Gambling minister Stuart Andrew can become racing's darling - if he keeps true to his word

Who do you think is the darling of the Racing Post? There is not a correct answer to the question as I have never known the paper to champion anyone unconditionally, but over the years there has been the odd accusation the Racing Post has favoured certain jockeys, trainers and broadcasters over their peers.

For example, recently there were a few complaints on social media that Frankie Dettori featured so heavily on the front page of the Champions Day edition. The fact he went on to ride a double, including the day's feature race on King Of Steel, and his name was echoing around the Ascot grandstand might suggest it was good editorial judgement, rather than favouritism, but there you go.

But returning to the original question, few would put up a politician as the answer but that was what happened last week at the Westminster Hall debate in parliament on 'The Future of Horseracing'. At that debate Stuart Andrew, whose ministerial brief covers both racing and gambling, discussed the concerns that have been raised by British racing with increased vigour and urgency in recent weeks over affordability checks.

"As the darling of the Racing Post, as I seem to be these days, I want to reassure everyone that I have heard those concerns and take them very seriously," Andrew told MPs.

Unlike some involved in the debate over affordability checks since the government published its white paper in April, Andrew did not seem to be too grumpy about his regular appearances in these pages. You would imagine, though, that he would have preferred to have had a longer respite from the subject of gambling reform than he has had since this spring.

Racing has been keeping up the pressure on the Department for Culture, Media and Sport over the potential unintended consequences of the checks. The letter to Catterick racecourse from prime minister Rishi Sunak promising affordability checks will be frictionless revealed by colleague James Stevens in the Racing Post this week would be a prime example of the lobbying that has taken place.

Nevertheless, it is likely that Andrew would become very popular with British racing, perhaps even its darling, if he holds true to what he told last week's debate.

"The point about being frictionless is essential," Andrew said. "I reiterate my commitment that proposed checks will not be mandated across the sector until we are confident that they are frictionless for the vast majority of customers who will be caught by them."

Similarly, Andrew made it clear it was "important" that the wider public had its say in the Gambling Commission's recently closed consultation on affordability checks and that it was "great" it had received so many responses which the regulator was working hard to analyse.

There have been fears the commission would dismiss some responses due to them being based on what it has claimed is "misinformation".

It may be wishful thinking, but Andrew also seemed to suggest the detail of the plans was not set in stone as he said the government would continue to work closely with the commission "as it refines proposals".

"The consultation was on all aspects and all details, including the levels at which those checks will come in and how we consider the previous winnings," he added.

Andrew also raised the possibility the checks that operators put in place in anticipation of the white paper, and which have been blamed by racing for the loss of tens of millions of pounds of revenue for the sport, would be revisited.

The minister said he had listened to racing bettors who had voiced concerns about the intrusive nature of checks, as well as fears checks were also being used by some operators to restrict successful punters, and that he had spoken to the commission's chief executive Andrew Rhodes on the subject.

"I asked him to challenge operators to be more transparent with customers and more consistent in how they apply the checks now," he added.

Whether that will result in operators easing off the throttle, or simply carrying on as before due to the threat of fines or worse from the commission, remains to be seen.

Nick Rust: said Gambling Commission has "limited" understanding of bettingCredit: Edward Whitaker

The Gambling Commission has of course denied ever mandating such checks, a claim described as "absurd" by former BHA chief executive Nick Rust in his keynote address to the Reputation Matters conference in London last week. Both ministers and the commission have also insisted that checks would only happen online and not in betting shops, something which Rust again disputed.

As a judge for the Betting Shop Manager of the Year competition, Rust said the extent to which such checks were already taking place on the high street was "clear".

Rust told the conference that he believed the commission was "well-intentioned" and was under legitimate pressure to reduce the cases of extreme harm caused by gambling. However, he did not hold back in his criticism of the regulator, claiming that its "limited" understanding of betting meant that it was encouraging the use of the "blunt instrument" of financial checks to reduce harm rather than other indicators such as excessive periods of play.

The fear is that ship may have sailed, given the government has made the checks its policy, and Andrew will no doubt see his name in the Racing Post a few times more yet.

Read this next:

Affordability checks consultation is closing - now the Gambling Commission must show us it was a genuine consultation 

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.