BoxRec

"Alot of the bets were being put on in the East London area"

Looks like word was out about Cooks condition prior to the fight.

Will Nicky receive his purse for this fight?

Cheers Ian

Anyone know what the jurisdiction of the committee is, what kind of sanctions they can impose...?

MachoMan09 wrote:

Chambers2 wrote:Will Nicky receive his purse for this fight?

If he passed the pre-fight medicals, I don't see how they can not pay him. If sir Alex took a risk playing an injured Wayne Rooney for United--and Wayne limped off after five minutes--he'd still get paid.

But he'd still get paid if he didn't play.

Interesting, looks very dodgy doesn't it.

Looks almost, umm, farcical.

MachoMan09 wrote:Fair enough. Ronnie O'Sullivan plays in the first round of the snooker world championship with a dodgy back but can't continue after a couple of frames. He'd still get paid.

But not as much as if he won...

OK I'm just arguing for the sake of it now.

MachoMan09 wrote:

JamesH wrote:Anyone know what the jurisdiction of the committee is, what kind of sanctions they can impose...?

Yes. The Gambling Commission is an independent non-departmental public body sponsored by the DCMS. They licence businesses who offer gambling services in Great Britain. Their income comes from the licencing fees charged to operators.

They work closely with the police, so if a suspicious betting pattern is reported to them, they will have a look at it and if they think that some sort of criminal offence may have taken place, they will liaise with the police and a criminal investigation will be initiated from there.

Cheers MM. Will be interesting to see how this develops, can see it ending with no action due to lack of available evidence though. Perhaps I'm just being cynical.

Scottrf wrote:Looks almost, umm, farcical.

So if the board find something fishy was going on will the bookies return all losing bets on the fight

Andypittcov wrote:So if the board find something fishy was going on will the bookies return all losing bets on the fight

Let me think about that.

No.

Andypittcov wrote:So if the board find something fishy was going on will the bookies return all losing bets on the fight

Just winning bets...

The whole thing seems a little strange if you ask me

This whole situation does raise a number of questions which really ought not to be swept under the carpet.

It is clear from the betting patterns (large sums going on a fighter not reknowned as a KO artist in the early rounds, large sums placed in a locale near the losing fighters hometown) that Cooks condition was either leaked or made known. This doesn't necessarily indicate any wrongdoing, as Cook and his team may have believed the condition could be managed with pain relievers and that he would go all out for the KO in the early rounds in the knowledge that he likely wouldn't last the distance.

I believe there is a sporting precedent here - the Rugby League case involving Sean Long and Martin Gleeson where they bet on their team to lose knowing they were fielding a weakened side. In effect, given his condition, Cook was the "weakened side" and it would appear that his state must have been made known to gamblers who lumped on Burns. I don't think there is any suggestion that Cook took a dive or bet against himself. I'd be amazed, too, if anyone directly involved with Cook and his team were found to have bet against their man. If that is the case, chuck the book at them and ensure they never work in boxing again.

The question I have is that as the public became aware, at least locally, was anyone involved in the broadcast or the promotion aware? Boxing is generally a small world and the Telegraph published a story on the morning of the fight about Cooks ongoing condition - I find it hard to believe that someone involved with FWP wouldn't have been made aware of Cooks condition, eitehr directly or indirectly. As soon as the bookies stopped making bets, surely the promoter has a responsibility to at least understand the nature and credibility of any supposed wrongdoing? They have a responsibility to the safety of the boxers, the public who have paid to watch a contest sold as competitive, the broadcasters who sell subscriptions and advertising space on the back of the entertainment provided and to the credibility of the sport as a whole. If there is any suggestion that FWP were aware of Cooks condition, should they not have at least sought an explanation and at most, pulled him from the fight?

Then there is Sky. Again, they have responsibilities relating to the product they are broadcasting. At what point were they made aware of the bookies action and what explanations were sought from FWP and Cooks team, either prior to or following the fight? Does the exasperation demonstrated in the immediate aftermath suggest that promises over Cooks ability to perform were made, but ultimately not fulfilled?

Illegal gambling and match fixing is an increasing danger across all sports, so this is not a time for the Briitish boxing hierarchy to stick their heads in the sand and pretend that the sport is clean and there is no case to answer. Football had Calciopoli in Italy in the mid 2000s and an altogether bigger issue currently ongoing which includes former Italian international, Beppe Signori. There have also been recent international, champions league, Europa league and league games across all major continental leagues that have suspicious games under investigation. Cricket had the spot fixing claims against the touring Pakistan cricketers last year, and various individuals including Hansie Cronje, Shane Warne and Mark Waugh have been caught out to some extent. I mentioned Rugby League and there is also Snooker (Quinten Hann, Jamie Burnett), Tennis and probably every other sport. Boxing would surely be a prime target for match-fixing syndicates as it operates without a single governing body, results are subject to a number or people including boxers, trainers, referees, judges, doctors - some of whom are poorly paid, creating an ideal opportunity for those looking to fix a fight.

If there is any doubt over whether a sporting contest is being played out under even conditions, it loses its attractiveness from a customers point of view. What is the point of watching a fight if the result is certain before the start of the contest?

Apologies for the length of my rant and hopefullly I haven't made any comments that could be construed as libellous - This is an important issue and warrants discussion on this board and in other places.

good post

x 2

was sat next to the mitchell fans and they said bookies had suspended betting a few days before the fight

Sky have their own betting company who were taking bets on the fight, you would expect them to know something was up.

It looks dodgy. I doubt very much that Cook and his team have anything to do wi it. He was in genuine pain.

diggler wrote:was sat next to the mitchell fans and they said bookies had suspended betting a few days before the fight

They didn't.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

diggler wrote:was sat next to the mitchell fans and they said bookies had suspended betting a few days before the fight

They didn't.

How do you know what they said?

Scottrf wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

diggler wrote:was sat next to the mitchell fans and they said bookies had suspended betting a few days before the fight

They didn't.

How do you know what they said?

Ha ha, the bookies not the fans

earsjohn wrote:This whole situation does raise a number of questions which really ought not to be swept under the carpet.

It is clear from the betting patterns (large sums going on a fighter not reknowned as a KO artist in the early rounds, large sums placed in a locale near the losing fighters hometown) that Cooks condition was either leaked or made known. This doesn't necessarily indicate any wrongdoing, as Cook and his team may have believed the condition could be managed with pain relievers and that he would go all out for the KO in the early rounds in the knowledge that he likely wouldn't last the distance.

I believe there is a sporting precedent here - the Rugby League case involving Sean Long and Martin Gleeson where they bet on their team to lose knowing they were fielding a weakened side. In effect, given his condition, Cook was the "weakened side" and it would appear that his state must have been made known to gamblers who lumped on Burns. I don't think there is any suggestion that Cook took a dive or bet against himself. I'd be amazed, too, if anyone directly involved with Cook and his team were found to have bet against their man. If that is the case, chuck the book at them and ensure they never work in boxing again.

The question I have is that as the public became aware, at least locally, was anyone involved in the broadcast or the promotion aware? Boxing is generally a small world and the Telegraph published a story on the morning of the fight about Cooks ongoing condition - I find it hard to believe that someone involved with FWP wouldn't have been made aware of Cooks condition, eitehr directly or indirectly. As soon as the bookies stopped making bets, surely the promoter has a responsibility to at least understand the nature and credibility of any supposed wrongdoing? They have a responsibility to the safety of the boxers, the public who have paid to watch a contest sold as competitive, the broadcasters who sell subscriptions and advertising space on the back of the entertainment provided and to the credibility of the sport as a whole. If there is any suggestion that FWP were aware of Cooks condition, should they not have at least sought an explanation and at most, pulled him from the fight?

Then there is Sky. Again, they have responsibilities relating to the product they are broadcasting. At what point were they made aware of the bookies action and what explanations were sought from FWP and Cooks team, either prior to or following the fight? Does the exasperation demonstrated in the immediate aftermath suggest that promises over Cooks ability to perform were made, but ultimately not fulfilled?

Illegal gambling and match fixing is an increasing danger across all sports, so this is not a time for the Briitish boxing hierarchy to stick their heads in the sand and pretend that the sport is clean and there is no case to answer. Football had Calciopoli in Italy in the mid 2000s and an altogether bigger issue currently ongoing which includes former Italian international, Beppe Signori. There have also been recent international, champions league, Europa league and league games across all major continental leagues that have suspicious games under investigation. Cricket had the spot fixing claims against the touring Pakistan cricketers last year, and various individuals including Hansie Cronje, Shane Warne and Mark Waugh have been caught out to some extent. I mentioned Rugby League and there is also Snooker (Quinten Hann, Jamie Burnett), Tennis and probably every other sport. Boxing would surely be a prime target for match-fixing syndicates as it operates without a single governing body, results are subject to a number or people including boxers, trainers, referees, judges, doctors - some of whom are poorly paid, creating an ideal opportunity for those looking to fix a fight.

If there is any doubt over whether a sporting contest is being played out under even conditions, it loses its attractiveness from a customers point of view. What is the point of watching a fight if the result is certain before the start of the contest?

Apologies for the length of my rant and hopefullly I haven't made any comments that could be construed as libellous - This is an important issue and warrants discussion on this board and in other places.

Simply the best post I have read on this forum in a long, long time. A superb dissection of all the key issues surrounding the fiasco (because 'farce' is so clearly inappropriate ). I look forward to hearing from those individuals who've been so vocal elsewhere in their rebuttal that the fight and the circumstances surrounding it were questionable.
Huge credit also to the Boxrec team for securing this story and publishing it as it would have been so, so easy to let it go (as the mainstream media have done). I wonder what Mr Bunce thinks of this piece of internet journalism?
Look forward to seeing how Boxing News are going to tackle it on Friday given this information is now in the public domain...

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