-
Available Subscriptions
JCA
1,721 topics in this forum
-
- 0 replies
- 248 views
-
- 0 replies
- 193 views
-
- 0 replies
- 212 views
-
- 0 replies
- 204 views
-
- 0 replies
- 218 views
-
- 0 replies
- 241 views
-
- 0 replies
- 200 views
-
- 0 replies
- 233 views
-
- 0 replies
- 244 views
-
- 0 replies
- 213 views
-
- 0 replies
- 213 views
-
- 0 replies
- 214 views
-
- 0 replies
- 231 views
-
- 0 replies
- 227 views
-
- 0 replies
- 235 views
-
- 0 replies
- 231 views
-
- 0 replies
- 215 views
-
- 0 replies
- 243 views
-
- 0 replies
- 205 views
-
- 0 replies
- 223 views
-
- 0 replies
- 207 views
-
- 0 replies
- 276 views
-
- 0 replies
- 265 views
-
- 0 replies
- 319 views
-
- 0 replies
- 234 views
Announcements
-
Posts
-
-
By Wandering Eyes · Posted
The Beat and Vantage hope to offer the digital, dining and racing experience that the new generation wants.View the full article -
By Murray Fish · Posted
what you recon?? By Warwick Barr - November 20, 2024 A Ladbrokes account holder has failed in his bid to be paid $30,000 in winnings because he had been acting on behalf of a third party, a wagering regulator has found. Ladbrokes denied the punter's withdrawal request on the grounds as it believed he was operating it for someone else. (Photo: Natasha Morello/Racing Photos via Getty Images). In deciding whether the bets placed by the successful punter were lawful, the Northern Territory Racing and Wagering Commission (NTRWC) says Ladbrokes was within its rights to deny a withdrawal request. Under its terms and conditions, Ladbrokes refused the punters’ attempts to collect the five-figure sum on evidence he was operating what is colloquially known in the wagering industry as a “bowler account”. “Bowler” accounts are those in which the owner is known to place bets for other people. Anecdotally, their use in the Australian corporate wagering landscape has become prevalent in recent years, with winning gamblers trying to circumvent bookmaker restrictions by using third parties. “In the Commission’s view … it is plausible that the complainant’s Ladbrokes’ betting account was likely on the balance of probabilities to have been funded and/or operated by a person who was not the complainant,” the NTRWC said in its findings against the punter. “Having formed this view, the Commission has determined that Ladbrokes’ invocations of its terms and conditions by way of voiding the complainants’ bets and not paying out on any winnings is justified.” A hearing was told the punter deposited $6600 into his Ladbrokes account which was used to place bets on November 22 and 23 and December 6 in 2022. He later wished to withdraw $30,000. In an online complaint to the NTRWC less than a month later, the punter said he was the only person involved in using the Ladbrokes account. He said he met a request from the bookmaker to provide a financial statement, claiming Ladbrokes did not process the withdrawal because the bookmaker believed another person was using the betting account based on third-party bank deposits. Ladbrokes argued the complaint did not fall within the parameters and scope of the Commission’s jurisdiction and suggested that the punter seek legal advice if he wanted to pursue the matter. But in a written submission to the investigation, Ladbrokes said the wagering account was operated in breach of the company’s terms and conditions. Irish hurling, US elections and minor Euro football leagues - all in a day’s work for NT betting regulator Ladbrokes submitted that it suspected a telephone conversation on December 8 2022, was unlikely to be the account holder “but a person identifying as the complainant instead”. “The variations in speech patterns and other indicators observed during the phone calls … appear to support Ladbrokes’ view that different individuals may have been speaking,” the NTRWC said. Ladbrokes claimed there were also bank statement discrepancies and confirmation of third-party deposits around the time the punter funded his betting account. It also tabled evidence that the mobile telephone number the aggrieved punter wanted to be registered to his account to validate the withdrawal process belonged to another account holder of the wagering firm. A request to change the mobile telephone number to have it registered to the account to comply with a two-factor authentication wasn’t met. Ladbrokes closed the customer’s account two days later, informing the punter he was ineligible to receive any funds. “The Commission notes that when asked about who the mobile phone belonged to during a phone conversation between Ladbrokes and the complainant, the complainant advised that it belonged to a family member and he did not know if that person held a betting account with Ladbrokes,” the NTRWC said. Ladbrokes confirmed that it had refunded the punter’s deposit of $4000. However, earlier contributions made to the account via Flexepin, a global financial product used for online transactions, were not returned because Ladbrokes claimed it couldn’t determine how the vouchers were purchased. NT law changes put additional heat on corporate bookmakers The Commission said Ladbrokes’ decision not to refund Flexepin deposits aligned with the company’s terms and conditions. A Flexepin prepaid voucher system allows users to make secure payments without needing funds to be linked to a credit card or bank account. The punter said he used the Flexepin method while travelling overseas but a Ladbrokes review showed transactions between November 23 and November 28 were made in Australia. “These Australian-based transactions conflict with the statements made by the complainant to Ladbrokes about his betting account usage,” the NTRWC said. In handing down its decision in October, the Commission agreed to Ladbrokes’ request not to disclose potentially sensitive information concerning the third-party operation of the account, saying it could “compromise” ongoing and future investigations into third-party activities. -
actually the whole china export thing i find rather perplexing. There was a 3 part story written for the paulick report,published just 2 months ago,about the expanding connection between the american thoroughbred industry and the chinese. it was very interesting,but if you think about what was said in that series of articles,while harness racing wasn't discussed ,it left me with more questions than possible answers. Like questions about understanding the thinking of the chinese. Comparethere approach to growing the thoriughbred industry there and how that doesn't mirror the same thing with harness horses being purchased from here. Like obviously nz and australia have the advantage of the free trade agreement and australia in particular, apparently spend a lot of time and money promoting the purchase of yearlings ,by the chinese at their australian sales. But like i say,from the articles written in that paulick report,you have to ask if the chinese are genuinely interested in establishing the harness industry over there,doesn't it make you question,if they are genuine,look at who they are purchasing here and the prices they are paying, given how much they will be spending on getting the horses back to china. like its a whole different approach from what they are doing with their thoroughbreds. like,the most obvious is,why have they mostly been buying older broodmares when they are supposed to be buying racing stock. I know the most recent batch on the export list,as they include a lot of 3 and 4 year old mares,but that hasn't been the case previously. why haven't they,like their thoroughbred counterparts ,been buying yearlings and why haven't the sales companies here or in australia thought it worthwhile to promote chinese interest to any degree in the yealing sales held over here. seemingly the americans should have an advantage with the thoroughbreds as most tracks in china aren't turf,but are dirt type tracks. so doesn't that make you wonder,what about the harness tracks and exactly where are they and what surfaces are they. theres heaps of other questions you could ask with no apparent readily known answers. Thats why i personally think the whole china export thing has a lot of mystery around it,with not only possible good,but also bad scenarios that may play out. Maybe the saying,ignorance is bliss,is the approach some sellers are taking as they can't possibly know tyhe exact use or the fate of those they are selling. -
Disqualification is/has always been available to RIB for any egregious breach of a rule. The advantage of the whip is impossible define, varying between horses and riders. And DQ for miscounting/timing is nonsense
-
-
Topics
-
