Comment
ARE THE NUMBER OF THROW-INS IN A GAME REALLY A ‘HIGH-RISK’ BET?
“I like to play blackjack. I’m not addicted to gambling. I’m addicted to sitting in a semi-circle.”
American comedian Mitch Hedberg (1968-2005)
A service that they respect
John Samuels of IBAS delves into his postbag to share the good and bad of correspondence the organisation receives after a ruling on a dispute.
IBAS P
Council of Europe still pressing for international convention
Khalid Ali, Secretary General of the European Sports Security Association (ESSA), the industry’s betting integrity body, talks about recent developments in his sector.
INTERNATIONAL MATCH-FIXING CONVENTION UNDER DISCUSSION
here were two key events on sporting integrity during Sep- tember which could have a potentially significant impact on betting operators. The first, and at this stage most important, concerns the continuing deliberations of the Council of Europe and its push towards a legally- binding international convention on match- fixing with provisions on the scope and availability of betting products. The inclusion of a sports right is one of a number of contentious aspects of the draft convention, which presently also proposes restricting betting to significant adult sport- ing events and measures, such as financial transaction blocking, against ‘illegal betting’ deemed as betting not allowed by a specific jurisdiction. Also of considerable concern to betting operators are the con- vention’s proposals to restrict customer betting limits and what it terms as ‘high- risk’ bets.
T
The latter is undoubtedly aimed at the rise of in-play betting which sports and the lottery sector erroneously blame for sup- posedly opening additional avenues for corrupters to exploit, and financially benefit through, the manipulation of their events. At present, the convention has no defini- tion of what constitutes a ‘high-risk’ bet, a situation which is also the case in a number of other areas.
The industry will be seeking more clarity on those issues and scrutinising and chal- lenging any evidence supporting these during a number of Council-led drafting group meetings also involving sports, regu- lators and law enforcement experts, before the final convention text is recommended to Member States. The timetable envisages
46 BettingBusinessInteractive • OCTOBER 2012
the convention being agreed by August 2014 and the Council has already advised that it will be seeking to extend this on a global basis within five years.
The second issue of importance con- cerns the Nicosia Declaration on match- fixing agreed at the EU Sports Forum hosted by the Cypriot Presidency and which coin- cided with an informal meeting of EU Sport Ministers. In addition to the latter, the meeting also included senior representa- tives of the sports movement, lottery sector and private betting operators, including ESSA.
The declaration states that match-fixing is a “growing and pressing problem affect- ing many Member States and many sports. Addressing the issue requires urgent, con- certed, and coordinated efforts from public authorities, the sport movement and betting operators.” It subsequently outlines five key areas for sustained action, including: education, monitoring, sanctions, coopera- tion and international coordination. The betting industry supported the text as a sensible, practical and proportionate response which reflects many of the con- cepts advanced by us at the event and which we have been promoting for some years. Androulla Vassiliou, European Commis- sioner with responsibility for sports policy, advised the audience in Nicosia that Com- missioner Barnier will soon announce “measures to strengthen cooperation amongst national gambling regulators to address match-fixing and related issues” as part of the Online Gambling Green Paper action plan. She also reiterated the Com- mission’s support for the Council of Europe’s proposed international match- fixing convention.
robably not surprising that with an annual figure of over 3,000 (and rising) disputes reach- ing IBAS, and with approxi- mately 30 per cent of completed adjudication forms resulting in the cus- tomer gaining more than the original settlement figure offered by the bookmaker, we often receive letters and emails of thanks from grate- ful punters.
The following snippets give just a gist of the flavour of some of these ‘thank you’ letters:‘Brilliant news’ - ‘Thanks for all the work done by the IBAS team’ - ‘I am very satisfied with the service given by IBAS’ - ‘Great news and I really appreciate your help and the positive result’ - ‘Many thanks and what a great service IBAS gives’ - ‘Your help is greatly appreciated and I thank you for your effi- cient service’ and ‘Please accept my sincere thanks for resolving the dispute so promptly. Your service is excellent’ - ‘Thank you very much guys you have been so helpful’- ‘Thank you so much, your work is much appreciated’ and so they go on.
This correspondence
provides something of a counter balance to the other feedback that we receive in the mail or see in some punter/operators online forums. I refer in par- ticular to comments from punters when we have ruled in the bookmaker’s favour, such as: ‘You are all in the bookies pockets’ - and the rather misguided ‘I thought you would fight my case for me, you have just backed up what the bookie has said
in his rules’ and such like. Part of the reason why we
receive such negative com- ments is that punters assume IBAS will indeed fight their case against what they see as an unjust action by a bookmaker. Many punters who contact IBAS by phone have an opening gambit not only of ‘How independent are you and who funds you?’ but also the more telling ‘How suc- cessful are you?’ A clear indication that punters seem to believe that IBAS measures its success by how much it can gain for the punter and how many times it rules against the book- maker. The reality being that IBAS takes a completely independent stance and, using the bookmakers trading rules as its first point of reference (terms that the punter tacitly accepted when he placed the bet), will give an opinion on how a bet transaction should be settled.
Unless a rule is patently unfair (e.g. we only pay out bets that are winners on rainy Wednesdays) IBAS takes the view that it is for other authorities such as the Courts, regulatory authorities (e.g the Gam- bling Commission) or on occasions Trading Stan- dards, to ensure that the application of bookmak- ers terms and conditions or operating rules to the
disputed bet has been fair and open.
If our success can be
measured, it would most appropriately be done so by the parties to a dispute judging the quality of the rulings that are issued and concluding that they are well formed and of sound logic. This together with the work that IBAS does in high- lighting to the industry actual and potential areas of bet dispute and how these can be avoided. Maybe our success should be measured by the respect from punters and operators in the industry that IBAS has achieved over the past 14 years. From the general impression of feed- back that we receive from all quarters, it appears that we are providing both oper- ators and their customers with a service that they respect.
As for the more case- specific feedback, we treat praise and constructive criticism with thanks and good grace, and adverse comments with stoicism and resilience.
Big thing is though I wait for the day when either party to a dispute will send a glowing testimony or a letter of thanks to IBAS for the work we have done in dealing with and investigat- ing a case that goes against him! I live in hope rather than expectation. Human nature, isn’t it a wonderful thing?
THE IBAS POSTBAG IS A MIXTURE OF PRAISE, THANKS… AND ABUSE
ACTION IMAGES / PAUL HARDING LIVEPIC
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58