Gambling Commission resorts to straw man arguments as it tries to stifle debate on affordability checks

The original plan for this column was not to write about affordability checks. Plan A had been to look at environmental issues and racing, prompted by various comments, releases and events last week.

Last week's World Horse Welfare conference was titled Horses and the Environment: Friend or Foe?, while the Jockey Club announced a new sustainability project examining the environmental impact of five of its sites across England.

Then there was the comment from BHA chief operating officer Richard Wayman, who noted the sport's targets for the impact of the changes being made to the fixture list could be hit by outside influences including "environmental factors such as the impact of the climate on racing surfaces and fan behaviour".

There was also the flooding at Southwell to consider.

However, when it comes to affordability checks the words of Michael Corleone often come to mind: "Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in."

The reason for the change of direction came when Gambling Commission chief executive Andrew Rhodes's speech to a large gathering of gambling industry executives last Wednesday appeared on the regulator's website the following day.

In it, Rhodes said he was "very conscious of how many will scrutinise every word in my spoken and published speech today", adding: "Some will be looking for meaning, some to interpret and some to criticise."

Rhodes devoted a significant section of his speech to racing and the ongoing debate about affordability checks, and his comments have been met with astonishment by some senior figures in the sport.

As readers will hopefully be aware, British racing has backed a petition calling on the government to abandon the implementation of affordability checks, a petition which had attracted more than 83,500 signatures at the time of writing. However, Rhodes in his speech chose to interpret the petition thus: "The call being made here is for unlimited and, quite literally, unchecked gambling losses on a sport, to support the growth and continuation of that sport."

This is not what British racing has been arguing for and Rhodes must know this.

He need only look at Arena Racing Company's response to the Gambling Commission's recently closed consultation on affordability checks, which the racecourse group published to a wider audience last month.

That response clearly states: "Consideration should be given to alternative solutions – such as a requirement for all online gamblers to set deposit limits; and to strengthen controls on those limits [e.g. standardised cooling-off periods before limits can be raised] and the use of a myriad of online tools that operators can better use to judge a customer's vulnerability."

That is hardly a call for unchecked or unlimited losses. Indeed, the petition itself states: "We accept the need to help those with problem gambling."

A straw man argument is one that distorts or exaggerates an opposing view in order to make it easier to attack and Rhodes's comments would appear to be a classic example. Nor are they the only example in Rhodes's speech.

Andrew Rhodes: "Would appear to be seeking to portray racing as taking an extremist position"

Rhodes complained of being misquoted many times on the subject of the gambling black market and added: "So let me say this once again. The risk of illegal gambling and the black market as an argument against reform of regulation is, I think, overstated, based on what we see in reality."

The issue here is that it is unclear who has ever argued that the risk of the black market means industry reform should not happen. Perhaps it has happened in private conversations between the Gambling Commission and operators, in which case those operators need to think again.

What is a much stronger point is the one made two years ago by Betting and Gaming Council chief executive Michael Dugher, who said highlighting the dangers of the black market was "not an argument against changes to the regulated industry, it's simply an argument for getting those changes right".

There is plenty of reason to believe that affordability checks could drive punters to the black market, just as restrictions and account closures might. The argument is not to do nothing but instead to do the right thing. Portraying discussion of the black market as an effort to halt any reform allows the Gambling Commission not to engage with this valid point.

Returning to Rhodes's comments about racing, there is an interpretation of them that is very concerning.

By claiming that racing is seeking unchecked and unlimited losses from betting, despite that not being the case, Rhodes would appear to be seeking to portray the sport as taking an extremist position. It is much easier to marginalise and refuse to engage with an argument if it is painted as being extreme and one's own position as being in the centre ground in comparison.

There were already fears the Gambling Commission might try to dismiss inconvenient but legitimate opposition to affordability checks.

The regulator has previously noted what it describes as "a significant amount of misinformation" in responses to the consultation, although that is just as likely to be sensible criticism of the claims being made about the proposal by the government and the commission.

The Gambling Commission has also failed to publish the findings of its original consultation on affordability checks more than two and a half years after it closed.

Last week Rhodes said the discussion around horseracing had become an "exceptionally difficult and sometimes very bitter debate". His speech did nothing to calm the situation.

Punters and the racing industry are being called on to sign a petition calling on the government to stop the implementation of affordability checks. You can sign the petition here.

Read these next:

Cheltenham to urge thousands of racegoers at November meeting to sign the petition against affordability checks 

'It could be catastrophic for the sport' - punters and racing urged to sign petition against affordability checks 

Punters must unite to ward off the Affordability Police 

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.