallon's rides. Rodgers laid the horses on the exchanges - obviously believing they would lose. They all won. None of them were stopped.

Is it corruption, colour or a hot betting angle? I'm not sure...

The motivation for the BBC film seemed to revolve around the premise that racing needs to be purer than pure or people won't go to the races and will not spend their money betting on it.

Fair enough. But not true. Not for me at least. Or anyone I know who enjoys a punt on the horses.

I know there's a bit of corruption in racing. I don't consciously think about it all the time. But I know it or the risk of it is always there. The way the sport works and its association with betting almost encourages it. But it's not going to stop me participating as either a viewer or a punter. I accept that the odd bit of chicanery might take place. But I see it as part of the sport and part of the game. I'm relaxed about it. I enjoy the sport for what it is and not for some sanitised ideal of what non-participants in the game expect it to be.

Don't get me wrong. I don't want jockeys stopping horses. I don't want to be placing a bet on a horse that is being laid by its owner or by somebody with a jockey in his back pocket. Of course I don't. But I'm not going to do my nut over it if and when it occurs. It's not going to keep me out of the sport.

Maybe I'm conditioned to corruption? I've grown up reading about the scams and the dodgy end of racing. Perhaps I've grown to see it as part of the colour and allure of racing rather than a grave and sinister danger to the sport?

Maybe I even like a bit of corruption? Handicap racing has always been a natural home for the crooked, the crafty, the clever and the cunning. Trainers use all manner of methods to get a horse down the handicap or to keep weight off its back - so they can land a coup. Running horses round the wrong kind of track, on the wrong going, overweight or giving a jockey the instruction to 'take it easy' could all ensure a horse lost. Maybe I like spotting little patterns that the exponents of these dark arts leave behind?

Maybe I like knowing that horses aren't always 'out' because it gives me an angle. I can concentrate my efforts on identifying the circumstances under which these horses might be expected to win and back them when so placed by their connections? Maybe that's proved a profitable angle for me?

Maybe there are little corruptions and peculiarities that exist in the sport that I can take advantage of?

Self-interest is a funny thing. Maybe I can live with a little corruption?

Until next time, be lucky.