punters shafted again by lame rules and poor stewarding

The UK racing industry insists on running these low standard all-weather meetings to generate turnover to pay the Levy. The Levy fund isn't enough to provide decent prizemoney for these rubbish events. Ireland, slated recently for not having their all-weather track open during the depths of winter, at least maintain a standard - they have minimum prizemoney levels they refuse to break, meaning they won't just run rubbish races for the sake of it with prizemoney of a case of Guinness.

At Lingfield on Thursday, two low-grade handicaps - Class 6 - the lowest of the low in Britain, and described as "..shit, low-grade handicaps" by the trainer in question, were won by horses which were entitled by 20/1 shots at least, with zero recent form on the board. Both horses were backed into favouritism (which to be honest, wouldn't require millions on such poor races) and won comfortably. The humble punter who wasn't in on the information is entitled to throw his hands in the air and give up when formlines like that can be overcome.

The trainer here, Noel Quinlan, has done nothing wrong - he has simply exploited weak points in the current system, like numerous other trainers have done in the past. But he shouldn't be allowed to do so. Punters fund the industry. It is their losses which go to the bookmakers. It is the bookies' profits which pays the levy which funds racing prizemoney. Keep treating punters like idiots and they will find something else to bet on - football, darts, X-Factor, politics... it's a very long list these days.

Punters deserve to be informed. If trainers are running their horses for prizemoney paid for by PUNTERS MONEY, then they should be forced to declare ALL vet treatment. Australian racing has just brought in a nationwide requirement to report any treatment on a horse appearing for a race:

Trainers will soon have to report all relevant procedures administered to a horse. At present, wind operations, bone-chip removals, etc, do not have to be reported, although there is a rule where a trainer has to report to stipes anything that may affect a horse's performance in the week before a race. ''The rule currently is in relation to what's happened in the lead-up to a race,'' Murrihy said. ''Stewards believe it should be mandatory to report things like wind operations and this will be made public.''


Bookmakers concerned Lingfield betting coup will alienate punters

The stewards at Lingfield on Thursday asked no direct questions of the trainers who landed a betting coup in each of the last two races, it emerged yesterday. Noel Quinlan said he spoke only to the stipendiary steward after the easy victories of Bishopbriggs and Tell Halaf, from the Newmarket stable which he shares with his brother, Michael.

Both horses had started at double-figure odds and been well beaten in their six most recent outings but were sent off as favourites at Lingfield after strong late support. Representatives of the major bookmaking firms said that such events could alienate punters from the sport.

"I didn't go into the stewards' at all," Quinlan said, "The stipe took notes off me, took them to the stewards and they've accepted my explanations. I couldn't see why they wouldn't. We're talking about shit, low-grade handicaps."

Bookies aren't particularly whinging about this case, other plunges have cost them far more financially, it's just the industry will slowly die unless something is done about it.

Keep screwing punters sideways and they'll find something else to do. The addicts will switch to the soulless FOBTs and virtual racing, the more sensible might just keep their money in their pockets.....Posted byScott Fergusonat17:04

HONG KONG: Turbo King rules with explosive finish

Pier House snaps up €57,000 Tamayuz colt Distorted Humor to stand for $100,000Gainesway increases Tapit's fee to $80,000WinStar Racing draft dominates KeenelandOverbury sets Kayf Tara fee at £5,000 for 2011Read Full News Service Search News Archive

German betting market to open up as ECJ rules monopoly as unfair

Europe's biggest and richest market, Germany, looks set for deregulation after the European Court of Justice (ECJ) yesterday ruled that "German rules do not limit games of choice in a consistent and systematic manner". The court stressed that "the holders of public monopolies carry out intensive advertising campaigns with a view to maximise profit from lotteries thereby departing from the objectives justifying the existence of those monopolies."

Germany was a messy legal and regulatory system in relation to online gambling, as provincial governments held different attitudes toward the industry. Some licences existed in the days of East and West Germany, which the unified nation refused to recognise but the licenceholders (or those who had bought into them from outside Germany) were prepared to take them to court.

Real Madrid and AC Milan had recently been either fined or forced to wear alternative strips to avoid prosecution from local authorities. Now it's a whole new ball game with the big players such as BWin/Party Gaming, Betfair, Expekt and Unibet expected to dive into the market with football sponsorship rather swiftly.

What will the government do - will they go down the line of a protectionist, (initially at least) unviable model such as in France, or a more modern approach like the proposed Danish model, which encourages competition and recognises the standards of operation in other EU member states?Posted byScott Fergusonat10:37