'You could be trusted to spend £100,000 on a horse but not bet more than £100'

Leading owner Tom Morley, who tasted Royal Ascot success with Prohibit and Goldream, feels the potential introduction of excessive affordability checks on betting accounts would be "disastrous" for British racing, a sport he describes as being "ill" due to poor prize-money.

Morley drew parallels with other areas of discretionary spending, asking why he could spend £100,000 on a racehorse without providing detailed financial evidence of what impact that would have on his finances, while campaigners are calling for the UK government to implement draconian affordability checks triggered at just £100 a month.

"I think it’ll be disastrous if the most serious checks are brought in," said Morley, echoing fears expressed by Andrew Black in Tuesday's Racing Post. "British racing is already ill, I think that’s the right word to use, and we're behind many other racing nations, so if there's a drop in betting that is going to impact prize-money and only make the situation worse than it already is."

Morley revealed he has curtailed his own betting activity and says he will refuse should a firm demand financial details in order to comply with any new legislation.

"I feel there has to be a certain amount of personal responsibility in all of this too," he said. "I don't bet as much as I used to, but I'm limiting what I deposit and withdraw because I don't want to get to a place where I trigger a warning and I'm asked for all of this information I don’t want to hand over.

"So, in effect, the checks are already having an impact without me actually having to do anything."

Prohibit scores under Jim Crowley to give Tom Morley his first King's Stand successCredit: Mark Cranham

Anti-betting campaigners are lobbying the government to bring in affordability checks triggered by a spend of as little as £100 a month as part of its ongoing review of gambling laws.

Opponents believe such checks will drive many punters away from legitimate, tax-paying and revenue-generating firms and into the arms of illegal operators.

"Who is it that is qualified to judge what you can and can't afford to spend your money on?" asked Morley.

"And why does it apply only to this? No-one stops me if I want to go into a shop and spend £100 on shoes, do they?

"If you think about it from the position of a lot of owners, when they buy horses at the sales they are often given credit. This can be a substantial amount and they are trusted by the sales companies to pay their bills.

"It would be ironic if it was the case where an owner could be trusted to spend £100,000 on a horse and pay for it but not be allowed to bet more than £100 on the horse without proving they could afford to do so."

Read more on this subject:

'We have to fight' - Andrew Black says affordability checks could destroy racing

'The industry should be looking at how people bet, not necessarily how much'

'A genuine menace' – is the threat from the black market being taken seriously?

Inside the black market: big bonuses, personal managers and no safeguards

Gambling review may be 'bullet between the eyes' for racing, warns John Gosden

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.