Exactly the same basis upon which you put forward the hypothesis; you think it's ENTIRELY feasible, but you have no evidence to say it's actually happening. I posit that it's [itechnically[/i feasible but highly unlikely, without any evidence to say it's not happening.



Does that follow the rules that you've made up in your head, or should I provide some kind of peer reviewed, youtube evidenced, copy/pasted material to back up my opinion?

Quite an indepth knowledge of all that goes on on this board considering you only joined six weeks ago?

Mods... Just out of curiosity, if you are handed a ban are you allowed to just re register under a different username?

Not sure about rigging and the like, but i swear referees on Sky tv games are told to make things.....'interesting'

I'm completely mystified as to why you are attempting to disprove an argument I haven't made. On the other hand you do agree that it is feasible - which IS what I said.







Judging from the above - I wouldn't bother.

It's worth looking at some of the alarming developments in NFL recently. I mean just some of the PROVEN misdemeanors attributed to the New England Patriots (deflating the match ball, bugging the opposition changing rooms etc. etc.) should be enough to raise anyone's concerns.



Of course, rigging an entire competition is a different issue. Although there's a legitimate question whether it would be illegal for the NFL to fix its own games. I thought this question was a no-brainer (just as I thought it was a no-brainer that Tom Brady would know deflating the match ball is illegal) - but I was surprised to discover that a loophole exists.



The notion that it's highly unlikely that a multi-billion-dollar business would eschew even greater profits simply because it would be illegal or ... wait for it ... "conspiratorial" is so utterly ludicrous I feel I shouldn't even be typing this.



If I hired a dozen officials and paid them an attractive salary in exchange for making key calls at selected moments how would you KNOW I'm fixing my competition?



And before someone interjects with the usual [i"But ... someone would talk!"[/i let me point out that after I hired the officials I told them if they ever breathed so much as a word I'd shoot their wives in front of their children ... and then shoot their children.

Jesus H Christ...



Ok - you win - I didn't factor in the shooting of women and children by international sporting bodies; that being the case, all sport is indeed fixed and your incredible investigative skills have uncovered yet another facet of modern life that has escaped the notice of those of us who don't have the INTELLIGENCE or WIT to actually LOOK at the FACTS before us.



I don't know what we'd do without you.

As I have an interest in horse racing its proven history that individuals have been found guilty of fixing the outcome of races on behalf of betting syndicates or just their own bets, horses drugged, jockeys holding the horse back etc etc, but you can also concoct a huge conspiracy theory about the extent of it just by following the races for a few weeks.



As a "for example" I was at Catterick for an evening meeting a couple of weeks ago, at that level (Group 4 and 5 races) it was fairly simple to pick five winners by just going for the favourites in every race, most of the horses were local (who sends a horse more than 50 miles for a £4000 prize fund) and all of the bookies were local so it was local knowledge that picked the favourites and they weren't wrong - it would be easy to "fix" one of those races but VERY noticable and almost everyone in the small crowd seemed to know each other so you wouldn't keep it quiet for long.



For a larger meeting its a different story, horses travel long distances and are even sent from abroad so local knowledge goes out of the window and everyone relies on "the form".



I've lost count of the number of favourites I've followed in a race only to see it finish well back and not come anywhere close to running in the race, are these "fixes" or not, the bookies make the favourites and its not always on form, punters generally back favourites so its safe to say that the three horses on the lowest odds will have most of the stake money riding on them, if they finish nowhere then its worth paying out a handful of punters on longer odds winner - its how it works.



On the other hand horses often turn up at a racecourse and just don't want to run, there aren't many Frankel's around, horses who would burst their heart rather than let another horse take the lead, most of them are very fickle and will turn it on or just not bother and with very tight rules on jockey behaviour there is precious little that can be done if a horse won't race.



Open for corruption or just the fickle nature of horses ?

A horse is not a machine. It has good days and bad days like you and me. One difference is they can't, in the main, talk and so can't tell anyone how well or fit or lethargic or whatever they are feeling on the day.



Next, every horse in training has targets. They are trained to reach a peak at the time those targets come up. If a horse is aimed at a race in a few months time, it is unlikely to run as well now as it will do then.



But then again, depending on how the horse runs in its earlier races, those targets may very well, and very often do, change. Also, sometimes owners get the horses put in to races which the trainer wouldn't choose.



Then on the day we have the going. A horse may be a mudlark, or a strictly top of the ground horse, and run like two different animals in different goings.



The there is race day itself. This can throw up another whole bunch of unpredictable variables. Just for example, sometimes a horse can get itself pretty wound up and stressed in the preliminaries, and have worked off half its energy before the race even starts. And then again, it may get a poor start, maybe stumbling out of the stalls, or getting a slow break. In a short race it may be impossible to recover. And again, the race itself. Your jockey might be up against 9say) 15 other pro jockeys, all wanting prize money, and all literally jockeying for position. You won't get many favours. Your horse could be very unlucky in running, it may end up bumped, or stuck behind a wall of horses, or just generally get a bad run.



And when it gets to the sharp end of the race, one day, your horse may sprout wings and go away from the field, on another day, it might hit the front but start treading water, and get beat.



These are just some of the reasons why horseracing is such an unpredictable sport, ad that's even before you start putting obstacles in the way that additionally they have to jump over.



Then again, you may have set your stall out aimed at (say) a particular handicap race at Doncaster, but it is at least likely that at least one or two, and maybe many more, other trainers have also been doing exactly the same thing. Your horse may run its best race, but so may several others.



There are very many ways for people to deliberately ensure that a horse doesn't run its best (I managed to dig out a link to a very interesting old [url=https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2004/mar/10/horseracing.kenoliverGrauniad article[/url which offers a fascinating insight and is a good read) but while I'm sure a lot of this has always and always will go on, the thing is, it may be easier to guarantee that a horse won't win, but it's not easy to guarantee that it will, and that's where the real money is to be made.



Racing is not fundamentally corrupt, punters in general know the sort of things that go on but if they thought it was all fundamentally corrupt then they would walk away. They don't. The bookmakers also have an ever-better technological handle on unusual betting patterns, and ultimately not many of them end up in the poorhouse. Add to that the obvious self-interest of the Jockey Club in being very keen on detecting sharp practices and I'd say overall racing remains a very good and entertaining betting proposition. In the UK at least.

Personally I agree with your summary, when you have a few pence on a horse in a race you tend to watch the horse rather than the race itself and I've seen many a favourite be shoved sideways by another horse or boxed in and just give in, you can see the instance that it happens.



I have a close friend who has a share in a horse which competes in Grade 1 races, he is always last out of the stalls but his wins so far have been over the last furlong, he's got a hell of a turn of speed when he kicks on - the three races he's been in this year he's been shoved off his stride and boxed in on the rail twice, you see it happen and just tear up your ticket yet he is highly rated by the tipsters and by his regular jockey - we keep persevering but there's no way I'd ever want to be an owner.

Strange - you DON'T believe that in the pursuit of millions or BILLIONS of dollars of profits people might be encouraged to abandon all notions of morality? You have heard of the international drug trade, haven't you?







I know we wouldn't miss much without you.

Mods can freely insult now?



You are either a construct or something else, sad sad individual.

I did some checking into the question of whether it’s possible for the NFL to legally fix its own games. Turns out there are only two federal laws which have any bearing on this question. The first relates to the furore that was created in the wake of the “Quiz Show” fixing scandal. It states that it is illegal to fix any competition which is classed as an “intellectual contest”. The NFL clearly is not.



The second relates to gambling and sports bribery. It says that it is illegal to offer players money in order to fix games.



Let’s say the NFL sees a story developing (say the impending retirement of Peyton Manning) and wishes to get him to the Superbowl for one last (and very profitable) hurrah. At the start of the season it tells its officials to aggressively protect him in the pocket.



[iNo one is being bribed here. This is purely an employer-to-employee directive.[/i



Anyone who watches the NFL knows that it’s possible to call a holding penalty on just about every play (much in the same way as the corner in football). Bearing this in mind let’s consider the year Green Bay narrowly missed out on a perfect season, eventually going 15-1. In ELEVEN of those games the Green Bay offensive line were never penalised once. Now, I'm not saying this isn't possible in a sport totally free from corruption. But it's precisely what you might expect to see if the NFL were telling its officials to go easy on Green Bay.



Part of the problem (and this is something we are seeing in ALL sports) is the blurring of definitions. It’s now increasingly difficult to know what is and what is not a holding penalty, a grounded ball, an offside etc. etc. Which makes it very easy for referees to make calls which are completely counter-intuitive and yet no-one bats so much as an eyelid.



We've ALL seen this kind of thing … a player clearly has his foot in touch and yet for some reason the referee rules the play valid. Of course, this could just be a mistake on his part. But it's easy to see why many people are becoming increasingly suspicious about professional sport.



And whilst I said it's now difficult to bribe players because of the huge sums of money they are earning. There are plenty of other ways to get at them. Given the prevalence of steroids and recreational drugs (not to mention - gambling, domestic abuse charges etc.) it would be very easy to use good old fashioned blackmail. Think about the number of players who have filed for bankruptcy despite colossal career earnings. Wouldn't these people be incredibly susceptible to ... [iencouragement?[/i



I mentioned the Ernie Els six-putt from less than TWO FEET on the FIRST HOLE of the FIRST DAY at the US Masters. Isn't this EXACTLY the kind of thing you'd expect from a sportsman who is being less than honest?