Mixed blessings !

Sometimes the aims of different people collide through no fault of their own.  Such seems to be the situation in the heated argument between prominent horse trainer, Gai Waterhouse, her bookmaker son Tom, and a high profile celebrity who owns a champion  race horse.

The purpose of a horse trainer is to manage other people's horses and bring them to top condition to win races.  This requires a careful exercise regimen, a good diet and the selection of a jockey who will mix well with that horses individual temperament.

A bookmaker needs to craft odds that attract punters but which carefully measure the returns on each runner to ensure that if a favourite wins, the payout is more than covered by wagers on other losing horses in that field.  To do that, knowledge of the exact condition of all the runners in that race is necessary.

The owner/punter is the person paying for the care and training of a champion horse and expects to be kept fully aware of all conditions prevailing.  This knowledge is essential in making decisions to wager a bet on that horse - and whether such an investment results in gain or loss.

Unfortunately, the aims of both the owner/punter and the bookmaker are diametrically opposed.    Both expect to make money, but any gain for one must be at a loss for the other.   This invites conflict when there is a close relationship between the three people involved.

Ideally, such relationships should be at arms length, but that becomes impossible when family connections are involved and when a long and profitable relationship has evolved between an owner of many horses and a prominent trainer.   Suspicions arises when a horse does not perform to expectations.

The racing industry has always had a " raffish " reputation and the media delights in any argument between high profile celebrities.    Those are the stories that sell newspapers and glue viewers to television screens. This dispute will be exploited to the full by racing writers.

Unfortunately, it will not help the industry to have " dirty linen " aired in public.   A lot will depend on whether this is settled by a shake of hands - or whether it progresses to messy court action.    Any protracted publicity will play into the hands of the anti-gambling lobby !