BoxRec

freddydoesdallas wrote:I'm glad they're looking into it.

Scandals like this are going to reduce the amount of markets regular punters can get on fights these days. If you go into William Hills, they don't like to offer much more than win/lose/draw on a fight and i can see a few more going this way now. It's a lot for a bookie to risk and it's going to hurt fans who like a bet and use some understanding of the sport/fighters to beat the bookie

Interestingly though, Ladbrokes just took them on and won. Bit old school that, but fair play to 'em.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote: They didn't.

How do you know what they said?

Ha ha, the bookies not the fans

Haha i was just going off what they said

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

freddydoesdallas wrote:I'm glad they're looking into it.

Scandals like this are going to reduce the amount of markets regular punters can get on fights these days. If you go into William Hills, they don't like to offer much more than win/lose/draw on a fight and i can see a few more going this way now. It's a lot for a bookie to risk and it's going to hurt fans who like a bet and use some understanding of the sport/fighters to beat the bookie

Interestingly though, Ladbrokes just took them on and won. Bit old school that, but fair play to 'em.

Depends on how much of the cash went on the group betting (1-3). It's not very often that you see a price on a ko/tko move from 6/4 to 8/13 in a day, especially for a fighter not known for stoppages. Would take some big hitters to move it that much

freddydoesdallas wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

freddydoesdallas wrote:I'm glad they're looking into it.

Scandals like this are going to reduce the amount of markets regular punters can get on fights these days. If you go into William Hills, they don't like to offer much more than win/lose/draw on a fight and i can see a few more going this way now. It's a lot for a bookie to risk and it's going to hurt fans who like a bet and use some understanding of the sport/fighters to beat the bookie

Interestingly though, Ladbrokes just took them on and won. Bit old school that, but fair play to 'em.

Depends on how much of the cash went on the group betting (1-3). It's not very often that you see a price on a ko/tko move from 6/4 to 8/13 in a day, especially for a fighter not known for stoppages. Would take some big hitters to move it that much

They didn't have much liability on the 1-3; just round three.

freddydoesdallas wrote:I'm glad they're looking into it.

Scandals like this are going to reduce the amount of markets regular punters can get on fights these days. If you go into William Hills, they don't like to offer much more than win/lose/draw on a fight and i can see a few more going this way now. It's a lot for a bookie to risk and it's going to hurt fans who like a bet and use some understanding of the sport/fighters to beat the bookie

The reason the shops only offer a small Market on boxing betting is because hardly anyone walks into a bookies to bet on boxing. Go online and you can bet on practically every scenario possible.

Andypittcov wrote:

freddydoesdallas wrote:I'm glad they're looking into it.

Scandals like this are going to reduce the amount of markets regular punters can get on fights these days. If you go into William Hills, they don't like to offer much more than win/lose/draw on a fight and i can see a few more going this way now. It's a lot for a bookie to risk and it's going to hurt fans who like a bet and use some understanding of the sport/fighters to beat the bookie

The reason the shops only offer a small Market on boxing betting is because hardly anyone walks into a bookies to bet on boxing. Go online and you can bet on practically every scenario possible.

Hills online is the same. I do normally go online for the boxing, it's just i've noticed hills before and asked them in the shop to phone up head office to get a price but they won't give them out

Betting boxing in the shops is definately a right chore. You always have to go to the counter to ask for a price, then they make you wait 5 mins while they find it on there tiny screen which is practically on the ceiling, you have to repeat the names of the boxers 5 times because they've never heard of them then they show you a straight win lose bet, maybe round betting if your lucky and it's a big big fight, half the time it's sorry can't find that fight on the system.

This is worrying, no bookie would report this incident unless there was absolute solid evidence.

Chris W 1982 wrote:This is worrying, no bookie would report this incident unless there was absolute solid evidence.

Not quite. It's my understanding that there is an agreement between the bookies and the Gambling Commission that if certain indicators are breached, the details are automatically reported. I don't know what the indicators are, but it would be sensible to include signifcant movements on a certain action (ie, a fight to end in a specified round), signifcant bets in specific locations, etc. The reporting to the Gambling Commission is likely to have been automatic based on the cash taken rather than on specific evidence received of wrongdoing.

Edited to add further detail on the GC....

The Gambling Commission have a Betting Integrity Decision Making Framework which effectively lays out the investigation process following receipt of information that could relate to betting irregularities. Some of the key sources of such information are betting operators, who are mandated to provide detail on suspicious betting patterns as part of their licence conditions. This condition obliges the bookies to pass on information to sports governing bodies (in this case the BBBC). I won't go into the specifics of the condition, suffice to say that it is in the interest of the bookie to pass on information where there is a suspicion that betting rules have been breached or that there is a valid chance that the Commission will make a decision resulting in voiding of bets made by customers. Precedent has been set, as a recent case saw single bets of £16k and above on the outcome of a TV based talent show voided after large bets were made by staff who worked at the call centre where phone votes were taken. This case, at the very least, demonstrated that the GC has some teeth.

be intresting to know what subtitutes were on offer.is it known??

freddydoesdallas wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

freddydoesdallas wrote:I'm glad they're looking into it.

Scandals like this are going to reduce the amount of markets regular punters can get on fights these days. If you go into William Hills, they don't like to offer much more than win/lose/draw on a fight and i can see a few more going this way now. It's a lot for a bookie to risk and it's going to hurt fans who like a bet and use some understanding of the sport/fighters to beat the bookie

Interestingly though, Ladbrokes just took them on and won. Bit old school that, but fair play to 'em.

Depends on how much of the cash went on the group betting (1-3). It's not very often that you see a price on a ko/tko move from 6/4 to 8/13 in a day, especially for a fighter not known for stoppages. Would take some big hitters to move it that much

Not with the ''major'' bookies like Ladbrokes.

With Sportingbet it's quite common - a few days before Danny Williams' last fight he was 9/4 to get stopped, within hours it was down to 2/5.... but that's more of a bizarre mistake from the traders than a commonly priced market being backed and backed down to ridiculous odds.

I like a punt on boxing myself and was expecting Burns to either win on points or get Cook out of there late, certainly not a blowout inside three rounds.

It's pretty clear that there's been rumours flying around and people have bet accordingly. Unless there's actual evidence that Cook or people with connections to him have placed a bet on the outcome I can't see much coming of this enquiry. By connections I mean people with whom he shares a contract - I'd hardly imagine his old man is party to a contract between the two.

Here's a guess. Three days before the fight someone very close to the Cook camp see or hear Cook collapsing in agony in the gym while doing casual loosening up exercises . In the shock which follows they all agree to keep quiet so that Cook can go ahead with the fight and get his purse . They know he'll not last long so one of them decides to cash in and places a large bet on him losing quickly . Word gets out from the bookies via staff or punters who recognise who put the bet on .Word spreads quickly but secretly and the bookmakers identify a pattern . It is feasible isn't it ?
My problem is that surely there must be informal communication between the Betting Board and Sky Sports if only to alert them of their concerns . They should then have sought assurances from the promoter and Cook's management team that everything was OK - these assurances being in writing .
When the scenario unfolded Sky should have begun an enquiry .
If Sky had no knowledge of the 'betting 'situation then I would be stunned because it would demonstrate that they are not being as professional as they should be prior to a major production .
Can you imagine Sky not being advised of a possible match fixing in relation to a football match they were about to show?

Cook said in the corner 'my cortisone injection has ran out'....? He then described his condition to the doctor giving it a name- which I couldn't hear. Now surely a cortisone injection is against the rules? I got told I couldn't have a lemsip once when I had flu.

I reckon cooks back has been a nightmare for the entire length of his mini retirement. He realised that there was a 'easy' way to make a fast buck- the chance of a lifetime shot against Burns before he sails off into the sunset to enjoy his well deserved retirement to his new bar in lanzarote. The backs giving him a ton of abuse through training and its not going to get any better (as Newbon explained in his post fight analysis) so he thinks 'sod it' i'll give it my best shot for a couple of rounds and if not i'll bail.

He wasn't acting IMO. If he was he has a great future ahead of him alongside the likes of Russel Crowe and Leonardo Di caprio. I think he chanced his luck and it just so happened that the nerves coupled with the incorrect dose of cortisone led to his back going into spasm or whatever and unfortunately for him he couldn't make it to the third or whatever stage he wanted to make it too.

I don't think its dishonesty from Cook. He had a crack and wanted so badly to continue. I wouldn't be suprised if news of his condition or attitude about the fight did the rounds- as said its a small community boxing. Shame for him to go out like that- he was a top fighter cook.

Farce!!!!!!

The only thing I'd add to Earjohn's superb post is a reference tennis betting. The dodgy bets in this are almost always on information about injuries. There were lots of rumours and betting patterns with Kafelnikov in regard to this.

Cook was obviously genuinely hurt and I doubt he knew about bets himself but Dalcumy's thesis seems extremely believable. Perhaps people who saw the pain Cook was in before his last cortisone injection.

An inquiry should look to find out who knew about the injury. If anyone in FW's organisation did know the company should be fined to discourage this happening again.

Disappointing to see Bunce being so defensive about this. The fact bookies referred this makes it a very serious issue.

Sid-the-hat wrote:The only thing I'd add to Earjohn's superb post is a reference tennis betting. The dodgy bets in this are almost always on information about injuries. There were lots of rumours and betting patterns with Kafelnikov in regard to this.

Cook was obviously genuinely hurt and I doubt he knew about bets himself but Dalcumy's thesis seems extremely believable. Perhaps people who saw the pain Cook was in before his last cortisone injection.

An inquiry should look to find out who knew about the injury. If anyone in FW's organisation did know the company should be fined to discourage this happening again.

Disappointing to see Bunce being so defensive about this. The fact bookies referred this makes it a very serious issue.

Well said.

I missed the first few minutes of BBC Five Live's boxing hour last night but unless it was mentioned then (doubtful) I was very disappointed that there was no reference whatsoever to this bout.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:I missed the first few minutes of BBC Five Live's boxing hour last night but unless it was mentioned then (doubtful) I was very disappointed that there was no reference whatsoever to this bout.

It was omitted.

Adios

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:I missed the first few minutes of BBC Five Live's boxing hour last night but unless it was mentioned then (doubtful) I was very disappointed that there was no reference whatsoever to this bout.

credit to you and boxrec for giving the story its due, mate

Counter-puncher wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:I missed the first few minutes of BBC Five Live's boxing hour last night but unless it was mentioned then (doubtful) I was very disappointed that there was no reference whatsoever to this bout.

credit to you and boxrec for giving the story its due, mate

Thanks mate.

I see some poster on East Side has said he's glad there was no mention of it because the sooner it's 'swept under the rug' the better.

I mean, what can you do with that type of mentality?

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:I missed the first few minutes of BBC Five Live's boxing hour last night but unless it was mentioned then (doubtful) I was very disappointed that there was no reference whatsoever to this bout.

credit to you and boxrec for giving the story its due, mate

Thanks mate.

I see some poster on East Side has said he's glad there was no mention of it because the sooner it's 'swept under the rug' the better.

I mean, what can you do with that type of mentality?

i like those bolt-guns they use to kill cattle

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:I missed the first few minutes of BBC Five Live's boxing hour last night but unless it was mentioned then (doubtful) I was very disappointed that there was no reference whatsoever to this bout.

Whatever the opinion on the matter, not mentioning it all is ridiculous and makes a mockery of the shows concept.

JamesH wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:I missed the first few minutes of BBC Five Live's boxing hour last night but unless it was mentioned then (doubtful) I was very disappointed that there was no reference whatsoever to this bout.

Whatever the opinion on the matter, not mentioning it all is ridiculous and makes a mockery of the shows concept.

Absolutely right.

JamesH wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:I missed the first few minutes of BBC Five Live's boxing hour last night but unless it was mentioned then (doubtful) I was very disappointed that there was no reference whatsoever to this bout.

Whatever the opinion on the matter, not mentioning it all is ridiculous and makes a mockery of the shows concept.

my guess is that the bbc producers will set the agenda and anything remotely carrying the potential for slander/ libel will simply be passed by.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:I missed the first few minutes of BBC Five Live's boxing hour last night but unless it was mentioned then (doubtful) I was very disappointed that there was no reference whatsoever to this bout.

credit to you and boxrec for giving the story its due, mate

Thanks mate.

I see some poster on East Side has said he's glad there was no mention of it because the sooner it's 'swept under the rug' the better.

I mean, what can you do with that type of mentality?

I could answer that