Early in December last year, Racing NSW put out a press release crowing about the fact that it had been awarded costs for a hearing where Sportsbet sought leave to postpone its Federal Court case against Racing NSW.

At the time, Racing NSW claimed that it was ready and willing to defend the case but that Sportsbet was not prepared.

What it didn't explain was that a large number of documents which Sportsbet was entitled to have under discovery had only just been made available. For months, Racing NSW tried to argue that the documents were subject to privilege and therefore did not have to be disclosed.

Normally in such matters, the Court relies on each party observing an honour system, whereby its lawyers decide in advance if any documents are subject to privilege. In the Sportsbet case, whole filing cabinets full of documents were apparently declared privileged, requiring an army of independent lawyers to go through them and determine line by line if they were or not.

When they were finally cleared in late November, Sportsbet's lawyers barely had time to go through them pending the case starting in early December.

There was no press release from Racing NSW yesterday when the trial judge awarded costs for the extended discovery exercise to Sportsbet. One can only imagine that the contents of the documents which Racing NSW attempted to suppress will be the subject of much scrutiny before the trial is over.

More moves by Racing NSW project increasing concern about the outcome of the Sportsbet case and that of the Betfair one heard in November last year.

For instance, Racing NSW attempted to serve a subpoena on this writer two weeks ago, demanding discovery of all documents provided to me in respect of the Sportsbet case. As it happens the judge has thrown out the request as irrelevant, but I see it as a deliberate attempt to discourage me from reporting on the case.

In any event, all I have is Sportsbet's statement of claim which is a very public document.

Another interesting tactic is the resurrection of Racing NSW's requirement for all wagering operators to sign up for a Copyright Agreement. Readers may recall that Racing NSW attempted to do this last September only to withdraw in haste when Betfair sought leave to amend its statement of claim in order to fight copyright as well.

This time round, Racing NSW has not amended its Race Field Conditions so as to make the copyright agreement compulsory but it is still engaged in some airy fairy claims in relation to copyright.

For instance, the Race Fields levy imposes a fee of 1.5% of turnover for the "use" of race fields information. The copyright agreement attempts to assert a fee of 3% of turnover for the "display" of race fields. Aren't they both the same thing?

Racing NSW generously offers to waive the copyright fee if the wagering operator pays the 1.5% race field fee, which kind of indicates that they are one and the same. But if they are, isn't the NSW government short changing Racing NSW by mandating a 1.5% maximum fee for something that Racing NSW reckons is worth twice as much?

In the copyright agreement, Racing NSW says that the 3% fee kicks in if the operator is not paying the 1.5% race field levy. On the surface this suggests that it is protecting itself from the possibility that race fields could be abolished as a result of the Betfair and Sportsbet cases.

But even without a result there, TAB Limited is not currently paying a race field levy so presumably it is up for the 3% copyright fee straight away. An honest answer on that subject would be of interest to the financial markets.

Another peculiar aspect of the copyright agreement is that wagering operators who currently pay nothing are being asked to sign it. An exemption applies for all wagering operators with turnover under $5 million who don't have to pay the race fields levy. Even those with turnover more then that get an exemption for the first $5 million so their fee is effectively 0.75% even when they turn over $10 million.

So the "cost" to those operators is close to zero anyway. One can only imagine that the urgency to get them signing up now is to establish a "normal" 3% copyright fee based on what "most people" are paying. It is a sham, but we have come to expect that from Racing NSW.

And what about the new "strategic plan" set to be unveiled before Judge Perram hands down his decision in the Betfair/Sportsbet cases?

You can see it coming a mile off. The plan will promise $100,000 city races, gold plated taps in the washroom at Tamworth, free beer for all patrons etc.

And then when the Court rules against Racing NSW, those nasty corporate bookmakers will be blamed for taking away all the toys that never existed in the first place.