This weeks winnings ways

i dont represent other punters but if you want punters to take exotic bets that include first timers then you need transparency long before these bets start or do you think its ok when first timers fill up the bipot and place accumalator and sometimes the jackpot legs when the 2yo season starts up?punters have several other options to bet on these days racing is not the only game in town and turnovers on local racing are dwindling

not many first timers really end up winning

let's take for example Craven from the Crawford yard

punted on debut but still lost

info on first timers doesn't make it sure thing

the betting should never be a guide , rather study hard on exposed form

Nothing beats exposed form

if a first timer wins the race so what ??? move on to the next bet

not like we win Every race , do we ? so why complain when a first timer wins .... How many first timers actually win on debut ?

they should get comments on exposed horses coming back from breaks

the current system of first timer comments just a distraction to the real problems

tomorrow race 2 got a horse that was backed 33/1 into 11/1 on debut

ran unplaced

no one talks about it but if it won then every one SCREAMS coup landed

TH, i don't really care what and how much you punt, your point is mute and you have missed the point. Your point about first timers in exotics is very valid and has been raised for years....is this not encouraging insider trading by the operators? Why no reply yet from the operators regarding this point?

I don't care who punts a horse of mine, what I do take exception to is information being spread by jockeys to punters who punt a first timer before an owner has R200 on it. I did not get into owning horses to punt but the whole issue is not about first timers..... the point is overall transparency.

I will not give any opinion on Bookmakers except to say that all horse racing bets should be transparent. All bets struck should be disclosed and if need be, traced back to a punter by ID number. There are many points I highlight however it is easy to go back to one frivolous point regarding first timers. Once again, I don't care how much is revealed about my horse by my Trainer and only my trainer.

Currently you have a system where Bookmakers run a business where they do not contribute proportionately to the costs. By the same token they can run a book that they can then themselves punt on the tote to offset potential loses. If anyone understands how this helps horseracing then please explain this to me. Make the bookmakers betting market transparent and you won't need info.......

In Hong Kong there are no bookmakers and everyone raves about how strong horseracing is, i am sure there is nothing we can learn from that. In SA nobody has a clue of what is being bet on the books, who is betting, where that money is going and how much is not being declared..... do these ingredients sound like a recipe for continuing insider trading?

Transparency is not dependent on one point.....

As a question to Mr Lafferty, why did you not start the transparency project by approaching Gold Circle to do a barrier trial program?

Surely the desire, will and framework for transparency must be driven by the operators and structures that determine the rules of racing? Should this will to change and implement at this level not exist then surely this is an exercise in futility.

These proposals etc have been done ad nauseum for over 3 decades to both parties Tigershark...several excuses keep preventing it from happening ie 'cost too great', 'damage to tracks'...whatever. At the end of the day, here we are, running 12 races per meeting compared to 8 of a decade ago, and the cost of having a barrier trial per week is greater than the cost of losing a market?

Totally agree Don but surely the operators must at least want to grow the product? It is very short sighted to believe that sport betting & numbers are the future, besides, horse racing paid for all of the current infrastructure.

Yes they do - unfortunately in addition we have incredulous apathy from within racing - you've seen yourself the replies from trainers and their owners on site here and SP who want to continue to play the system for their own gain, which doesn't do much to help drive change. In the end it is these insiders that will lose most - as the listed Co and GC can survive on sports betting if racing collapses. But can racing survive without these operators?

Backing f\timers is a huge gamble and will remain that way for eternity. Transparency after the fact is far more important as that is where the "skill" element of racing needs to be protected. Let's forget Tote Fav and Bookie Fav and rely totally on the MR of a horse. If a horse rated say 85 gets thumped in a novice by a 58 then let's have the stipes tell punters why that horse ran so badly. More often than not there are legitimate excuses but they are hidden in stipes reports. Publish those daily in the Citizen and regional papers that cover Racing in other provinces. I have found that some punters embrace the perceived notion that racing is rigged. The amount of times I hear "no good" "jockey pulled that" etc is amazing... fast clarification for bad and vastly improved runs needs to be the benchmark. Punters can learn from that info also... how many times I've backed a horse that ran a distance behind because it lost it's jock... or was wearing blinkers or had been going ground and was suddenly dropped 6to a sprint... There are legitimate improvement patterns for all to see but without the stipes being proactive and using the MR system as a starting point we have no transparency.