A couple of observations on the Viking Hoard doping case

The whole of the horse racing world has been taken up with the news of the Viking Hoard doping case. I will not rehash all the details. Far superior writers than me have produced many thousands of words in print and on-line about the subject. In short the horse, Viking Hoard, was doped (i.e. given a tranquilliser) before a race at Tramore in October 2018. Incredibly the dosage given was 100 times above the legal limit. Unsurprisingly the horse 'never travelled' (i.e. could hardly walk let alone run) and was pulled up. 

Viking Hoard had previously won easily at Killarney (a well backed 3/1 2nd favourite), before being pulled up at Galway and Sedgefield. In both these races, and at Tramore, the horse had been laid to lose on the Betfair exchange, and had drifted in price (strange considering how easily it had won at Killarney). In the confirmed doping instance there was a bet of £30,200 to win £2850 should Viking Hoard lose. This bet represented 50% of the market. Someone knew for certain what was going to happen.

The trainer of the horse, Charles Byrnes, has a slightly dodgy reputation and is on record as saying he can only make racing pay with "gambles". As a recreational gambler I never back his horses because you do not whether 'it is off'. "Triers at the front, non-triers at the back" as the starter at the old Alexandra Palace racetrack used to say. He denied all knowledge of the doping and was convicted basically of leaving the horse unattended in the stable yard at the track, for which he received a 6 month ban and €1000 fine by the Irish horse racing authorities.

The official report on the case states the bets in question were placed in a 'remote part of the world' by a limited liability company. Betfair calls such companies 'white labels' and it allows them to bet into the exchange (although since this case they are no longer allowed to make 'lay' bets - i.e. bets predicting a horse will lose).

The case adds to those who consider horse racing fundamentally dodgy in a Dick Francis type way. Doping the horse was very dangerous, and could have resulted in really serious injury (even death) to the animals and riders in the race.

What are my thoughts as a recreational punter? Well I have no kind of inside information on this but I am given to understand that the man behind these bets is an Indian unofficial bookmaker, who has also been linked with spot-fixing in cricket and match fixing in tennis. It is completely beyond me how such a character can be allowed by Betfair to place bets with them via such an obviously dodgy looking means.

It also strikes me as actually quite a lot of work and organisation - obtaining the sedative, covertly administering it to the horse, liaison between at least one conspirator in Ireland with other parties in India - for a relatively small reward. On the specific occasion where doping was proved less than £3000 was actually 'won'. This suggests to me that there must have been other (probably many other) cases which the authorities know nothing about. Indeed it may well be that the doper made a mistake with the size of the dosage and that is the only reason this was uncovered.

There have been calls to bring the police in. Past experience suggests this would be a mistake. Read 'Racing in the Dock' by Richard Griffiths to see how hopeless the police are at investigating wrongdoing in racing. What is required is stronger stewarding (more rigorous questioning of trainers when horses fail to run to expectations) and a balance of probabilities burden of proof - perhaps even shift the burden of proof to the trainer in a case such as this. The horse was clearly doped and the trainer should be required to prove he was not responsible.