Betting irregularities? Say no more!

On the afternoon of the bizarre Ricky Burns v Nicky Cook WBO super-featherweight title fight, the Racing Post reported that most bookmakers had noticed betting irregularites on the contest and suspended the round betting markets.

BoxRec News wasn't aware of the Racing Post's story on the evening itself and was only alerted to the situation by threads on BoxRec and Eastside Boxing's British forums.

It turns out that bets considered disproportionate to the norm had been placed on champion Burns to stop challenger Cook in the third round. Interestingly, the main location of the bets against Dagenham's Cook were placed in the East London/Essex areas. And Burns is hardly a noted puncher.

As the Racing Post put it, "Burns to win in round three had been available at 25-1 on Friday but punters continued to back it despite layers slashing the odds, setting alarm-bells ringing. A gamble on Burns to win in round three seems especially strange as the Scottish champion is not known for his knockout power – he has stopped only eight of 31 opponents (24 per cent) and four of his last five fights have gone the distance."

Strange indeed.

Stranger still was the fight itself. Cook was in trouble from a body shot after six seconds and was eventually stopped in obvious pain at 1:33 of the first round, before being removed from the ring on a stretcher. Commentator John Rawling noted that Cook had mentioned a degenerative back condition to him; this account was confirmed by presenter Gary Newbon.

Indeed, Gareth A Davies of the Telegraph mentioned Cook's back condition on the day of the fight.

Promoter Frank Warren admitted he'd never seen anything like it and was quite obviously as surprised as the vast majority of the rest of us at the outcome. Irked by suggestions that Cook wasn't fit, the promoter correctly pointed out that Cook had come through a six-rounder with no problems and passed all his medicals.

Yet it is apparent that not everyone was surprised by the very early stoppage.

Whilst bookmakers William Hill and Ladbrokes talked of an attempted coup based around round three, it is very important to note that Coral told BoxRec News that they saw money for a Burns stoppage 'in rounds one to three'.

At the time of writing, BoxRec News is the only source to have tried to tackle the issue with any conviction. You can read the story by clicking here.

The facts are these - in an all British 'world' title fight, the challenger suffered a prolapsed disc in the opening moments of the bout. The challenger had let it be known that a long standing back condition had been partly responsible for his lack of activity in the ring over the last couple of years. Bets at a level disproportionate to the norm were placed in and around the challenger's local area on a relative non-puncher winning by early stoppage. The wagers were such that the bookmakers felt it necessary to inform the Gambling Commission.

Perhaps the worst thing about it is the silence on the matter from the boxing media. It wasn't mentioned on Sky Sports' Ringside programme, nor on TalkSport's review of the card, nor on Radio Five Live's Boxing Hour. Steve Bunce alluded to the fight in his comments which closed his Boxing Hour on BBC Radio London but, darn it, there just wasn't time to give it an airing.

To his credit, Boxing News editor Tris Dixon mentioned it in his editorial - but only to dismiss it. To make it worse, the current issue carries a brief 'report' headlined 'No Bet Scandal' saying "As we went to press, Board General Secretary Robert Smith was confident that nothing further would develop from the sensationalised 'betting scandal'."

Indeed, it's very likely that nothing further will develop from it. Especially if those with a duty to regulate the sport don't even make a statement denouncing it and aren't pressed to do so by people responsible for reporting news about the sport.

And to call it 'sensationalised' is simply inaccurate - prior to this, there has been a grand total of ONE story on the matter in the boxing media. Even if one factors in the odd forum thread, it certainly hasn't been sensationalised. In fact, it's quite the opposite - it's been ignored.

Boxing Monthly didn't mention it in the current issue. Editor Glyn Leach explains, "The fight got five paragraphs in a reports round up. It isn't a news section. And while the betting story is interesting, to go into it there would have meant robbing the Bellew and Gavin fights of space.

"Of course, had the fight ended in the third round it would have been game on. But it didn't and consequently had no bearing on the fight or place in the report, in my opinion."

However, does it really matter that most of the bets were lost? Does one have to win a gamble (as David Haye was alleged to have done against Audley Harrison) to provoke some kind of investigation or, at least, cursory inquiry?

Not for one minute do I think Nicky Cook's injury was anything but genuine - that was clear for all to see. Nor do I think he was involved in anything untoward.

But surely the facts of the matter in the light of the bizarre ending of the bout deserve some kind of investigation by the sport's regulatory body.

Why were punters close to Nicky Cook's home town confident enough to lay decent money on a reputed non-puncher winning by very early stoppage? It seems the attempted coup went wrong - for most of the punters - but does that matter? 

Surely given the outcome of the fight, some questions need to be asked. If they have been, it would be wise to let fans - especially those following Burns and Cook - know the answers.

After the bout I did note the ultra-phlegmatic views of one poster on Eastside Boxing's British forum who simply said he was glad that no one was talking about the betting irregularities as the sooner the matter was swept under the carpet, the better.

It appears, sadly, that this might very well be the prevailing view.