The Racing Post: A Punter’s Bible or a Bookmaker’s Best Friend? Time for a Reboot

If you’re a British racing enthusiast, you’ve probably picked up a copy of the Racing Post at some point, clutching it like a punter’s holy text, hopeful that today’s edition might offer the insight you need to land that elusive winning bet. But these days, that £5 per copy may feel like a wager in itself—because despite its bold presentation and promise of expert tips, the Racing Post has quietly transformed from a punter’s guide into a bookmaker’s dream. Far from being an impartial source of racing intelligence, the Post is now part of a slickly orchestrated network of codependent players: bookmakers, administrators, and media outlets, all happily working together to ensure that they profit while the humble punter is led down the garden path.

40 Years Later, and hardly Anything Has Changed

For a publication that has been around for four decades, one might think the Racing Post would have evolved into a forward-thinking, technologically savvy paper in service to its readers. But instead, it remains practically the same as it was at its inception. Despite vast advancements in analytics, reporting tools, and digital capabilities, the Post remains stuck in the past, adding little real value to the experience of the average punter. The print layout, the platitudinous tips, and the self-serving editorial stance seem largely unchanged since the paper’s early days. It's as though the Post is relying on a formula that worked in the 1980s, blithely ignoring the possibility that its readers might want or deserve something more substantial.

Even its much-touted Pricewise feature feels like a shadow of its former self. Back in the heady days with Mark Cotton at the helm, Pricewise held a certain mystique, a go-to for shrewd punters hoping for that elusive edge. Now, however, it seems like another tired relic from the past, endlessly churning out tips with little of the innovation or insight that once made it a must-read, as the ability to get on is now as hard as backing the ante post winner of next years Lincoln. Rather than staying ahead of the game with fresh analysis and timely information, Pricewise has morphed into a predictable, outdated offering. It’s part of a broader problem: the entire publication—from its columns to its website—feels in desperate need of a full revamp, and what it really needs is an editorial team willing to embrace innovation and actually lead from the front.

£5 for a Copy of Thinly Disguised Advertising

With a daily price tag hovering around £5, the Racing Post isn’t exactly pocket change for the average punter. In fact, its cost alone could trigger the sort of ‘affordability check’ that bookmakers are now so fond of imposing on their customers. And yet, despite its premium price, much of the Post reads like an elaborate promotional brochure for the betting industry. Ads for bookmakers dominate almost every page, and even the expert tips are laced with suggestions steering punters toward the bookies that bankroll the publication. What’s being sold as a punter’s best friend is, in reality, a sleek marketing operation for the bookmakers who stand to gain the most from readers’ hard-earned bets.

The punter, already shelling out a fiver, is then nudged towards further spending. Tipsters talk up the obvious horses with little sense of value luring readers into the fantasy that today’s bet might just be their big win. But when the results come in, it’s the bookmakers who keep winning, while punters are left wondering why the latest “can’t miss” tip was, in fact, quite possibly missable.

Self-Entitled Journalists: A Network of Codependent Players

In the world of the Racing Post, the journalists aren’t there to ruffle feathers—they’re there to protect them. The publication’s writers, many of whom have been entrenched in racing’s inner circles for decades, seem less interested in serving the punter and more in preserving their own standing within the industry. Rarely does the Post hold racing’s elite to account. Racing’s governing bodies are left comfortably unchallenged, as Post journalists avoid any line of questioning that might make life uncomfortable for the bookmakers and administrators who keep the paper or the access to the "racing network" afloat. Its all very cosy.

To look at any substantive issue—say, paltry prize money or the questionable handling of affordability checks—it typically takes the Racing Post years to react. And when they finally do, the coverage is lukewarm at best. Take, for instance, the rare columns by Lee Mottershead, one of the paper’s most vocal personalities, which occasionally take aim at the industry but never quite manage a full swing. By the time these articles emerge, they’re often so behind the curve and watered down that they serve more as a gesture than a genuine challenge. It's the racing industry equivalent of waving a feather at a rhinoceros, enough to look like something’s been said but without any actual impact.

A Cosy Relationship: Racing Media, Bookmakers, and the Administrators

This setup isn’t some accident—it’s the product of a tightly bound, mutually beneficial system. Bookmakers fund the Racing Post with hefty ad revenues, while racing’s administrators ensure the paper has access to events, information, and personalities. No one in this chain is likely to rock the boat. The Post benefits from betting sponsorships, bookmakers see a steady flow of customers, and racing’s governing bodies receive the gentle treatment they crave. The entire network operates as a codependent machine, where everyone profits—everyone except the punter, who is left footing the bill.

This co-dependence ensures that serious issues facing British racing are glossed over. Take, for example, the issue of prize money. Compared to Ireland, France, Australia, and the US, British prize funds are embarrassingly low, leaving owners and jockeys short-changed while racing’s elite continue to rake in broadcasting and sponsorship revenues. But where’s the Post’s investigative coverage of this issue? Why aren’t these paltry returns for British talent front-page news? Because the Racing Post, far from holding the racing establishment to account, has become one of its most fervent defenders, never daring to dig too deeply lest it upset the delicate balance that keeps the bookmaker revenue flowing. Harrington and Co given an easy ride for a sport in decline and without clear solutions.

And where is the Post when it comes to truly important issues affecting punters, like the rampant data mining of bettors’ information or the segregation of gambling on slots and casinos? These are genuine threats to the well-being of many racing fans, yet the Post seems more vocal on bookmaker taxation than on punter restrictions. Rather than leading from the front and challenging practices that exploit its own readers, the Racing Post has chosen the easy route: echoing industry complaints about taxes on betting profits rather than putting up a fight for fair play for punters themselves. For a publication that claims to champion racing fans, the silence on these issues is deafening.

Expert Tipsters or Just Verbal Diarrhoea Machines?

The Post’s so-called expert tipsters are another cornerstone of its strategy to sustain the bookmaker-friendly status quo. These ‘insiders’ pontificate with the authority of racing sages, trotting out endless stats, phrases, and coded hints that make readers feel they’re getting true insider knowledge. Yet, for all their jargon about a horse’s “turn of foot” or “progressive profile,” these experts often seem more adept at saying something without saying anything at all. In reality, most tips are deliberately vague, non-committal “best guesses” that generate betting volume without risking any real insight. After all, a strong, contrarian call that could hurt the bookies would be bad for business,bad for the Racing Levy, bad all round, except for punters.

These tipsters have honed the art of looking informed while delivering little more than jargon-laden waffle. The same recycled platitudes are trotted out week after week, with talk of “looking good in the paddock” or “promising recent form.” Rarely will you see an expert outright warn you off a horse, lest they harm the bookmaker-friendly betting frenzy. The whole operation is carefully designed to keep punters playing along, while the bookmakers cash in and the tipsters’ supposed ‘insider knowledge’ becomes little more than white noise.

£5 for a Dose of PR

At £5 a copy, punters might expect a publication that offers them a slight edge, or at least a genuine take on racing’s challenges and controversies. Instead, they’re met with a publication that reads more like a bookmaker’s promotional pamphlet than a punter’s trusted guide. It’s a steep price to pay for what is essentially a well-packaged advertisement, where any content that might actually serve the punter has been sacrificed in favour of lucrative advertising partnerships and industry back-scratching. You would be better subscribing to a paid data or information service which comes in at a similar price but offers much more of an edge.

And while the Racing Post once stood as an affordable racing guide (50p 1985), the steady rise in its price tag now leaves the average reader wondering if it’s even worth the investment. For those paying a premium, it feels like the Post is charging punters for the privilege of being sold right back to the bookmakers—a perpetual loop where the only real winners are those who never even place a bet.

The Real Winners: Bookmakers and Administrators

Ultimately, it’s racing’s big players who are best served by the Racing Post. The bookmakers gain a constant stream of betting customers, administrators get a free pass to manage racing’s finances with little scrutiny, and the Post itself enjoys a steady flow of sponsorship cash. The whole system is one big, codependent network designed to keep everyone happy—everyone except the punters, who are left paying through the nose for a publication that does little to protect their interests.

Instead of holding the racing establishment to account, the Racing Post has become a voice for the status quo, reinforcing the cosy relationships between bookmakers, administrators, and the media itself. Rather than truly scrutinising the industry, it acts as a PR machine, constantly reassuring punters that they’re in good hands while nudging them toward another “can’t-miss” bet.

Is It Time to Call Time on the Printed Edition?

The Racing Post—in print or online—feels like a relic that’s missed the starting gate in the digital age. With the paper content barely evolving and a website in need of serious innovation, perhaps it’s time to reconsider the printed edition entirely. Without a revamp or a team willing to take editorial risks, the Post seems destined to continue serving the betting industry over its readers. If racing fans are to truly get value, the paper needs a shake-up from top to bottom, with a fresh, independent team that puts punters, not bookmakers, at the heart of its coverage. As things stand, the Racing Post is overdue for a rethink—or at the very least, a proper challenge to serve the punter rather than the house.