That's the problem with a free market, it's always subject to manipulation by the big players.
The free market only works a sandpit, with the big players leaving it alone to keep the small fry happy and playing along.
And then there is the "un-free market" where the state owns everything so there's no such thing as commerce except amongst the politburo.
"Big players" in the market don't manipulate simply by participating in exchange. If you argue this point, then you need to define at what monetary point does someone become a big player. So let's say that number is $1,000,000. That's not really that large of an investment but suppose for the argument that is what you consider a "big player". Does that mean $999,999.99 is not a big player? At some point a single penny determines whether an individual is a big player or not.
Actual manipulation comes from fraud, specious statements (strong dollar policy) and false statistics (GDP, core inflation, etc).
I like how in your first sentence you say "a free market" and then in the second sentence it is suddenly "the free market." Do you understand that "the free market" does not exist? It's a concept. More precisely it is the aggregation of voluntary exchanges. There is no problem with an economic system fundamentally based on voluntary exchange.
With enough analysists, someone will - by pure chance - outperform the market for X time. It's still completely expected, and is no different from flipping coins. It does not in any way point to the analyst using a method which has predictive power.
