Statement - 07-March-2014
Sporting Data are pleased that the corruption charges against our employee, Daniel Dobson, have been dropped and that Sporting Data, its employees and directors have been exonerated of any wrongdoing. The Director of Public Prosecutions stated that there was "no reasonable prospect of conviction", which confirms Sporting Data's view that the charges were fundamentally flawed.
It has taken far too long to reach this point but it was a relief to hear from our lawyers on March 4th that, finally, just two days before the next hearing was due, and exactly seven weeks after the whole farcical episode started, that the D.P.P. had reached the only sensible decision and directed the police to withdraw the charges. This was an enormous relief and lets us to get back to business and recover from what had been a really arduous seven weeks. More importantly, it enables Dan to get back to building himself a career without the stigma of a court case or a conviction over his head. He has been completely exonerated.
We would like to say thank you to the friends, journalists, bloggers and those on social media who have given their backing and encouragement. Your support has been invaluable.
Statement - 16-January-2014Following a number of news articles relating to betting at the Australian Open in Melbourne, Sporting Data would like to respond to various allegations about corrupt behaviour. Sporting Data has never been and never will be involved in any illegal betting or any other illegal activity whatsoever and take a serious view of any allegations that they have. Sporting Data has never been and never will be involved in any type of match fixing. We encourage a more proactive stance against those who are involved in match fixing. However, recently, one of our employees has been accused of the very serious crime of match fixing at the Australian Open and we shall do everything we can to fight this grossly unfair accusation
We wish to make the following points and clarifications.:
1) Sporting Data is a company providing sporting data and services to certain individuals. Our clients use the information provided to place bets.
2) We have employees on the courtside sending back information to London and that is then used to place bets on the outcome of the match. However, the odds and stake of the bets are all determined by the individuals in London and not by the employees on court. There are plenty of times that they will send info back and nothing will be done with it. In no way could they considered to be betting themselves.
3) We use mathematical models to assess the probability of a match outcome. Bets will be placed when the odds generated by the model are significantly out of line with the market. A lot of syndicates use a similar methodology. Clearly, we need the most up to date information to generate accurate match probabilities. We cannot rely on TV pictures as they are out of date.
4) Most of the bets placed are placed on betting exchanges - platforms devised specifically for punters to pit their information and simulation techniques against each other. It is the tightest and most competitive environment there is and we have invested a lot of time and effort to become competitive.
5) We have no interest in corrupting the outcome of a match. We want both players in any given match to perform as well as they possibly can. Our models fail to work if the result is any way compromised and we would take all steps to avoid betting on any match we suspect to be corrupted.
6) The new Victoria State Law (CRIMES AMENDMENT (INTEGRITY IN SPORTS) ACT 2013) is a very good law and we welcome it. We want matches to be as straight as possible. However, this law is being applied entirely inappropriately here. As we see it, it is up to the Victorian Police to demonstrate that this sending of information in some way 'corrupts or would corrupt a betting outcome of an event or event contingency'. In other words, that somehow, what we are doing affects the match in some way. There is no way we could conceivably be affecting how the match pans out.
7) An interesting side note to the discussion is that what our employee on court was doing is exactly what umpires do. They send information from the court back to other organisations that use it to profit from betting. In this case, the organisations are bookmakers and it is done through the tennis authorities' agreement with Enetpulse. However, the principle is identical.
Further educated views can be found in the following...
Please direct any further queries about this topic to email@example.com