ANTE-post punters, particularly those who scrutinise both the formbook and the comments of connections regarding plans, have been well and truly stuffed this week. First there was Defi Du Seuil, an early market mover for Sunday’s Greatwood Hurdle, being described as an intended runner by his owner’s racing manager Frank Berry on Monday.

No sooner had the shrewdies availed themselves of the best prices than a statement came from trainer Philip Hobbs to the effect that Defi Du Seuil would not run, with the Ascot Hurdle deemed a more suitable option. Berry was quoted as saying on Tuesday: “Yesterday I said he was an intended runner and he was, but we’ve looked at everything – the weight and him being a four-year-old – and it looks like Ascot will be better for him.”

This, let us be absolutely clear, is nothing short of a disgrace. Defi Du Seuil will have had the Greatwood on his agenda for months, the race being one in which Philip Hobbs has an exceptional record with Champion Hurdle hopefuls, and every aspect of the race, including his likely weight, his age (his age, for crying out loud – did they wake up on Tuesday, look at the card and cry, “Jaysus, he’s only four!”) and the opposition would have been an open book.

To confirm him on Monday, go to the trouble to announce that he was an intended runner, and then take the horse out almost immediately is a smack in the face for anyone betting ante-post. Of course, connections have a host of possible targets for a horse like the Triumph Hurdle winner, and they are entitled to run him where they want, but J.P. McManus knows better than anyone that betting money makes the racing world go round, and to treat ante-post punters so shabbily is something which shouldn’t be glossed over.

If punters were smarting over Defi Du Seuil on Tuesday, they were even more aggrieved by events surrounding Queen Mother Champion Chase favourite Altior the following day. Trainer Nicky Henderson was interviewed on ATR’s On The Line on Monday evening, describing Altior as “totally on target for the Tingle Creek”, his stated starting point of the campaign.

On Wednesday, Altior began to drift oddly on the betting exchanges for that contest, and several firms cut other likely runners, and just after 7pm, Henderson’s Twitter account issued a statement saying he would miss the race.

That was followed by a blog by the trainer on the bookmaker Unibet’s site explaining that he had made a noise when exercising at the weekend which was referred to eminent vet Geoff Lane, who recommended that the horse should be operated on for his wind – seemingly a hobday operation is needed, which will require a cessation of fast work for some weeks.

If Altior has a problem with his larynx as diagnosed by Henderson’s own vet and Geoff Lane, then it’s right that he should have his breathing corrected, and the fallout is that the Tingle Creek is off the menu as a result. What irks is that the full statement shows that the problem came to light on Saturday, and while there would have been a period of uncertainty as to how serious the issue was, a top-class horse noted as making a noise is going to be a candidate for a breathing operation, and to describe such a horse as “totally on target” for a contest only a few weeks away is disingenuous at best.

This issue is complicated by the fact that the market seemed to know that he was a non-runner long before the trainer made a statement to that effect, and that reflects badly, not just on connections of the horse, but on Unibet, who presumably pay Nicky Henderson handsomely to use him as a brand ambassador, or however his exclusive blog with the firm is described.

It’s possible that the terse opening statement from the @sevenbarrows Twitter account (an account which is presumably run by a Unibet employee despite carrying the champion trainer’s name) was posted immediately a decision was made to take Altior out, but the nature of the relationship between the provider and the host of that blog raises questions about whether the news was delayed, either accidentally or on purpose.

It’s very unlikely, in my view, that a bookmaker would deliberately sit on such explosive information, as the potential for profit is overshadowed by the potential loss of goodwill with customers (and refunds have been made), but I’d also be gobsmacked if a major firm would use information gleaned from a trainer to hike up Rule 4 deductions to fleece punters, and yet we’ve recently learned that such practices used to exist, although that was in a time when ethics were a lot more fluid, I’m sure.

The problem is that such news must be reported in a timely manner, and a world in which we find ourselves as punters relying on bookmakers to break such news to us is a world in which we need to ask: “what’s wrong with this picture?”