For the record, I too thought he was a great lay at sandown. I priced him as a 10/1 chance in the race and bet around him. People sometimes go overboard on the Freedman factor.

Fact it, the stewards are like RV - they want Betfair out. So, little wonder when a favourite gets beaten, the first thing these dinosaurs of modern racing do is throw mud.

"It's Betfair's fault. Someone layed a horse on betfair, therefore crookery must be involved."

If you sling enough mud, some will stick, that's their theory. Never mind having any evidence, or for that matter any idea, just sling some mud at Betfair and try to tarnish them. Nevermind that they have said they'll share all the info, don't worry about investigating that first before you start slinging mud, just sling first, ask questions later. And if it turns out (shock horror) that it was all on the level, will there be an apology? Don't hold your breath.

The racing bodies are a disgrace. I can now, nearly 100 years on, understand a little of how John Wren must have felt.

And, of course, Vengo at Ballarat? S**thouse. (Granted, it was another leader's track but the horse was this time ridden back and failed to fire) Again. It's an AVERAGE BEAST! As for stewards saying "Well, we thought on the basis of running 3rd in a 100,000 race it'd be a good bet, not a good lay", well perhaps they're filthy because they thought it was such a good bet that they actually BACKED IT. THAT's what should be investigated - the stewards! If the stewards are saying, "This horse was a good bet", I start to worry.

Also, note to the stewards - a $100,000 restricted race ain't the same as a $100,000 listed race, brother. Wasn't a great race, Mr. Steward. Perhaps that's why you're STEWARDS, not professional FORM ANALYSTS. You may be wannabe form analysts but if your efforts at finding Vengo as a "good bet" based on the prizemoney of it's run previous start, then you're a bunch of spastics as analysts.