A common refrain among trainers is that the presentation of racing to the public is too heavily orientated towards betting. Not enough is made of the human and equine players, and in consequence, the essence of the sport is buried away somewhere in the small print.

Betting's pre-eminence within racing has never been as pronounced. The advent of betting exchanges has seen to that. Those who trade regularly do not back horses to win, as punters once did, so much as establish profitable positions irrespective of the outcome to a race.

They are no different from a shoal of City traders, and in this domain, information is king. There simply cannot be enough of it; hence the preponderance of betting-related topics in much of the racing media.

Last week's preamble to the King George VI and Queen Elizabeth Stakes was a case in point. Pundits spent much of it searching for an alternative to the odds-on Duke Of Marmalade, who held little betting appeal. Spurious arguments gained currency as pundits emboldened one another in the quest.

In the cold light of day, however, Of Mappearance of a majestic racehorse was instead devoted to what might beat him. It was hard to escape the feeling that the sport itself mattered very little.

That impression was only reinforced by The Morning Line on Saturday. Granted, the BBC broadcast the King George later in the day, but Channel 4 made scant mention of a race seen within the sport as Britain's midsummer jewel.

In fairness, Channel 4 was rowing its own boat. Yet those who run the sport must consider whether such terrestrial coverage, valuable as it is, offers the best platform for the future. To see the King George dismissed so contemptuously was like watching one channel hype up a mundane round of football fixtures on the day of the Cup Final.

Racing needs to create an elite series of races for broadcast by one television channel. Almost every other sport has seen the advantages. Many have been obliged to change beyond recognition; whoever thought Rugby League would become a summer sport?

The proposed Sovereign Series may not be the answer but it is a step in the right direction. Contrary to common perception, a compelling Flat-racing “narrative” already exists - although it has become hard to divine from the way racing is portrayed by rival broadcasters.

Nor is racing best promoted by the emphasis on betting. Sophisticated exchange players must recognise that they are in the minority. There are also serious ramifications in the modus operandi of betting exchanges. It is not hard to envisage high-profile scandals that once prompted the City to rewrite its rules on insider trading.

It's a safe bet that betting exchanges will be the bedrock of the Panorama programme due to be shown tomorrow evening. Is it wise for the sport to project itself as a gambling haven when one such programme could do much to undermine racing's credibility?

The question doesn't warrant an answer. And it doesn't even account for collateral damage. One individual whose job it is to match sponsors with major races told me that the spate of betting-related television “exposés” sends shivers down the corporate spine.

It cannot surprise that the King George is unsponsored. Likewise the Derby and Oaks, while Britain's three other classics are backed by bookmakers. Racing pays a high price for its betting-related culture. As for Duke Of Marmalade, isn't he something you spread on toast?