IT has been a very interesting start to the new year in racing circles.

ITV has taken over the right to show British racing on terrestrial television and they have a hard act to follow as Channel 4 did the job well during their time in control.

The broadcast from Cheltenham on New Year’s Day had a few teething problems but overall it was warmly received, and I am sure that come the bigger festivals they will give a very good account of themselves.

In my opinion, viewers are mostly watching to see if the horse they backed wins and the rest of the coverage is incidental.

Being a traditionalist I still hanker for the good old days of the BBC: no advertisements, Peter O’Sullevan, Julian Wilson, Jimmy Lindley et al.

After ITV’s maiden voyage had ended, the last race at Cheltenham generated a lot of controversy. The weather was foul and apparently there was a mix-up in the declared runners for the closing bumper.

As a result most on-course bookmakers erroneously listed Cockney Wren as a runner on their boards even though he had been declared a non-runner 30 minutes earlier.

The first show passed for Cockney Wren was 14/1 and then he drifted to 16s. However, he then shortened back to 14s rather suspiciously just before the off. I would like to meet the punters who allegedly backed this horse and ask why they did so. Did the horse look well in the parade ring?

This shortening in price to 14/1 meant that when Cockney Wren’s non-participation was confirmed bookmakers were entitled to invoke Tattersalls Rule 4 and deduct 5% from winning bets. The favourite won the race, so it affected a lot of punters.

The bookmakers came in for a lot of criticism over the affair but I would argue that Rule 4 can work against them too.

Whenever I hear Rule 4, I am reminded of one race in particular - the Ladbrokes World Series Hurdle at Punchestown on April 25th, 2013.

This was a virtual match between Solwhit (6/4) and Quevega (7/4). Solwhit went lame at the start and was withdrawn. Quevega duly coasted home and, even though there was a 40% deduction from winning bets, she was still effectively an even-money shot. After returning all stakes on Solwhit I can assure you I was not very happy with that Rule 4 episode.

I was always a firm believer in having starting prices returned from the betting ring but, as I read more about of the weakness of some of the betting rings, I am now not too sure.

The SPs are now formulated by a sample of bookmakers working at a meeting. Bookmakers are unaware if they are in the sample or not. I think it would be a lot more transparent if every bookmaker working was in the mix.

It is becoming more and more apparent that horses can be shortened in price with not a lot of cash in the betting ring. During the Leopardstown Christmas Festival horses were contracting in price driven by movements on the exchanges. All it takes is for a horse to ‘flash’ on the machine and bookmakers react.

I am still of the opinion that the exchanges are getting away very lightly when it comes to a fair and transparent levy or tax. A consumption charge (on the customer) should be introduced and this might have the effect of bringing more cash to betting rings. Of course, when I put this argument forward I am shot down with great haste.