I think part of it has something to do with the betting patterns that were going on in the match which possibly looked like someone knew something was up, as Bloomers was a massive favourite to win 2-0 as soon as the match started, rather than at evens before the match, which suggests something is up.

It's more likely that the punters realised that it's a match between a grass-court specialist in some good form against a man out of form who hates grass, but....

This is what happened

Kohlmann paid Boggo to lose, Boggo accepted cause he knew he'd lose to Bloomers, decided he'd take the cash and head to Vegas.

Bloomers then paid Kholmann off who wasn't really that interested in singles anyway.

Rochus then threw the match having got a big pay off from a gambling site to do so.

Rochus then paid Giraldo to lose to Bloomers so his loss wouldnt seem so susepct.

Simples really.

Now I wish that I hadn't bet that £1m

Seriously, if I had that sort of money it would have been a good bet - Rochus had lost 7 of his last 8 matches and Bloomers was impressive in qualifying then in his first game served 3 aces so another quick bet!
Bloomers loves grass courts, big events and his spinal injections seem have worked so was anyone really that surprised? Only the bookies it seems.

I added a comment similar to above but more extensive on Mail website but now comments for that report seem to have disappeared - Perhaps the truth spoilt their storyline!



Count, I need to know urgently - Has Harrison accepted a bung?



-- Edited by mjd on Friday 9th of July 2010 11:34:18 AM

I do agree that this did look a possible decent bet.  As soon as the qualifiers' possible opponents were known, some folk here had Rochus marked down as the one to get.

However I am very glad that there are anti-corruption investigators and if the betting patterns do look strange fair enough let them investigate and hopefully no problems, particularly for Richard.  Clearly the loser will always be under much more possible suspicion. The winner can't make it happen alone, the loser could. Indeed involving the intended winner is a wholly unneccessary complication.

Tennis, and indeed all sports,  loses all value if we can't believe that what is happening is honest, apart from the illegality involved.  So, hopefully just a slight pain for Richard, but we do need these investigators folk, and long may they be vigilant.

Yeah, Boggo's speciality is Roulette.

Unfortunately even when an investigation clears a player the 'Great' British press like to sensationalise events, in a second article today as a 'Mail exclusive' it quotes -

".... No conclusion was reached about the Wimbledon win, illustrating how hard it is to get to the bottom of these cases. Berlocq appeared to be carrying an injury and word of that may have got out - probably the most innocent explanation of what happens when the betting markets go awry....! "

By implication the first part of that sentance implies that there WAS something to prove - you can't get to the bottom of something if it doesn't exist! We all know it was sour grapes from the betting sites who do not like to pay out, the second part of the sentance above only hints of an explanation but it is worded to imply something else.

The British press just do not want to say anything good about British tennis players (or footy or cricket etc etc) - I must make a note to NEVER buy a Daily Mail again.