The recent Tony Calvin Star Sports interview with Simon Nott (part 5) was interesting as it reminded me about the media and how preferential the treatment is that they receive with regard to betting accounts. It was widely known more than 20 years ago that certain individuals would receive access to betting accounts that were ‘different’ to others. This was usually the preserve of owners and other important people involved within horse racing.
What I don’t see talked about much are those in the media who clearly receive preferential treatment over a normal customer. By preferential treatment we are talking about things like accounts with no restrictions or higher thresholds for restrictions. I can understand why it happens. A bookmaker sees a high profile name from the media that has an account with them. Either, they don’t restrict them and take bit of a hit or they can restrict them and possibly face restrictions being scrutinised by a wider audience.
What was interesting about Tony’s interview was that a high profile member of the media took a Bet365 account for six figures. The account in question was placing bets on behalf of a pro punter pretending to be said member of the media. I know who the person in question is who did this. I am not sure it is my place to say who it is though. I also understand that the owner had to phone the account in question and tell them to stop taking the pee. They knew it was clearly not their bets that were being placed.
It raises a few interesting points. Firstly, it is little wonder that those in the media rarely raise concerns about account restrictions when they are clearly subject to very different rules to the rest of us. It simply doesn’t affect them in the same way. Even Tony himself says he still has accounts with Bet Victor, Will Hill and BF Sportsbook. The reality is that if he was a normal account and given the way Tony bets (usually at 48hr decs etc) there is very little chance those accounts would exist if he was not who he is.
A different issue is that the bookmaker in question very clearly understood that the person using the account was not the account holder. It was clearly against the terms and conditions of these accounts. There has even been a very high profile court case involving Bet365 and McCann. They were refusing to pay out because they said she wasn’t placing the bets for herself. We see bookmakers try and claim this type of behaviour all the time as a reason to not pay out. Bookmakers willing to take a hit to control the narrative they put out there. The bookmaker on this occasion clearly turned a blind eye to that behaviour in order to not ruffle any feathers. This isn’t an issue just from many years ago as media accounts are clearly still used to get bets on. Tony even said as much.
It speaks volumes to the integrity of the individual involved and the industry as a whole that this would be deemed acceptable, normal behaviour. That they wouldn’t view it as a massive conflicts of interest. Maybe it was just how things were done. Instead of maybe just milking a fortunate/highly questionable position they sought to abuse it. Their greed knew no bounds. It would make you question what other behaviours went on or took place if they were willing to do this for a bit of extra money. This story might not be so interesting if the person involved wasn’t one of the highest profile figures in the industry. Who held one of the highest profile positions. Clearly one rule for some. Different rules for others.
What we don’t know of course is how many other people have done things like this. All I will say is that absolutely nothing good has come out of it for the punter. The proof of that is literally in the pudding. The joys of the murky, shady, world of betting. Maybe you don’t need to wonder that hard why certain publications and certain people were so reluctant to talk about bookmaker behaviours. To talk about account restrictions. To talk about all the other issues the punter faces. Conflicts of interest. Of course not…
ProPunting 