I'm really not interested in your assessment of my knowledge of an industry I've worked in and you have .... [iwhat? [/i







And yet investigations happen each day. Fraudsters are sent to jail. Betting rings are busted open. Crooked sportsmen are banned for lengthy periods etc. etc. etc. Which kind of disproves everything you have said.







Only someone with your limited imagination could think that a sportsman would deliberately underperform for no other reason than money.



I can see this is going to be another one of THOSE threads in which you bore everybody to death arguing the colour of a full stop. Best to leave you barking at your own shadow.

I should really add that the authorities are every bit as interested. Which is why they often have on-site liaison. To say that an "odd" relationship exists between bookies and state governments is an understatement.



Delve down that rabbit hole and I suspect you'd find some interesting things. Although I doubt whether they would be beneficial to one's health.

I'm always impressed with how quickly the online bookies react to live events in horse racing - Flying Officer was a favourite at York last week but he unseated Frankie Dettori when hacking down to the start, then disappeared off up the course for a mile or so and battered down one of the rails, he was withdrawn from the race and because there were only five other horses left the panic button was hit, a rule 4 declared and the chart of odds went crazy on Skybet within 60 seconds of the incident starting, luckily I got a 5/1 on Clever Cookie before they took a new view on everything and he started at 5/2 just a few seconds later - fascinating to watch it happen live.



On the other hand and in a "make it up as you go along" style, at Catterick a couple of weeks ago I twice put a £2 each way on a horse at one of the on site bookies and my mate behind me in the queue had the odds adjusted downwards before he could get in

I'm sure it was a coincidence and that £4 didn't spoil that bookies day but who knows, this was Catterick and they are a bit strange up there.

I'd say you need to explain that to yourself. This started by you casting aspersions against Els which were without any visible foundation.





But if there HAD been evidence of it being a betting scam, then undoubtedly it would have been big news. The fact that there was no such thing is, in itself, evidence that no such betting scam was involved.







Yeah, sure, that's what all but you think. No, really.



You're the straw man specialist!







No, it won't; they'd already know. The way it works is they know in real time what "suspicious betting patterns" may be occurring. The wholepoint is to either immediately react by changing the odds, or indeed to stop taking bets on the event altogether. As a self-proclaimed "insider", it is weird that you don't get that.





And that is just the level you descend to when you're rattled,a nd have been shown up to not known a quarter of what you're talking about. You should just accept some people know better than you, and deal with it. But I fully expect you'll continue to firmly believe you're the fount of all knowledge

I worked (part-time) in betting for 20 years but what i know about security is not only from that but because my best mate ran security for a major bookmaker for some decades before he retired and he will have forgotten more about betting and bookies security than you ever knew.





Indeed



Er, riiiiight. Because I did say that I don't believe crooks exist, or that people don't constantly try to beat the bookie, or that fraudsters don't exist, or that there aren't betting rings or scams. Yes, that's exactly what I said.







As ever, you state the direct opposite of the truth. To remind you, I not only didn't say or think that, I actually put forward (from my limited imagination) my favoured explanation of what seems to me to have clearly happened in the case of Els (yips), and why (banning of anchored putters). In your rage at being shown up, you either forgot that, or hope no-one notices. But don't let the facts interrupt your flow of ad hom drivel





Typical hit-and-run tactics of a defeated argument by you who can't admit defeat.



All I have done is state my opinions in response to your opinions. However, the odd thing about your condition is you feel you have an inalienable right to post pages of drivel, thinking everyone will be spellbound and fascinated by it, but are so up your own arrse that you can't stand anyone taking issue with it.



In this way, you even have what is effectively your own blog on here, a thread where you vent at length, but delete any response that doesn't agree with you. Dissent is banned, and so, delusional Stan apart, it is effectively a monologue. If I wanted the classic example of someone boring everybody to death, or a place where you have left yourself barking at your own shadow, I need look no further. You're almost the forums' Steve Davis of boring people to death, except hardly anybody bothers to play with you.

You really are the biggest obnoxious hypocrite to ever roam these boards. Firstly you imply Mugwump effectively having his own blog, when effectively YOU have your own thread in which you were made a moderator of to STOP me from truth bombing the hell out of it, you vented pandemonia due to me posting ON[u YOUR[/u SCIENCE FICTION ASTRONOMY THREAD. So to assume Mugwump has his own blogs is simply wide of the mark. Hypocrite. And Secondly, I find fractions of Mugwumps postings quite insightful whereas your postings contain a mountain of obnoxious vitriolic ramblings filled with brain insults if people disagree with your close minded, hypnotic fictional parrotings. At least Mugwump is a free thinker who thinks for himself, So if he's Steve Davis, the player most fitting for you is JOHN PARROT. All Gob and no action.

Damned by faint praise.

aye and they watered the track just for clever cookie! i was on flying officer





im sure if your mate asked for the price you got they would have given it him! i had a 100/1 winner at catterick years ago in a 2yr maiden, fond memories of the track!

... says the man who whinges non-stop about perceived [iad hominem[/i against his own drivel





I don't "imply" anything, he very clearly has! Are you saying it isn't basically that?



Wait a minute, what the fsck is your point? If I were COMPLAINING about Mugwump's blog thread then that might be hypocritical but of course I'm not!!! On the contrary! I merely make an observation as to that thread. I would rarely post it it, but have no issue whatsoever with its existence or rules. So what the fsck is hypocritical about that?



The truth is, there are TWO separate threads. The Astronomy thread is for straight, non-conspiracy, information and discussion. The second is for discussing matters conspiratorial. If there is something on the rational Astronomy thread that you want to "truth bomb"

then feel free - but in the thread designed for the purpose!



You fail to see such an obvious point. That not everyone wants every single thread, on whatever news emerges in the world, to be instantly taken over by delusionals such as you claiming to know "the truth" about what really happened, and peddling your mad conspiracist bunkum. You are free to do it - in the appropriate place. You don't need to be able to pollute EVERY thread.



The essential point though is not about whether your drivel is right, or I am wrong. It is about the forum rules which prohibit behaviour such as deliberately diverting threads, etc etc. It's just housekeeping. The Astronomy thread is just ONE THREAD. If you have anything to post on the same subject, you can do so in the delusionals thread, anyone who wants to discuss it with you (self-included) will see it just the same and will post in reply just the same. Everyone knows this.



Mugwump seems happy with his blog thread, and (not that it matters, but just to be clear) that's fine by me. The point is, anyone who does want to stick within the strictly defined rules for subject matter of that thread is FREE TO DO SO. Ditto the Astronomy thread. But I do note you're not calling him a hypocrite for ruthlessly censoring dissent in that thread. Why is that, Stan? Because you operate double standards. It's a thread where you are able to post your stuff, and so that's fine. But you wouldn't, if it was up to you, agree to extend the same courtesy to people who want to stick with the straight Astronomy thread. that is why you are a stinking hypocrite.



The reality is that YOU are the stinking hypocrite, because you want to pollute and smokescreen anything you don't agree with by spewing acres of drivel at it. You are attempting to act as a censor. That is illustrated by your ignoring any questions or points put to you. All you want is a platform for your mad ramblings. You can't deal with criticism, and you won't consider any alternatives.



Nobody is saying you can't put your deluded views. It's not as if we are short of them. Just do it a centimetre down the fscking page.

Just like I said. More obnoxious brain insulting vitriolic ramblings Your so predictable.

This thread is the perfect example of why no-one comes on RLFANS any more.

Interesting goings on in Australia, a couple of games involving Manly are being investigated over match fixing : www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/36432394

Interesting goings on in Australia, a couple of games involving Manly are being investigated over match fixing : www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/36432394