On Saturday at Randwick, punters will be served with what can only be described as an embarrassing major betting meeting for the week in Sydney.

A measly 66 acceptances were received for the eight races, giving punch drunk punters fields of six in two races, eight in two races, nine in two races and 10 in two races.

Makes you want to have a bet, doesn’t it?

It gets better, the Patinack Farm owned Readyor is a dual acceptor in races 1 and 6 as well as accepting for the Group I Winter Stakes in Brisbane where she has drawn barrier 1 while the Matt Dale-trained Lebrechaun is also in races 4 and 8.

So why is the major NSW meeting on a prizemoney, and betting turnover basis, not being supported by owners and trainers? – Well the other seven metropolitan and provincial meetings in a 10 day period would have a bit to do with it, I’d say.

Since last Tuesday’s Warwick Farm card, we had Takeover Target Stakes day at Gosford on Wednesday, Newcastle on Thursday and Hawkesbury on Saturday.

Then next week we have Tuesday racing on the Kenso, Wednesday at Canterbury and Wyong on Thursday.

So, who is the genius at Racing NSW that thought this was a good idea and even more so, who signed the meetings off?

Hang about, I just worked it out – it must be the corporate bookies and Betfair’s fault because they want wall-to-wall racing, or is that the TAB?

Anyway, Racing NSW don’t have time for those sort of issues because they are appealing the Race Fields legislation verdict handed down last week by Justice Perram.

“We have appealed because we believe that he [Justice Perram] has not looked at all the facts of the case especially the threshold,” was Racing NSW CEO Peter V’landys absurd statement to the Daily Telegraph on Thursday.

Shame, a Federal Court justice not looking at all the facts.

Now look, I got kicked out of school in Year 11 because I preferred to spend my science lessons at the TAB betting on Quirindi, but after reading Justice Perram’s judgement, I was pretty sure one thing was clear.

It is against The Constitution to set a fee on a “discriminatory basis” so that tells me by having a $5 million threshold was discriminating against operators that turned over more than that limit.

Justice Perram said in point 63 of his judgement of the Sportsbet case “I infer that each member of the [Racing NSW] board was well aware that it will be constitutionally impermissible – illegal – to impose a fee in a discriminatory manner”.

It would be fair to assume that Justice Perram knows his subject, so why Racing NSW are you spending more of the NSW racing participants’ money instead of getting on with the inevitable by signing up these wagering operators to pay a fee that will benefit the racing industry now, and into the future?

I would have thought the ruling gave Racing NSW more leverage than they had before and the corporates and betting exchanges are here to stay, whether racing likes it or not.

Ok so Racing NSW don’t want the TAB to pay because of potential legal action due to an existing agreement, but don’t worry about the local bookies, they aren’t - The real story of a flat tax for a country bookie.

Just sign everyone up, except the TAB, at say one percent until the wagering licence is up for renewal in 2013 and get them all to pay the same – I’m tipping racing will end up in front.

Meanwhile, the Productivity Commission’s report into Gambling in Australia was released on Wednesday and Racing NSW made the outlandish claim that the findings were not in punters’ best interests.

“Punters are not the winners as claimed by supporters of the Productivity Commission’s report,” was the opening paragraph of the Racing NSW press release.

“The Commission has accepted the argument that low margin operators provide better value for punters but I have not seen anything in the report to justify this assumption,” Peter V’landys was quoted as saying.

I rest the case.