Tomcrown,

I can't remember it word for word but the basic post was along the lines of:

"If a trainer takes a unraced and untrialed horse to a meeting knowing that it has good potential to win (knowledge that will not be readily available given the untrialed status) he has an unfair advantage over the punters who have been deceived. If Renee Rivkin buys/sells shares on the stock market based on knowedge not readily available then he is convicted of insider trading and sent to prison (well weekend detention with a visit to the psych ward thrown in). Question is how are they different?"

My response was:
"In the first instance you are talking about GAMBLING and it is LEGAL. The second instance is INVESTING and is ILLEGAL."

Of course the question probably should be should it be legal for trainers (and others with insider knowledge) to bet on horse racing. I think you could mount a good argument for making it ILLEGAL for anyone with insider knowledge to bet on horse racing. Of course it would be very difficult to inforce but if the penalties were tough enough (eg. instant loss of trainer licence) then it would probably greatly reduce the amount of "insider trading" going on.