THE WEDNESDAY WHINGE has a new look but won’t be dispensing with some of our old favorites and will continue to focus on THE GOOD, THE BAD & THE UGLY side of what has happened in racing over the past week. Our old mate ‘Godfrey Smith’ is back by popular demand and again pens his ‘Look Back at the Racing Week’. The Whinge will also include an opportunity for The Cynics to Have Their Say. Thanks again for your support for the most read column on this website. Our popularity continues to grow despite the bagging it is copping from some officials who cannot cope with constructive criticism.
HAS THE HARNESS KING PULLED THE PIN BECAUSE OF THE NEW TRICODE SPLIT?
EDITOR'S NOTE: We have received several emails informing us that Kevin Seymour has retired from harness racing administration. These are unconfirmed reports but the questions being asked are: Was he not happy with the TAB Tri Code deal and what harness racing will receive? Does he feel it is time to bow out because of conflicts of interest with his share ownership and Board position on Tatts? Or will he still drive the harness truck from the sideline? TIME WILL TELL!
DOES THIS STATEMENT RIVAL ‘THE FURLONG IN FRONT’ AS DUMBEST OF THE DECADE? 
MAX JACKSON of BRISBANE gets the lead EMAIL of the WEEK for this contribution:
‘IT seems that Darren Condon (the RQ CEO) has been spending so much time with his esteemed Chairman and the Racing Minister that he is starting to sound as silly as they do in some of the statements that he is making.
This little gem by Mr Condon in a recent Media Release from RQ could arguably rival the ‘furlong in front forecast’ by the Minister as the dumbest racing statement of the decade.
In declaring that RQ had listened to its participants and felt it was critical to find the right balance of support for regional clubs and the metropolitan and carnival products, Mr Condon said:
“There has been a lot of discussion about prize money, and naturally people look towards the southern states for comparisons, but headline prize money is the wrong benchmark to measure the strength of our racing product.
“We have 62 per cent of the population and economy of New South Wales, which gives them access to significantly more funding and wagering turnover. Put simply, to achieve the same headline prize money we would need to run 62 per cent of the number of races.”
To suggest that because Queensland has 62 per cent of the population of NSW therefore our prizemoney should only be 62 per cent of that state’s prizemoney is not only downright dumb but completely absurd.
One wonders who told him to say this: the RQ Chairman, the Racing Minister or, I suspect, the politician pulling the strings – Treasurer Tim Nicholls.
What a load a horse manure! Population relationship is totally irrelevant. The analogy is so remote it is living in fairytale land.
If we were to agree with what Mr Condon is suggesting, it follows that all items, or whatever in Queensland, should be 62 per cent cheaper than NSW, or some other stupid comparison to Victoria.
Setting aside the ‘smokes and mirrors’ of these farcical comparisons and figures being produced in propaganda media releases – just imagine what we will get next when the breakdown of prizemoney distribution for the three codes is announced.
Here are some important questions that I would like your website to put to RQ. There is no point me asking the ‘spin doctors of the mainstream racing media’ or ‘the blog suck-up merchants’ to do likewise as they are too busy pumping up the tyres of the two Dickos.
These are questions that ‘thinking’ people in the racing industry are asking. Yes Minister and Chairman there are stakeholders who can ‘think’ for themselves and don’t simply parrot the words you utter and fall at your feet like your little mate up the range or some of your weak-kneed media mates.
IN relation to the RQ deal with Tattersalls that we are continually told is so wonderful for the industry:
WHY did RQ show no urgency to prosecute the court action that had already been taken when the Racing Commission of Inquiry openly declared that Tattersalls were liable to pay?
DID RQ, as part of their wagering agreement or elsewhere, get some incentive from Tattersalls to discontinue the action? For example, were the court costs of RQ paid by Tattersalls?
AND – WHY did RQ not go to mediation in this case?
Interesting thoughts and you don’t need to be a high profile lawyer to be asking these questions. Let’s see if we get any answers from the Deagon Bunker or continue to be treated like mushrooms – an industry kept in the dark and fed bullshit by a control body supported by a Government that is quickly sinking into the political quicksand.’
EDITOR’S NOTE: I understand they were very busy at RQ yesterday with the Board meeting to add the finishing touches to the Tri Code distribution deal of the pot of gold from the new TAB wagering agreement. The tip is that the gallops will get somewhere around 75 per cent and the trots and dogs 12.5 per cent each. If that’s the case, some are saying that percentage-wise the gallops will still be worse off than they were before. Rest assured we will seek answers to these questions but like a lot of others they will no doubt be described as commercial-in-confidence decisions that cannot be commented on.
WHY DOESN’T THIS ‘BLOGGER’ TACKLE THE BUTCHER INSTEAD OF THE BLOCK?
CHARLIE J of TOWNSVILLE writes: 
‘I have watched from afar in recent times as a certain racing media man has used every outlet available to him to promote his mates at Racing Queensland, the LNP Government and more importantly his own profile.
He obviously doesn’t know the meaning of ‘conflict of interest’ and I have, to date, been reluctant to concede that his writings or comments matter to most in the industry but when he continues to bag two long-time and respected racing media identities that I have a great respect for, then the time has come to defend them.
Peter Cameron and Terry Butts have been branded ‘racing drama queens,’ which is a bit rich coming from the ‘blogger’ I am referring to. I won’t mention his name – his reputation precedes him – or the website he writes for as few in racing even know it exists.
Here are a couple of examples of his recent rants that have upset many of us up here in the north of the state where he sometimes makes a ‘junket’ visit, one suspects funded by the industry or the club in question.
‘Seriously, if certain scribes don't stop banging on that our prize-money levels will still not be on par with New South Wales or Victoria, I might not be responsible for my actions.’
And he waffled on:
‘Racing’s drama queens were in full flight after the weekend.
‘The Stafford by-election result had breathed new life into the LNP detractors hoping for the turnaround of all turnarounds in next year’s state election.
Yes, there will be a correction of sorts with the numbers but, no, Labor will not be residing in the halls of power sometime soon.
And that’s bad news for the critics of RQ chairman Kevin Dixon and Racing Minister Steve Dickson who could find fault with Santa Claus given a chance.
It wasn’t a good week for the “RDQ’s” after they ruefully watched Tim Mulherin and Alex Douglas barely lay a glove on Dickson at Thursday’s Estimate Hearings.’
One might suggest his political forecasts are about as ‘safe a bet’ as his weekly racing selections. On a more serious note he forgot to point out that at the Estimates Hearings, the Government saw fit to reduce question time to two per cent of what it was when Labor was in power. So that just about torpedoes the claim that ‘barely a glove’ was laid on the Racing Minister.
The other point I would like to make is that these racing media identities were questioning the irresponsible predictions of the Racing Minister concerning prizemoney not suggesting that the levels should be on a par with the southern states.
Might I suggest that instead of ‘sucking up’ to his mates at RQ this little turkey grows the ‘balls’ to attack the butcher and not the block? It was the ‘mate’ he seems desperate to have in the Racing Minister who promised Queensland would wind up a ‘furlong in front’ of the southern states.
So why doesn’t he ask the Minister to explain why his promise cannot be fulfilled under the new TAB deal? I guess it’s a bit hard when you work for the people in question.
We all know where his riding instructions come from harness racing wise. We all know he struggles to slide down the banner of objectivity between his roles in the racing media and that of fighting a lost cause for a code he pretends to be a front man for.
There’s only one ‘Drama Queen’ in this racing saga mate – and that’s you. Stick to what you do best and leave the political commentary on racing in Queensland to people who know what they ARE talking about or at least take a leaf from the book of someone who is respected – like Alan Jones.’
EDITOR’S NOTE: I have a long history with the gentleman you are being critical of and respect the right he has to his own opinion. He is very passionate about racing and especially harness racing. I refuse to attack him personally because I respect him as a person and a racing identity. No-one expects Queensland to rival NSW and Victoria when it comes to prizemoney. The fact remains there are too many race clubs – especially non TAB in this state – and until something is done about that (political no-go land) then the problem will continue to exist.
But perhaps my long-time media ‘mate’ might consider the following and how big a task Queensland faces to be ‘a furlong in front’ as the Racing Minister suggested it would be:
The below figures will be interesting for comparison purposes with NSW when RQ announces the slice up of the TAB pie:
Current Metropolitan Saturday prizemoney:
NSW $85,000 and Queensland $45,000 – an extra $13 million needed annually to bridge the gap.
Current Metropolitan Midweek prizemoney:
NSW $40,000 and Queensland $17,000 – an extra $10 million needed annually to bridge the gap.
Current Major Provincial prizemoney:
NSW $22,000 and Queensland $10,000 – an extra $17.7 million needed annually to bridge the gap.
Current Minor Provincial prizemoney:
NSW $15,000 and Queensland $10,000 – an extra $3 million needed annually to bridge the gap.
THE OVERALL COST TO MATCH NSW PRIZMONEY AT TAB MEETINGS IS $43.7million (now that’s a big furlong to catch up).
The following should also be considered:
Removal of starters fees (1st to 4th at TAB and 1st to 3rd at Non-TAB) – cost $3 million.
Increase in Jockeys’ Riding Fees ($143 Queensland, $170 NSW) - $1.25 million.
Increases to the Winter Carnival Feature Prizemoney - $2 million.
This highlights that thoroughbreds alone would require an annual increase of $50 million to MATCH NSW.
JUST KEEP THE INDUSTRY IN THE DARK AND TREAT THEM LIKE MUSHROOMS 
ALBERT W of BRISBANE, a regular contributor, writes:
‘THE modus operandi of heavies at Racing Queensland whenever pressure is applied on a controversial issue by those websites prepared to ask the tough questions is to ignore it.
‘Don’t worry about it. No-one reads them,’ is the common catch-cry from the ‘political fence-jumpers’ who refuse to question the words of their esteemed leader.
Well what are they going to do now that national broadcaster Alan Jones has joined the band-wagon? Try to convince stakeholders that no-one listens to him too.
I guess they can always get ‘their Alan Jones’ to keep up appearances and provide what most regard is the slanted RQ view on Radio Propaganda – have little King Kev into the studio to answer a list of prepared questions.
It’s all too woeful for words. If you can’t control the media then you bag the crap out of them or get you’re mates to do the dirty work for you.
Racing should be thankful that websites like justracing and letsgohorseracing are prepared to protect the interests of the racing public and the stakeholders or as Don Chipp once said ‘try to keep the bastards honest’.
Racing issues in Queensland are a sideshow to the real Jones concerns with the Newman Government and those who have followed this influential political commentator will tell you, when he gets a bee in his bonnet on a specific issue, AJ isn’t one to be ignored.
I sent you an email after listening to his nationally broadcast comment piece after the Stafford by-election setback for the Newman Government and I repeat it now:
‘Will our joke of a Racing Minister Steve Dickson or his mate the Racing Queensland Chairman Kevin Dixon provide details of the allegations being raised by Alan Jones? The stakeholders of racing in this state are sick of being treated like mushrooms and want some answers for a change.”
Jones raised this specific issue which has caused plenty of comment and inquiry in the industry: “There is a racing industry scandal in Queensland that has barely seen the light of day but it will.”
Many suspect they know what he is talking about. Before this matter gets out of hand it is time the hierarchy of Racing Queensland climbed out from under their rock and started answering a few questions.’
DARLING DOWNS A COMMON DEMONINATOR IN THE ALAN JONES CRITICISM
AND this email from ALBY K of IPSWICH on the same issue:
‘DID you notice the common denominator in the Alan Jones attack on the LNP Government in Queensland?
It focused largely on happenings on the Darling Downs, especially Toowoomba.
Jones made allegations concerning secret deals done over a second Range crossing; he raised questions concerning a private airport contract in Toowoomba; and pointed to ‘cover-ups’ following the fatal Grantham floods.
After reading more detail of what he had to say on these issues one wonders if his racing ‘scandal’ involves the Downs as well. One could argue that the massive waste of money on a new Clifford Park track that has proved a total disaster could be described as scandalous.
One suspects though that the ‘scandal’ in racing that he says will rock the industry is much closer to RQ headquarters. Time will tell I guess. Not that I am expecting the Racing Minister or the Treasurer, who it is said runs him by remote control, will be too keen to say anything outside the safety of Parliamentary Privilege where no doubt they will give Alan Jones a bucketing.’
RACING OFFICIALS IN QUEENSLAND AND NSW ‘NEED A GOOD DOSE OF REALITY’
PERCY J of MELBOURNE writes:
‘THEY have a Racing Minister in Queensland who reckons that state will be a furlong in front after the new TAB deal and a high profile industry administrator in NSW who sees his state overtaking Victoria as the pace-setter of racing in Australia.
Both need a good dose of reality.
Every objective commentator in the country has revealed how the biggest beneficiary of the new RQ TAB deal is Tattersalls. The racing ‘spin doctors’ in the mainstream media might as well be writing the political propaganda media releases for the Government. They aren’t prepared to ask the tough questions.
The Sydney racing media seems hellbent on painting Peter V’Landys as the savior of racing in NSW after his ‘one hit wonder’ win over the corporate bookies. Yet the joint is going downhill faster than an out-of-control roller-coaster.
Racing in Sydney just stumbles from one disaster to another – the field size is a disgrace, the domination of the big stables spearheaded by Waller throws up second string winners on a weekly basis while favorites get rolled like nine-pins, the Randwick and Kensington tracks are nothing short of a disgrace. The list goes on.
How does Racing NSW ever expect to overtake Racing Victoria as the pace-setter in OZ racing when they can’t get their own act together. And I won’t even mention some of the outrageous comments from the goose who calls himself a Racing Minister in Queensland. He’s obviously had an over-dose of the northern sun – even in winter.’
RACING NSW CHIEF STIPE ‘BACK IN THE HEADLINES ON A CONTENTIOUS ISSUE’ 
DANNY M of MELBOURNE sent this email:
‘YOU have to hand it to Ray Murrihy. The Racing NSW Chief Steward always manages to find his way into the headlines when there is a contentious issue.
Now good old ‘Razor – we thought he was on pre-retirement leave – has gone public with his ‘take’ on the Sydney track debacle.
It seems that Mr Murrihy believes that as bad as the Kensington track looked last Saturday, it would have been an even bigger disappointment had the meeting been shifted to the Randwick course proper.
That is tantamount to a punter saying: “I went to the races on Saturday with nothing and I increased it ten-fold by the time I got home.”
All officialdom seems to be worrying about now is protecting Randwick as the spring carnival approaches. Not that it matters much if you race on a second rate Kensington surface when the field sizes are nothing short of an embarrassment.
Here’s what Mr Murrihy told the Daily Telegraph in the wake of another fiasco for Sydney racing at the weekend:
“The Royal Randwick course proper needs to be presented at its best at carnival time, and sometimes you have to do a bit of penance,’’ Murrihy said.
“The Kensington track didn’t look good on Saturday, it didn’t race good, but the solution isn’t to hammer the course proper.
“What will happen is you end up with a substandard track nobody wants to race on at carnival time?
“If you raced on the course proper, you’d only pay the price when you get to September when you want to run your Epsoms and Metropolitans. We’ve heard the howls before when we’ve got to September and the track has been chopped up.’’
It hardly sounds like a solution especially when you have everyone from top trainers Chris Waller and Joe Pride to Gai and Robbie Waterhouse very vocal in their condemnation of the current situation.
Then, of course, officials turn their back on the best racing surface in Sydney at Canterburty because it fails to attract turnover and the story goes they are even considering selling the place.
Let’s face it Kensington is a ‘goat track’ and if they persist with racing at Randwick it won’t be much better come carnival time.’
EDITOR’S NOTE: TOP bookmaker ROBBIE WATERHOUSE wrote a piece on the punting pitfalsl of the Randwick track for the SYDNEY MORNING HERALD this week and in case you missed it, here’s what he had to say:
A SERIOIUS issue for racing is the course proper at headquarters – Randwick. It is an unfair surface and the punters, racing’s only customers, don’t like to bet there. This is a huge financial cost to racing.
RANDWICK’S issues are five-fold:
1. The track is ‘affected’, even with two weeks of warm, dry weather, as shown by the Randwick ‘slow’ classification way back at the end of April.
2. The going is invariably biased, ‘away from the fence best’ being the default.
3. The ‘shifty’ surface increases the randomness of results, which punters detest.
4. The track deteriorates during the race day.
5. The track can’t stand up to racing.
This is extraordinary because Randwick was once an outstanding track, coping perfectly with wet conditions and lots of racing. It was perhaps Australia’s best.
Recently the betting-ring wags took glee in pointing out the magnificent pad of grass where the Randwick betting pavilion used to be. ‘If they raced there it would be ‘track good’,’ they said. And it was very firm to my heel!
For most of the 13 years since the big upgrade, the authorities have been in denial, refusing to acknowledge there is any problem, saying: ‘‘We’ve got it right now.’’
They quote how the track has its low points raised, the camber (the sideways slope of the track) made industry standard and that the course was given long periods of no racing at Randwick to help the track.
But there is a major breakthrough: the chief steward has publicly acknowledged the problem and was recently quoted as saying it should be torn up and re-done. As with every problem in general, it is crucial to acknowledge that it exists. We should be grateful the chief steward has done so. But I doubt tearing up the track and re-doing it will fix the problem. When millions were spent doing that at Randwick in 2000-01, it was wasted money (although we got a couple of tunnels, and, unfortunately, a you-beaut irrigation system). The problems became worse.
Randwick’s course proper is, I believe, simply over-watered. Turn the taps off, and the track will flourish, in my opinion. The evidence is the kikuyu grass roots at Randwick. They are short. Consequently, runners’ hooves continually uproot clods. Were the roots long, going deep, this wouldn’t happen and the going would be far more secure.
The grass just gives way. We have so few meetings at Randwick nowadays, compared to 30 years ago, because the course can’t stand up to racing. Darren Beadman, then a leading jockey, once described it as ‘racing on a Violet Crumble bar’. Time aficionados (of whom I am one) point out that Randwick times deteriorate throughout the day, every day. This is incontrovertible evidence of the problem.
The normally long-rooted kikuyu has been Randwick’s grass since it was introduced to Australia about 100 years ago. It is an excellent herbage, coping well with heat, cold, poor soil, humidity, floods and drought. Its fault is that it goes brown in winter. It is still good racing grass but looks poor.
The Randwick kikuyu, with this relentless, regular watering, is never stressed and never extends its root system.
It needs tough love to make it put down deep roots. Perhaps like children! Moreover, the overwatering problem isn’t confined to Randwick. We’ve also seen country meetings and interstate city ones abandoned because of the problem.
There are other things that would help. I have written before that the official ‘no better than dead’ policy is pernicious and does great harm to racing’s revenue. It should be abandoned. Betting on Perth racing has grown dramatically because of the ‘weather fine, track good’ (which means ‘fast’) ethos.
Worryingly, officials, in recent years, have asserted that track condition should be assessed independently from consideration of the likely race times. To me, this is heresy and allows inconsistency between days and tracks. It is very unhelpful.
There should be more divot replacers after each race. Divots are like teeth: if a tooth is knocked out and put straight back in, it will be fine; leave it two days and both tooth and grass are history. I counted 65 divot replacers at Royal Ascot last year.
Fewer or no false rail movements would help, to some extent, with bias. If the watering policy is changed at Randwick, the workload should be stepped up, both trackwork and race dates.
Last, rather than blaming imported stallions (the bulk of top stallions have always been imported, for example, Star Kingdom, Wilkes, Sir Tristram, Danehill) for softer-boned progeny needing softer tracks, perhaps studs should also irrigate much less. My wife, Gai, prefers progeny from non-irrigated farms.
THE WEEKLY BUCKETTING OF RACING IN TOOWOOMBA CONTINUES 
FROM an ex-racing enthusiast of Toowoomba:
‘I was interested to read last week that (chairman) Bob Frappell has engaged his daughter to work at the Toowoomba Turf Club.
I recall Lisa also working for the Breeders’ Association when Bob was Chairman of that organization.
Although Lisa is extremely talented, as a previous member of the Breeders’ Association I recall her appointment causing some internal issues. I hope this doesn't occurred at the Toowoomba Turf Club as they can little afford distractions as their track needs to be the key focus of the Club at present.
I was informed by a reliable source that trainers and owners don’t want to run their horses on the track, and that the wagering outcomes from recent meetings have been inferior to the Cushion Track.
There are some statistics being bandied around the industry at present that highlight that the last three meetings on the Cushion Track delivered 30 per cent more wagering than the corresponding meetings this year on the new track.
Is it possible for you to check this fact with Racing Queensland?
Can you please withhold my identity as I maintain an interest in the industry and don’t want to incur the wrath of Bob and his little friend from Deagon?’
EDITOR’S NOTE: WE will try and have your questions re Toowoomba answered but you know the deal, if it’s constructive or objective criticism RQ doesn’t want to know about it.
SO MUCH FOR THE ‘WE RUN AS ONE’ SLOGAN WHEN IT COMES TO THE GREYHOUNDS 
‘TRACEY H, a keen Queensland greyhound industry participant, writes:
‘AS a greyhound participant I am totally bewildered by the media release distributed by Darren Condon of Racing Queensland last Tuesday.
So much for WE RUN AS ONE!
We have felt for a long time that Racing Queensland is only interested in the thoroughbred code and in my mind Mr Condon confirmed this fact when trying to outline that Queensland matches it with the other States.
I don’t know, and for that matter don’t care too much what occurs in the thoroughbred industry. My primary concern is for my chosen profession and my desire to see Greyhound racing in Queensland reach the heights of New South Wales and Victoria.
Unfortunately, I couldn't assess how the Greyhound code rates with our interstate colleagues as Mr Condon didn't bother informing the readers of his media release anything about the Greyhound or Harness codes.
From my perspective Mr Condon’s release was about justifying the silly statements previously released by the Racing Minister, and not acting to update or inform stakeholders.
Needless to say we aren't holding out too much hope for increased prizemoney within the revised wagering revenue distribution scheme. We are resigned to the fact that the message delivered by the Greyhound Racing Manager that the Greyhound code isn't profitable is likely to be utilized to limit the benefits that flow to our industry.
Anyway, plenty suggesting that March 2015 will see plenty of political changes occurring in Queensland. Let’s hope that as part of all parties election promises that Greyhounds get an equitable distribution of the new revenue.’
STORIES THAT YOU MAY HAVE MISSED IN THE MAINSTREAM RACING MEDIA
RACING DESPERATELY NEEDS ‘ALL THE FRIENDS IN THE MEDIA’ IT CAN GET 
MICHAEL LYNCH reports in THE AGE that RACING needs all the friends it can get.
And if the traditional mainstream media outlets – free-to-air television, newspapers and radio – no longer give it the coverage it once received, then the sport has to fill the gap itself as it seeks to provide information to punters and underwrite the all-important wagering dollar.
That is the thinking behind Racing Victoria's push to establish a digital-media business, a project that has been 18 months in gestation and to which the sport's key stakeholders have all invested in the realistation that working together can only be to their mutual benefit.
Andrew Catterall, Racing Victoria's executive director of strategy and development, on Monday told a racing-media briefing that there was little or no new money in the $15 million budget that the Melbourne race clubs, Racing Victoria and Country Racing Victoria have earmarked for the business's running costs in its inaugural five years.
Rather, the industry is working smarter by pooling resources and reallocating existing cash so it can get more bang for its media buck by providing a one-stop shop for punters, racegoers, owners, trainers – and traditional media – to glean information about racing.
''We need friends, racing needs friends,'' said Catterall, a former senior AFL executive before he joined RVL last year.
''We acknowledge that racing needs to do a better job of telling its stories and we want to make it easier for people [to find out about racing] and increase demand,'' Cattrall says, ''contemporise the presentation of racing, how we present it to the Victorian public.''
In recent years several sports have sought to take control of their media content, or at least provide a rival source of information to the traditional media: the AFL has developed a huge media presence, while the NRL and cricket have also gone down this path.
Catterall said the new business, which will have a ''soft'' launch in September tied in with the beginning of the spring racing carnival, was not there to compete with traditional media but to complement it and offer another way into the sport. Nor was it being set up to be a rival to TVN, which broadcasts Victorian and NSW thoroughbred racing.
''Cricket, the AFL, the NRL have all gone very hard down this route and we have to keep up,'' said Catterall, explaining that the aggregation strategy made enormous sense for a sport that already owned a diverse portfolio of disparate media assets, such as separate club websites, a TV station, a production company and a radio station (RSN in Melbourne).
Submissions are being considered for a new logo to brand the media business and its digital portals, and a public announcement is due in the next month.
Racing Victoria, which has hitherto been the shop window for the sport, will take a lower profile in future and its ''brand'' will become focused on the sport's governance.
*Total turnover growth on Victorian racing in the fiscal year 2013-14 was well below the rate of inflation, figures released at the briefing showed. Turnover by all wagering operators totalled $5.001 billion, a 0.7 per cent increase on the $4.964 billion invested in the previous year – illustrating the need for the sport to continue developing new markets and finding new customers if it is to maintain its financial underpinnings.
CORPORATE BOOKIES CLAIMING THEY ARE THE VICTIMS OF A ‘BODYLINE-STYLE ATTACK’ 
MAX PRESNELL reports in the SYDNEY MORNING HERALD that CORPORATE bookmakers feel they are being exposed to a Harold Larwood, bodyline-style attack by the new betting minimums imposed justifiably by Racing NSW.
Changing the bowlers, gently underarming to TAB fixed-odds outlets by comparison, is a bleat that comes from the Australian Wagering Council, generally representing offshore interests.
Racing NSW has given the TAB fixed-odds outlets some slack "due to the difficulties associated with determining whether cash bet in a retail outlet is a bowler bet placed on behalf of another person”.
Off-course fixed-odds wagering operators, whose turnover is equal to or greater than $5 million, are now compelled to bet punters to lose $2000 on metropolitan races and $1000 on non-metropolitan races in NSW.
"If one of the aims of the policy is to stop bookmakers discriminating against winning punters, it is necessary to ask how that aim will be achieved by excluding the policy's application to cash bets," AWC chief executive Chris Downy said.
Perhaps Racing NSW figures the TAB is entitled to protectors considering the contribution it makes to the industry matched with the corporates, big advertisers but regarded as failing the Australian "fair go" ethos for punters.
"Here we go whingeing poms ... If you don’t like the rule on behalf of all the Australian punters, go home with your bat n ball and destroy the pathetic English racing," Chillbet posted on Racenet.
"'Requiring operators to trade with clients with whom they do not wish to trade'," Badbrokes posted. "Oncourse bookmakers have been doing that since Day 1! I can assure the AWC that there will be ‘national consistency."
The AWC requested that a minimum bet rule "would be best achieved through a well-developed proposal on the issue being presented to each of the state and Territory licensing authorities charged with the regulation of wagering service operators in Australia".
Had NSW not taken the initiative under Peter V'landys' captaincy over the racefields legislation Australia would be back under the heel of the corporates' Douglas Jardine-style win-at-all-costs policy.
"I cannot understand all the negative comments," Punting Giant pleaded. "I have no trouble whatsoever getting set with several corporate bookies for large 5 figure amounts. They are all so friendly, helpful and accommodating. I do tend to lose on most Saturdays but punting is fun."
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in the above e-mails should not be interpreted as those of JOHN LINGARD, the owner-editor of the letsgohorseracing web-site. That is why he has added an ‘EDITOR’S NOTE’. Every endeavor is made to verify the authenticity of contributors. We welcome any reasonable and constructive responses from parties or individuals.