'We have to be realistic' - Bettors Forum chair responds to the white paper

The Front Runner is our morning email exclusively for Members' Club Ultimate subscribers, written today by Chris Cook and available here as a free sample.

Subscribers can get more great insight, tips and racing chat from The Front Runner every Monday to Friday. Those who aren't yet signed up for The Front Runner should click here to sign up and start receiving emails immediately!

Not a Members' Club Ultimate subscriber? Click here to join today and also receive our Ultimate Daily emails plus our full range of fantastic website and newspaper content.

The dust having settled since the government's white paper on gambling reform landed 11 days ago, this seems a good time to check in with the Horseracing Bettors Forum for a more considered reaction than anyone was able to form on the day. Sean Trivass, chairman of the HBF since the autumn, strikes a tone somewhere between acceptance and resignation when we discuss the proposals, although of course his feelings may change as more detail emerges about how those proposals will work in practice. 

I wanted to ask about financial risk checks. You may recall that background checks are proposed for those who lose £125 net over a month or £500 over a year, the check being to look for "financial vulnerability indicators" like county court judgements (CCJs). 

More detailed checks are proposed for those who make a net loss of £1,000 in a day or £2,000 over 90 days. Those trigger-levels are to be halved for bettors aged between 18 and 24.

Trivass says: "We think the £125 a month or £500 a year are particularly low figures. However, if that's simply checking for CCJs and bankruptcy, then it shouldn't affect very many people. So I would bow to their superior knowledge of the statistics as to why they brought those figures in.

"A thousand pounds a day, I would struggle to argue that that wasn't reasonable, to double-check on that, to be honest with you. We've got a survey that suggests most people's bets are £10 to £20 or £30 per day. We represent all punters but obviously we have to stick with the majority so I would think £1,000 a day is a reasonable place to do the second check."

In relation to the "£2,000 over 90 days" trigger, Trivass described the £2,000 as "a questionable figure that largely depends on how intrusive any further checks will be in practice and whether they have any unintended, non-gambling consequences for the bettor. However, all our surveys suggest that the majority of horse racing bettors will (hopefully) not be caught in the net at the suggested figure.

"If I lost £2,000 in 90 days, I'd be pretty upset. That's a reasonably high figure. We have to be realistic. The non-betting public would look at £2,000 and see that as an awful lot of money and I don't really see what argument we would have to suggest it should be higher, as a representative organisation. 

"I don't want to defend the government particularly but my view is that they're caught between a rock and a hard place on this one. If they say £2,000, for a lot of people, that's a lot of money and an incredibly high sum to allow people to lose in a three-month period. If they make that sum larger, it looks like a whitewash of a paper and it's not really doing anything at all.

"Yes, bookmakers should know their customers but I'm wary that if there isn't a figure like the £2,000 to trigger this level of check, we're going to drop back to a general requirement to provide bank statements. I even heard of someone being asked to provide a valuation of their house before they were allowed to continue gambling. I've only heard of that once but that's incredible.

"A large percentage of people who bet on horses are over the age of 50 and people of that age are generally not in favour of open banking, won't even consider it. If that's the path they'd need to go down to get proof of earnings, that could be an even bigger hit to the number of people betting on horses than a £2,000 trigger level for checks. But until it happens, we can't be sure of the effect.

"The biggest concern we have is what effect these checks will have on people's future credit ratings. A friend of mine said he'd have to stop betting because he doesn't want to risk checks undermining his rating in case he wants another mortgage.

"Another friend who used to work in the finance industry says they're quite capable of doing checks that won't show up. I'd like to see that stated as fact. So I'm wary as to what effect that will have on punters and also on how many people will walk away from racing."

We discuss the practicalities of bookmakers actually maintaining an accurate, running total for the net losses of all bettors. Both of us are sceptical.

Trivass says: "At the moment, the bookmakers aren't capable of telling me whether I've got Best Odds Guaranteed or not. So how they can do that, it seems a bit pie in the sky.

"But the HBF would like to see, when you log into your account, you can see exactly what restrictions you have, what your maximum bets can be and where you are with regard to your credit check limits - are you heading down that road?

"But that will only work if you can see the impact of all your accounts [with different firms] and even then that doesn't include lottery play or other things like bingo."

As ever, the HBF is interested in hearing from punters (comments@ukhbf.org) on this subject and also if they have had any experience of financial checks being made by bookmakers. Trivass says the feedback from punters so far has been more hostile to the white paper's proposals than he had expected.

Explaining his own, milder reaction, he says: "I think we were all anticipating far worse figures for soft checks, so the white paper that came out wasn't as bad as I thought it might be.

"But what we're getting from punters, certainly through Twitter, is that they're disgusted by it, never going to bet again, have had enough, infringement of civil liberties and more. That's the majority view of those who are getting in touch through Twitter, which is our main area of contact. You have to temper that with the knowledge that those who complain tend to be the loudest.

"I think we have to accept there is going to be a change to the status quo and we have to manage it as best we can, so that we come out the other side with the ability to place a bet when we want to, within our means, and to continue supporting the sport that we all love."

I ask if punters might expect the HBF to be more vocal in opposing proposals such as those in the white paper. "We're vocal, we are campaigning," Trivass responds. "We've brought forward many positives for racing over the years. 

"But we have to be realistic about things as well. At the end of the day, this is not going to get turned back. This will not be stopped, no matter how many signatures go on a petition. This is going ahead.

"So we see it as our duty now to try and move it forward in the best way possible for the bettors we represent and for the horse racing industry, which we support. We want to make sure we're involved."

Among the topics the HBF wants to address is the creation of an ombudsman for consumer redress. "We're a little bit wary of how limited the scope of the ombudsman's role is," he says. "We had hoped for one that wasn't limited to social responsibility or gambling harm."

The HBF has recently met with a senior representative of the Gambling Commission and a meeting for early summer is being planned with Stuart Andrew MP, the gambling minister.

Monday's picks

Val Bassett (2.55) is an interesting new talent in David O'Meara's yard, having been in France until last summer, where his best form suggests he's handily rated. He was seventh of eight on his British debut at Ripon three weeks ago, which looks unpromising on the cold page, but the race worked out poorly for him and he surely needed it in any case.

He travelled quite kindly but never saw daylight. I think he'd appreciate a sounder surface, so hopefully the rain in Ayr doesn't turn the ground worse than good. He's generally 9-1.

Val Bassett14:55 Ayr

View Racecard

Jky: Daniel Tudhope Tnr: David O'Meara

Kevin Frost was in decent form even before he had three winners from his last four runners. Mr Gloverman (4.45) could be worth a look as he has his third handicap outing for the yard and his first run since March, at Southwell.

He put up a fair effort under a slipping saddle at this track in January, then got too far back at an early stage at Wolverhampton. He was co-favourite that day but is now 8-1. The return to Southwell looks like helping.

Mr Gloverman16:45 Southwell (A.W)

View Racecard

Jky: Ben Curtis Tnr: Kevin Frost

'He has a great chance' - our Monday tipster argues case for prolific Ayr scorer 

Two things to look out for today . . .

1. Charlie Johnston, who had a good first experience of Classic runners in his own name at the weekend, has an interesting juvenile debutant in the Ayr opener. Sennockian is a No Nay Never half-brother to Pretty Gorgeous, who won THAT Fillies Mile in which Mother Earth and Snowfall ran as each other. He has another half-brother who scored at Listed level in France. The colt fetched €120,000 at a yearling auction in September and carries the same colours (pink with grey seams) as Sennockian Star, who won 14 races for Johnston's father, including an 18-runner handicap at Glorious Goodwood 2014. Like him, Sennockian is a chestnut, so there might be a slight feeling of deja vu for some of you.

Sennockian13:55 Ayr

View Racecard

Jky: Joe Fanning Tnr: Charlie Johnston

2. Dylan Cunha is making a stonking start to his second year as a trainer based in Britain. You might remember him featuring in the Front Runner in April last year, a plain-speaking South African who had done well in his native country and had also been an airline pilot. Anyway, he went 1/28 through that year but is currently 5/12 this year and is especially hot right now, four of his seven runners in April having done the job. Can we therefore hope for an improved showing from Confederation, last seen in January? He put up his best performance since joining Cunha that day and now tries turf (at Windsor) for the first time since scoring in a Brighton maiden last summer for John Butler. Kyle Strydom (2/4 for Cunha) gets the leg-up for the first time.

Read these next:

'I don't know whether to laugh, cry or enjoy it - I'm so messed up at the moment'  

'She's the sort who could bounce back on a faster surface' - expert analysis of the top eight home in the 1,000 Guineas  

Tom Segal tipped 1,000 Guineas winner Mawj at 20-1 - subscribe now with 50% off and don't miss out on a massive month for Pricewise 

The Front Runner is our latest email newsletter available exclusively to Members' Club Ultimate subscribers. Chris Cook, a four-time Racing Reporter of the Year award winner, provides his take on the day's biggest stories and tips for the upcoming racing every morning from Monday to Friday. Not a Members' Club Ultimate subscriber? Click here to join today and also receive our Ultimate Daily emails plus our full range of fantastic website and newspaper content