My thoughts on the petition to oppose affordability checks

 My first reaction was a heavy sigh, followed by:

You know what? F- off. Get Foster, Dugher and every other awful individual bleeding this sport dry to sign the eff-ing petition”.

But before racing’s great and good accuse me and others of being idle or lazy, I relented. I signed it. The wording is fine, and it is nice to see the various parts of racing work together rather than apart. I hope it gets some traction in parliament, although those saying that this somehow guarantees some parliamentary action should better understand the petitions process. It might get considered for debate. It might get a few minutes of a government Minister not saying very much.

Either way, it highlights what a pretty desperate position our sport is in right now that we're putting all of our energy into hoping the likes of Davies, Hancock et al. tell us all over again how important betting is for their constituencies and themselves.

So what’s this all about?

The Jockey Club and British Horseracing Authority, backed by racing media and various prominent figures in the sport, has issued a petition to resist the UK Government's proposed affordability checks intended to curb problem gambling. 

This petition, while stemming from legitimate concerns over financial ramifications for the racing world, is ultimately rooted in a desperate need to get some short term financial stability of horse racing, rather than a commitment to equitable treatment for bettors.

The petition underscores a dire forecast for British horseracing, predicting diminished betting turnover and a consequent depletion of the Levy yield, should these checks come to pass. 

The concern is palpable; racing thrives on the vigour of its betting lifeblood. The industry’s plea is clear: spare racing from regulations that might stifle its coffers.

Yet this rallying cry falls on deaf and weary ears for those of us as bettors who have been treated with disdain by gambling operators and racing's prominent figures in recent years.

We have witnessed the BHA and influential racing figures align with gambling operators, who have been less than benevolent, imposing account restrictions and exhibiting a disregard for the bettor’s experience. 

To summarise just a few of these:

• Ed Chamberlin and Oli Bell do work for SkyBet, fined last year for sending promotional emails to customers who had self-excluded from betting or opted out of receiving marketing.

• Matt Chapman works for Paddy Power. He has bemoaned a situation in which the state can restrict somebody wanting to have a bet, but couldn't care less when his employer does it in a widespread fashion. He also is happy to promote them despite various social responsibility, money laundering and marketing to vulnerable customer fines. Ruby Walsh, Mick Fitzgerald and others also work for Paddy Power, while Kevin Blake works for their partner Betfair.

• Nick Luck works for William Hill, who allowed customers to open a new account and bet £23,000, £18,000 and £32,500 in just a few days without any checks at all.

• Richard Hoiles works for Betway, who were fined over £11,000,000 by the Gambling Commission for a series of social responsibility and money laundering failures.

• Racing TV and Sky Sports Racing is deeply connected to a business model that is reliant on getting people to sign up to big gambling operators, who then will restrict sensible sports bettors while exploiting those they can drag over to casino and slots.

These figures work for gambling operators who have long cared about racing only to bleed it dry.

The model for a big bookmaker these days is simple. Get customers to sign up in any way, shape or form possible. Promotional deals? Great. Affiliate links on the column pages of Luck, Chapman and Hoiles et al.? Fine. Racing TV adverts? No problem. Just get them in. 

Then if you display a sense of regularity in your betting, a sense of composure and calm, if you do not overreact to losing, or if you have a nice approach to betting that does not lead you to be reckless, the operators do not want your money. Restrict! No more best odds guaranteed. No more promotional offers. No more bets. £5 on the Grand National? Screw you. £2.50 on the Epsom Derby? Sod off. 

However… show some recklessness, or a sense of daring, a sense of loser’s remorse and a need to rectify your losses by staking even more, and they will give you every offer in the land. 

The call to arms by these prominent racing figures, following years of pushing and personally profiting from a failed business model, bears an irony that is hard to overlook. 

I just briefly want to highlight the one racing figure that I have seen who has repeatedly not only argued against betting restrictions, but has done so in a way that maintains their integrity and seemingly avoids any question of individual benefit: Lydia Hislop. She has time and time again argued that anybody in racing who is making a commercial deal and benefit from big gambling operators should at the very least question their behaviour to vulnerable customers and the racing fans they ignore and discriminate against.

Any prominent figure in racing cannot fully escape a relationship with these organisations - Hislop’s flagship Road to Cheltenham show is sponsored by Paddy Power - but there is, in my opinion at least, a difference between working for an organisation that makes these deals and personally aligning your name with these companies again and again and again. Racing, whether it survives and thrives or dies in the future, has been lucky to have her contribution more than most others in this sport. 

The broader gambling debate

Gambling in Britain used to be a common pastime, with major events like the Derby and The Grand National drawing widespread betting interest. It was a regular subject in media and daily conversation, seen as a traditional hobby. Betting shops were familiar sights, and placing bets was a typical part of sports events and leisure activities. I even shared a clip recently of the BBC going to a William Hill betting shop as part of its general election coverage in October 1974. Can’t imagine that happening now.

Now, the perception of gambling in the public realm has shifted towards concern. High-profile cases of addiction and financial distress have cast the industry in a negative light, with the rise of online gambling amplifying these issues. Media discussions now focus on the problematic aspects rather than the enjoyment it once brought. The industry, once integrated into social life, is now often viewed as a problem that society needs to address.

The various Gambling Commission fines I mentioned earlier, all dealt to these operators because of them exploiting vulnerable customers, are simply a part of doing business for them these days. They are not bookmakers in a traditional sense anymore. They are fundamentally different from a noble bookmaking business, which largely only exists in the on-course bookmaking form these days (see Cairn Bet as a great example). 

Herein lies the problem. The racing industry's partnership with gambling operators has contributed to the sport being tainted by its association with an exploitative industry. 

This camaraderie has inadvertently sculpted a rod for its own back. It has turned a once jovial pastime for plenty of the population on a Saturday afternoon into one now judged by lots of people for its basic morality.

Horse racing is in a particularly stupid position: making the case to parliament that skilled sports betting is different from casino or slot betting, while turning a blind eye when big gambling operators restrict racing fans from the very betting they now urge us to defend in this petition.

So what now?

I've signed the petition, because what else is there for individual bettors like me to do? But to those who are encouraging people to sign blindly and without a hint of self-reflection, please use this moment to rethink the sport's alliances and consider the long-term impact of its decisions on the sport's integrity and its patrons' trust. 

In short: do you know how incredibly sh*t our sport looks right now both to those who love it day in day out and those who engage only occasionally?

The implementation of responsible betting practices and advocacy for fair treatment of all bettors can help to challenge a tarnished image, allowing us to discuss gambling as an enjoyable activity rather than one now completely associated with exploitation.

If you want to encourage people to think about betting on racing as a different sort of activity to mindless online casino and game gambling, then back that up in your actions. Distance yourself from gambling operators that could not care less about this sport except to drain it of its patrons money. Or if you have to work with them as part of your job, challenge them publicly and repeatedly. Stand up for bettors rather than standing idly by as they are restricted and ignored.

The need for a fair, transparent, and responsible betting landscape has never been more acute. Racing can go the same way of greyhound racing and get weaker and weaker and weaker as it depends ever more on gambling operators, or it can show some willingness to forge a new path, one that respects the bettor and upholds the sport’s integrity.