'All of a sudden you're being made to feel guilty for having a flutter. Why can't it be taken as an enjoyment?'

In a new series, we speak to Post readers and racing fans about the impact affordability checks are having. Here, Lewis Porteous talks to Yvonne Foote

Recreational gamblers should not be made to feel like they are doing something wrong because they choose to bet, according to one racing fan, who believes government-imposed affordability checks are in danger of casting an unwarranted stigma on anyone who bets and the wider racing industry.

Yvonne Foote from West Sussex has enjoyed a lifetime betting alongside her family and recalls precious childhood memories watching racing on ITV's World of Sport with her father on Saturday afternoons.

Enjoying betting with his daughter literally became a saviour for her dad later in life, his spirits lifted after suffering a stroke in 1975 as the pair shared countless more Saturdays participating in their favourite pastime.

"After he'd had his stroke he'd lost interest in loads of things, but racing is what interested him and we spent many hours enjoying it together," said Foote. "He always did his same bet, which was three doubles and a treble, and me a Lucky 15. It's all in the family and we kept dad going until he was 88."

Foote, 64, has continued tradition, encouraging her family to join in with her hobby on big days such as the Grand National in April. However, she fears bookmaker affordability checks will unfairly tarnish both the sport's image and those who like to gamble.

"All of a sudden you're being made to feel guilty for having a flutter when it's a real enjoyment," she said. "There's nothing wrong with having a flutter but you're being made to feel like there's potentially something wrong with you because you want to bet three times in a week during Royal Ascot. It's a family and you belong to something. I accept I will lose overall but I've had huge entertainment out of it."

The government's plans for financial checks for online gambling revealed in April's white paper set out proposals for two tiers of checks. Foote would likely face the least intrusive of those, whereby "publicly available data" would be checked when net losses of £125 are reached within a rolling 30-day period, or £500 within a rolling 365-day period. However, she questions why a negative connotation should exist with gambling.

"Why can't it be taken as an enjoyment?" she asked. "It struck me that the proposals were making having a flutter feel like it was a bad thing. That's the way it feels if they're going to base checks on a net loss.

"Quite often, as my dad used to say, you're playing with the bookies' money because a win would keep him going for two or three weeks. From what I understand from this proposed legislation, that is going to be irrelevant if it's based on a net loss of £125 in a month.

"Five hundred pounds in a year is even more draconian. You don't get a return from going to the theatre or going for a meal but, if I went to the same restaurant two days running, they wouldn't stop me on the second night and ask if I can afford to eat there again.

"I know they talk about 'light touch' checks but if it goes any further I'm not going to qualify for any. I don't have any money. I paid for our house and we live off my husband's pension and it's a joint account. I'd be really against anybody trying to look at our account because he's got nothing to do with betting. It seems very wrong and I don't see how it is going to solve problem gambling either. There's always a way and the illegal way has got to be so much worse."

She also questions the impact it will have on thousands of people like herself who bet for enjoyment and whose wellbeing seems to have been disregarded by the rule makers.

"It's a very strange piece of proposed legislation," added Foote. "I think it will have a huge impact on enjoyment, the social side of it and attitudes towards horseracing. Equally, when they bring in legislation, they never take it away and only add to it. In four or five years' time, the problem will still be there and the idea will be to tighten it even further.

"There's a hidden world out there that you don't see. People are in their homes watching football or racing and it's harmless to them. It's life."

• To complete the Gambling Commission's consultation on affordability checks, visit racingpost.com/consultation and follow the instructions.
• 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.

Your stories of affordability checks:

'Who the hell came up with this idea in the first place? It must be a small minority who don't like gambling' 

'Having a bet is part of ownership and it has just got more and more difficult' 

'My everyday life is shattered - these implementations will destroy my life and it's to appease a minority' 

Sign up to receive On The Nose, our essential daily newsletter, from the Racing Post. Your unmissable morning feed, direct to your email inbox every morning.