'They are like ­Frankenstein’s monster and the ­ramifications will be dreadful' - Racing Post readers on affordability checks

Business will not be viable for many in the industry

This intrusion into one’s personal life is really beyond belief.

As far as I can see there are no other constraints in society as to where an individual can spend their own money.If the aim of these affordability checks is to protect the most ­vulnerable in society, why are these checks not also aimed at scratch cards and the lottery?

The racing industry is already suffering from a chronic lack of funding and the effect of these checks will further reduce that funding to a point where business will not be viable for so many in the industry.

It would be a tragedy to see the ­livelihoods of so many people so horribly affected.

As an owner of many horses over the years, I am more than mindful that 20 years ago a modest two-year-old maiden could be worth £4,000 to the winner – a similar sum to the prize-money for a similar race today. Just think how much that means that prize-money has fallen behind in real terms.

Affordability checks are like ­Frankenstein’s monster and the ­ramifications are going to be dreadful.
Gary Woodward
Owner of Pogo

Other consumers aren’t hit

As a regular gambler I have been following the proposals for ­affordability checks with interest. 

While there is no doubt there are problem gamblers, we are talking about a small percentage. 

The government and quangos seem to create laws and rules to try and help the benefit of the few rather than laws and rules which prosper the many, generally with no beneficial results to the few they are aimed at.  

The proposal of affordability checks is a perfect example of this type of legislation – it is like a rule created where the tail wags the dog. 

How can it be real that a rule is passed where the responsible 99 per cent are told how much of their income they are allowed to spend? How can it be right to check your financial position when you are not asking to borrow any money? 

If I were to buy a house, a car or anything else where I required a loan from a financial institution I would expect to have a credit check to see if I matched the required criteria to borrow the requested amount of money, but this is simply not the case with gambling, which is the complete opposite as I am the one putting money into the betting company. 

Wherever money is involved there can be people who are victims, but in no other consumer area are affordability checks being suggested. 

I can’t imagine the likes of Amazon would be too happy if they thought they couldn’t sell their products to customers unless they checked they could afford it. The consumer economy would come to a grinding halt.

The question remains of how to prevent problem gamblers. I’m not sure these checks will do their job on this front, as gamblers will find a place to gamble, possibly through a black-market bookmaker. 

Bookmakers should be checking betting patterns of customers and step in when they see a customer chasing losses. 

Firms already know how most of their customers punt so it would not matter if you bet £5 or £1,000 as your previous betting pattern would be comfortable with them.
Mick Holden
Blackburn, Lancashire

To complete the Gambling Commission’s consultation on affordability checks, visit racingpost.com/consultation and follow the instructions. The consultation ends this Wednesday, October 18.

The Racing Post also wants to hear from you: What has been your experience of affordability checks since the white paper was published at the end of April, and what do you think of the government’s proposals? Have affordability checks affected your betting behaviour?

It’s a chance for your voice to be heard. Email the Racing Post at editor@racingpost.com with the subject ‘Affordability checks’ to share your experiences, your thoughts about the government’s proposals, and your contact details.

It’s taken the fun out of it

I am approaching my wits end with these checks. If you win you still lose as firms then restrict your bets. Yet now you are also restricted if you lose. 

To give you some context, I’m the proud owner of a financial services company and I’m very fortunate to earn well in excess of £500,000 per annum.

Entain’s firms have all but stopped me gambling after a significant win on a horse a few years ago, I can now only get on around £2 a race with one exchange group, and I’ve had my accounts with four other bookmakers all closed even after supplying tax returns.

I’m currently down £10,000 over 12 months and I accept that for the average man in the street that would be obscene, but to me it is neither here nor there.

I love to have a bet in my spare time and love horses and racing, but I’m at the stage where I no longer enjoy a bet for fear of having to pass on significant personal financial ­information to some stranger.

I’m not going to do this any more.

People who enjoy a drink aren’t being banned from the pub, so why is gambling being targeted to the extent it is?
James Parry

A summary of my views

I have completed the Gambling Commission’s consultation questionnaire and summarise my responses as follows:

The issue is the proposed levels of vulnerability check itself. These proposals do not recognise cumulative profit and loss over a longer period nor the individual’s staking strategies. They appear to be an unnecessary sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Gambling on horseracing is about personal choice. Would the same affordability checks be applied to buying lottery tickets?

This approach is an intrusion into personal data and potentially is in breach of data protection, despite the claim that the Office of the Information Commissioner has been consulted, as well as contravening human rights.

These proposals go beyond helpful monitoring of vulnerable adults into areas of control which are unnecessary.
Tony Gibbs

Concerns I’ll be challenged

I am concerned over these ­affordability check proposals as they are intrusive and potentially restrict my rights to place bets with my hard-earned money. 

I enjoy betting on racing, as well as football, and I also place bets for a syndicate where we use our returns for the Cheltenham Festival. 

I am quite successful with my betting. However, based on my ­understanding of the proposals, if I continued placing the syndicate bets and we were not to have any winners for a few weeks, I would be getting questioned on affordability which would also impact my own personal betting. 

I also tend to bet more during certain meetings such as Cheltenham and Aintree that I plan for. 

I do not want to be challenged on whether I can afford it or not. That is my business, I am an adult.
Craig Moore

Field-size reduction risks the future of the National

The appalling decision by the Jockey Club and Aintree to reduce the number of runners for the Grand National (October 12) is almost like an admission that the opponents of horseracing are winning the debate, and this is another step towards the National disappearing from the calendar, which could put the whole sport in danger.

Lowering the maximum field size to 34 might not prevent fatalities, and the problem is not the number of runners but the scrimmaging that occurs over the first three fences. 

I proposed to Aintree the rather radical idea to have a draw for places on the start line, with 20 horses starting on one side of the track and 20 on the other, with jockeys tasked with staying in station until after the third fence.

This knee-jerk reaction to this year’s National, which was affected by animal rights activists, is akin to sounding the death-knell for the greatest horserace in the world. 

What happens next time? Reduce the field to 30, replace some fences with hurdles, reduce the distance further?

I hope there is a petition to get this decision overturned.
Keith Knight
Bideford, Devon

The Grand National will no longer have a maximum field of 40 runners following this week’s announcementCredit: Edward Whitaker

We need another change

Having just read about the changes for the 2024 Grand National, I would like to highlight a potential problem in reducing the maximum field to 34 runners.

Some of the bigger yards can often submit blanket entries for the race, and it resulted in over a quarter of the final field in 2023 (ten of 39) ­representing just two trainers. 

With 34 runners this problem will be ­exacerbated and will be to the detriment of the race from the public’s point of view. 

Come next April I can foresee the debate around some very good horses not making the cut due to this anomaly. 

This is already a problem in Ireland and it would be a shame if the changes that have been announced inadvertently led to the same issue in our showcase race. 

Surely a simple rule change, restricting the number of entries per stable before the first entry stage, could be implemented.
Mark Eva

Beginning of the end

I heartily endorse Chris Cook’s view (October 13) regarding the announced changes to the Grand National. The enemies of racing will not cease until our sport is extinct. 

The utterly dispiriting act of appeasement by the Jockey Club and Aintree will, as Cook states, embolden the sport’s opponents. 

I fear this is the beginning of a slow, painful end.
Andy Crooks
Newtownards, County Down

Race can be divided

I have to disagree with Chris Cook when he criticises the alterations to the Grand National.

If the race is oversubscribed then it should simply be divided.
Roger Gough
Minchinhampton, Gloucestershire

Read more on affordability checks

John Gosden warns a 'torrent' of bettors are heading to black market in stark warning over affordability checks 

'That's none of their business - are they trying to insinuate I'm not mentally capable of placing a bet?' 

British racing set for £250m hit over five years because of affordability checks, warn leading industry figures 

The jumps season is coming! Pick up your copy of The Big Jump Off, packed with everything you need for the 2023-24 National Hunt season. Free in the Racing Post on Monday, October 23, 2023, it's got 72 pages of unbeatable content including ante-post tips, guest columnists, top trainer profiles, divisional analysis and much more. You can pre-order your copy from the Racing Post shop here.