theage.com.au
ROBBIE Waterhouse is again in danger of losing his bookmaking licence,
with Racing NSW stewards this week to determine whether the
controversial bookmaker will face charges over "curious" cancelled bets
by Waterhouse at Randwick races on Saturday.
Waterhouse, who has a long history of bookmaking offences including
being "warned off" racecourses for 17 years after his involvement with
the Fine Cotton ring-in of 1984, will be called, along with his son
Tom, to front the stewards when they resume the latest inquiry at
Randwick on Thursday.
On Saturday night, Racing NSW stewards inquired why both Waterhouse and
his son had accepted bets on Saturday, from an unnamed punter, before
laying off the bet over the phone with interstate operators and then
cancelling the punter's original bet less than 20 seconds later.
It is illegal for a bookmaker to make a bet-back with another bookmaker
over a telephone unless they have a liability on the horse they are
attempting to back.
If the bets taken by the Waterhouses are found to be fictitious investments it would constitute a breach of racing's rules.
Robbie Waterhouse has already been in trouble from stewards over that
charge before — in 2002 over the "extravagant odds" affair when he
offered odds of 500-1 to a selected client on short-priced favourites
in what he said was a bid to write off a debt from the punter.
Waterhouse had only won back his bookmaking licence in 2001 after being
banned from racecourses throughout the world for 17 years after
stewards found he had prior knowledge of the infamous Fine Cotton
substitution at Eagle Farm in Queensland in 1984.
The pair also have to explain why they were backing horses with the
interstate operators and receiving "tote odds" from bookmakers, which
is also illegal.
Penalties ranging from fines to suspensions could stem from any of
those charges while, given Robbie Waterhouse's chequered past, he could
face a show-cause notice as to why his licence should be renewed the
next time it falls due.
The fate of the pair is set to hinge on the evidence given by a leading
Sydney punter when the inquiry, which was adjourned at Randwick on
Saturday night, continues this week.
There is no rule that stops a bookmaker making a cash or credit bet
with a colleague at the same course, even if they have no liability on
the horse they back.
On Saturday night, chief steward Ray Murrihy first questioned Tom
Waterhouse at length over the "curious" bets and cancellations in his
books.
Tom Waterhouse's standard answer when asked about the circumstances of the wagers was "I can't recall".
But when questioned over other bets from the same punter, bets that
weren't laid off and cancelled, he was clear in his evidence when
saying: "I remember that bet well as I thought the horse (he backed)
had no chance."
Several of the so-called bets made in the punter's name with the
Waterhouses before being cancelled were of minimum amounts, some
standing to win less than $400. Robbie Waterhouse said the punter
involved is a "betting machine" and would have "a thousand bets a week"
with bookmakers around Australia.Murrihy told Tom Waterhouse on Saturday night: "I'll be honest. The
bets that are there (and then cancelled), $100, $200 … don't seem like
(the punter concerned) bets." Murrihy asked if Waterhouse was
establishing a liability for himself with a false bet in order to back
a horse himself, a proposal which Tom Waterhouse denied. "If this was a
one-off, we wouldn't be speaking to you here. But there is a pattern,"
Murrihy said.
