xanadu

I saw the Racing Retro show. It did have some points to make. However you must remember that the show is owned by TAB Ltd who have a vested interest in this debate. As such they only gave half the story. They did not point out any benefits of exchanges but only focused on the bad points and then emphasised these to the point of exaggeration. I did not see anything too wrong with what was said on the show. I was more concerned with what was not said. There is an old saying "There's three sides to every story". If you only hear one side of the story and no other views it can sound very convincing and reasonable. Hear the other side and suddenly it is not so reasonable.

I thought the ARB attitude was very sensible. They said there were 4 criteria that all betting operators should meet and they were working through with Betfair etc to see if the common ground could be reached on the 4 criteria. Sane and sensible stuff.

You say there is a groundswell of all out opposition to exchanges. Where is the evidence for this?????? At the top of this thread we were told that exchanges were finished and the issue had been decided. They were to be banned last week. But nothing happened. So who leaked this info to Max Presnell? And who gained from the leak? Not Betfair.

Read the Financial Review article. Indications there are of no groundswell of all out opposition. You only have to look at most message boards to see punters are not screaming for exchanges to be banned.

I think it is most telling that TABs and Bookies associations are more against exchanges than the ARB. That tells me it is vested commercial interests that are most threatened in this debate. And it is those very interests that profit at the expense of punters.