It was only when Flipando finished third in the 1.25 at Haydock Park on Saturday that I realised why I was so annoyed by the coverage of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance.

I’d looked at the form, I’d thought about why Flipando had finished unplaced in his last race, and I’d decided that I knew what would happen this time: he’d win. I put on my bet. And he finished third.

I’m blaming the jockey. If things had panned out as I thought they would, if the horse had been given a decent ride, in other words, he’d have won. But – and I’ll admit this to you if not to myself – the truth is that I backed the third-place horse and not the winner because, although I think I know enough to make informed judgments on the outcome of races, in reality I don’t have a clue what will happen. Which is, of course, that anything could happen. That’s why bookies take holidays in the Caribbean and I’m writing this in Finchley.

Yesterday’s papers were full of more supposed information about Madeleine’s disappearance. That her friends had nothing to do with it. That her friends had something to do with it. That she was murdered. That she was abducted. That Robert Murat is involved. That he isn’t. That she had an accident.

And it is all – every last dot and comma of it – pure guesswork. All anyone knows (except, if there was a crime, her assailant) is that Madeleine is missing. Anything else, whether it’s labelled reporting, theory or speculation, and whether the source is the police, friends, acquaintances or reporters, is simply – how can I put this politely? – made up.

Not that the Madeleine story is unique in this respect. Not having a portal into Gordon Brown’s mind won’t stop people telling you when he’s going to call the next election. But they don’t know. All they know is what they’re guessing he might be thinking.

Do you want me to tell you who’ll be the next US President? I’m afraid I can’t. No one can tell you, as more than an educated guess, whether Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination, let alone who will be the Republican nominee. We can give you a guide to the strengths and weaknesses of some of the people who we think are the contenders, and we can tell you what a few other people we’ve spoken to think about them. But we don’t know – for a fact, rather than as a guess we’ve made from his behaviour – whether one of the supposedly possible winners, Fred Thompson, will even stand.

That doesn’t mean you won’t be reading any number of pieces telling you who is standing and who will win.

Oh, by the way: it’ll be Clinton, beating Romney. April 2008. And the parents are entirely innocent.

What did you expect? I’m a newspaper columnist.

Times Recommends

• Five golden rules for regulating banks
• Uighurs’ cry echoes round the world
• It is not just democracy that is illegal