35 replies to this topic

[cdracer]

I was wondering how team orders can be legal in law when people can bet on the results.
eg if you had money on Massa when he was told to let Alonso through they are guilty of rigging the result.

Comments please

And how about team members betting?

Edited by cdracer, 13 July 2011 - 16:44.

[Afterburner]

cdracer, on Jul 13 2011, 12:18, said:

eg if you had money on Massa when he was told to let Alonso through they are guilty of rigging the result.

Simple solution: don't ever bet on Massa if you think he's got a chance of pulling over for Alonso. Team orders are legal in Formula One, so therefore you should adjust your bet accordingly.

[TFLB]

If you gamble and lose then tough luck. Teams don't care or know whether you've bet on one of their drivers or not.

[DarthWillie]

Teamorders are legal, if you are a betting man, you have to take them into consideration.

Also this would mean a global sport would have to adjust to local laws everywhere? Sound impossible to me.

[DrewishPrince]

He who bets on F1 without understanding of the sport deserves to loose.

[cdracer]

DarthWillie, on Jul 13 2011, 17:23, said:

Teamorders are legal, if you are a betting man, you have to take them into consideration.

Also this would mean a global sport would have to adjust to local laws everywhere? Sound impossible to me.

When Massa moved over for Alonso team orders was against the rules

[Diablobb81]

They have no legal obligation towards the people that bet.

Not to mention that betting is a cancer for many sports.

Edited by Diablobb81, 13 July 2011 - 16:51.

[Clatter]

cdracer, on Jul 13 2011, 17:18, said:

I was wondering how team orders can be legal in law when people can bet on the results.
eg if you had money on Massa when he was told to let Alonso through they are guilty of rigging the result.

Comments please

And how about team members betting?

Unlike horse racing F1 doesn't exist for the betting. Take away the betting and the racing would continue. Everyone knows that team orders are allowed and there is no reason to change that just to benefit the betting industry.

[Atreiu]

Afterburner, on Jul 13 2011, 13:20, said:

Team orders are legal in Formula One, so therefore you should adjust your bet accordingly.

/thread

[mikasenna]

DrewishPrince, on Jul 13 2011, 17:31, said:

He who bets on F1 without understanding of the sport deserves to loose.

Absolutely!!!
Team orders are legal and from a betting point of view that could work to your advantage.... Always bet on Alonso finishing ahead of Massa!!

[Afterburner]

cdracer, on Jul 13 2011, 12:46, said:

When Massa moved over for Alonso team orders was against the rules

True, in this case you may have an argument in the situation that the event you bet on was manipulated in a way that was against the rules--sort of like you may have a case if you had placed a bet on a driver during Singapore 2008. At that point, though, I'm pretty sure your case would lie with the betting agency based on the conditions of the bet you placed rather than with Formula One.

[DanardiF1]

cdracer, on Jul 13 2011, 17:18, said:

I was wondering how team orders can be legal in law when people can bet on the results.
eg if you had money on Massa when he was told to let Alonso through they are guilty of rigging the result.

Comments please

And how about team members betting?

You could say the same for substitutions in football... you have a bet on a certain player scoring, and then the manager takes him off, preventing him from the possibility of him scoring or not scoring whilst on the field...

members of the backroom staff could know the substitution was meant to happen, and bet accordingly...

[Mary Popsins]

I never bet on Liuzzi. One day I'm gonna lose big and I will curse the team orders.

[Ferrari2183]

I would never bet on a race but would on the champion.

[Dunder]

cdracer, on Jul 13 2011, 17:18, said:

I was wondering how team orders can be legal in law when people can bet on the results.
eg if you had money on Massa when he was told to let Alonso through they are guilty of rigging the result.

Comments please

And how about team members betting?

It is just one of those things. If you don't like the possibility that the result is not pure then don't bet.
Whether people bet on the result or not should not be a consideration for the F1 regulators.

[four1]

During the next FIFA World Cup I would advise you not to bet on who will be the tournament's top goal scorer unless you have a guarantee from the coach that the player will play 90 minutes of every game.

[Man of the race]

If one wants total fairness, it is betting which should be illegal, because it is too easy to manipulate. If you want to keep the sport honest, stop betting in sports events, do not try to change the sport itself. Maybe bets once had something to do with expertise, consideration and skill but nowadays.... Hardly. Lotteries are another thing. They are based on probability, with fixed win and return ratios. Much more fair.

Edited by Man of the race, 13 July 2011 - 19:48.

[OwenC93]

Of course with team orders you could make some smart bets and slip a team manager some money to make it happen. But yea, it's not a problem.

[Anssi]

It's not a problem for F1. It may be someone else's problem, but you can't hold F1 accountable for it.

The same "problem" exists in many other sports, too.

[Wi000]

Betting on sports is illegal in more countries than team orders are.
Don't bet on F1 or don't even watch it I'd say if you don't understand or accept the principle of team orders being issued.

[Rich]

F1 teams do not answer to bookmakers or gamblers, and thus have no obligation to base their decisions on what is acceptable to the gambling industry. If there is a conflict between gambling and team orders, then the outcome is simple: ban gambling on F1 results.

Although I don't believe in banning things. So I'd rather conclude that the current system is working fine. If somebody bets on F1 in the belief that it is entirely decided on merit, then they should consider their gambling losses as tuition fees for a crash course on how the real world works.

Edited by Rich, 13 July 2011 - 20:14.

[george1981]

Back in 1998 a lot of people kicked up a fuss when Coulthard let Hakkinen through in Austrailia. Some UK book makers paid out on Coulthard any way.

[purplesector]

If you're concerned about team orders you can now bet on which team wins the race (shorter odds but you get both drivers).

EG If for some bizarre reason you fancy Massa to win a race but are worried about hearing Rob Smedley's resigned tone saying "Red Riding Hood is knocking on Granny's Door, baby" , you back Ferrari to win and collect whether he wins or they do the dirty deed and he 'misses a gear' again.

No excuse now for whining after a switcheroo.

[jonnoj]

cdracer, on Jul 13 2011, 17:18, said:

I was wondering how team orders can be legal in law when people can bet on the results.
eg if you had money on Massa when he was told to let Alonso through they are guilty of rigging the result.

Comments please

The bet is between the bookie and the punter. As it's the bookies money the punter is after, the bookie gets to set the rules. The F1 teams & drivers are not involved and can't be blamed when you lose your dosh.

[CSquared]

You guys need to watch more movies

OwenC93, on Jul 13 2011, 12:44, said:

Of course with team orders you could make some smart bets and slip a team manager some money to make it happen. But yea, it's not a problem.

That's the issue. If it's legal to bet on an outcome and it's legal to manipulate that outcome it'll take about 3 seconds before someone starts to take advantage of that for profit. I wonder what bets Christian Horner made before Silverstone?

Or you get the old man in a suit who walks up to Horner near the end of the race, whispering, "You know I bet $1 million on Webber winning this race, right?" with a wink and a nod and a glance to the two huge henchmen behind him, one of them cracking his knuckles. Of course, if team orders were illegal he could just go to the driver and get the same effect, but .... hey, this is my movie and I can write it like I want. Since when do movie plots need to make sense?

[Rich]

But then what if Vettel ignores the team order and wins anyway? The movie will have to end like the old Benny Hill show, with Seb running around the paddock in fast motion with Webber, Horner, Adrian Newey, Dieter M, the old man in the suit, the two henchmen, Charlie Whiting and Jean Todt all running after him in a long line, brandishing frying pans. Now that would be an entertaining F1 movie. None of this dull "Senna as he really was" nonsense. Just good family entertainment. With some farting scenes to give it British flavour.

Or you could get Guy Ritchie to write and direct it as an ensemble cast black comedy called "KERS, DRS and Two Smoking Exhaust Outlets". It would be just up his alley as the FIA rulebook and stewards' decisions feature just as many outlandish coincidences as the average Ritchie screenplay. But the RC fans would give it a rating for lack of realism because Jason Statham doesn't look anything like Jenson Button and Felipe Massa isn't a Scouser FFS.

[HP]

Not many years ago a country legalized lottery and sports lottery. When the vice president was asked about her opinion about it, she very bluntly said: "betting is a way to tax the poor".

And almost all people spend more money on betting than they win. That much should much be obvious. If anyone ever finds a lottery charity organization, that wants to lose money, let us know.;)

[windmill]

Look up the Coulthard/Hakkinen drive through the pits incident at the Melbourne race circa 1999.

This was the start of the team orders furore.

Why ?

Because the gamblers complained that they had put their money on Mika and the team orders gave the race to Coulthard.
And the sponsors obviously needed to divert the blame.
So it wasn't a fair race or bet ?

The reasoning started to get convoluted but that was what drove the initial ban on team orders.

An example of the money from sponsors overiding the traditions of a sport.

[jonnoj]

HP, on Jul 14 2011, 10:26, said:

Not many years ago a country legalized lottery and sports lottery. When the vice president was asked about her opinion about it, she very bluntly said: "betting is a way to tax the poor".

And almost all people spend more money on betting than they win. That much should much be obvious. If anyone ever finds a lottery charity organization, that wants to lose money, let us know.;)

Gambling is a mugs game. But ... when the prize is £161 million - I'm prepared to invest a couple of quid!

[Mary Popsins]

More ganja, less gambling.

[wattoroos]

maybe bookies should introduce the market "Will team orders be used in the German grand prix" Yes: $5:50, No: $1:10

If people want to bet on f1 than they should be aware of the possibility of team orders or just dont bet on it at all and spend your money on other things like the casino it is an individuals choice to bet

Edited by wattoroos, 15 July 2011 - 02:00.

[Zippel]

cdracer, on Jul 14 2011, 01:48, said:

I was wondering how team orders can be legal in law when people can bet on the results.
eg if you had money on Massa when he was told to let Alonso through they are guilty of rigging the result.

Comments please

And how about team members betting?

The possibility of team orders with certain drivers are taken into consideration when odds are determined. You get what you pay for.

[Cenotaph]

Now this got me wondering, I agree with most that the bet should take the possibility of one driver moving over, but what about a situation like Spa 2008? That probably caused some issues.

[Stormsky68]

Always bet on Bernie to win

Edited by Stormsky68, 15 July 2011 - 06:59.

[rayburn]

Stormsky68, on Jul 15 2011, 07:59, said:

Always bet on Bernie to win

I am not a gambling man, but even I would bet on that.

[Blanca]

Anyone here remember the betting site where you can bet face to face within a social network?