It's time the Gambling Commission had a very different conversation - one with the people who know most about gambling

There's an old saying – possibly one I made up myself – that "nobody ever died with a live ante-post voucher in their pocket".

It may not be entirely true – I'm sure there are recorded examples of people being run over by buses on their way home from the betting shop – but the gist of it is familiar to any keen punter: betting is a life-enhancing thing that can do more for your mental and physical wellbeing than any prescription medication.

I should know. I've been gambling for well over 50 years now and the times I leap out of bed with the greatest vigour and certainty (leaving aside those necessitated by prostate irregularities) are the times when I know there's a big day's racing to look forward to with immeasurable punting possibilities.

That's not to say my life is dominated by punting or that there are no other rabbit holes of enjoyment I go down, but I know racing has been chief among them.

Which is what bothers me about the rumbling debate over what most call affordability checks but which have stealthily been rebranded 'financial risk assessments', as if they're some kind of laser-focused concentration on those most in need of help, rather than a Thor-like sledgehammer to crack a tiny nut.

The nub of the matter finally became plain to me the other day when I read a piece on the make-up of the Gambling Commission board members tasked with deliberating on this thorny issue – and without wishing to reinforce stereotypes, not one of them looked or sounded from their biographies like they'd ever been in a betting shop in their lives – and read a pithy quote from Dr Christopher Snowdon, from the politically non-aligned Institute of Economic Affairs, who, having remarked that one would expect to see on the board at least some members with "experience working in that business, in those relevant industries", skewered it with the observation that "the Gambling Commission is very keen on lived experience, as long as they’ve had a negative experience".

That's it. Not one thought for or conversation with the colossal majority of us who regard gambling as a rewarding hobby rather than a public health issue; just a holier-than-thou fixation on the tiny, addicted minority who are at risk, but who won't be helped one iota by having their vulnerability assessed.

Come on, drag yourself away from your expertise in banking law and insurance, and ask me, ask my friends and colleagues, ask 99.99 per cent of the people reading the Racing Post or sitting in a betting shop minding their own business. We'll tell you.

Read more on affordability checks here:

The case against affordability checks is now unanswerable  

Gambling Commission delays decision on affordability checks as board says it needs more time to assess the evidence 

Who are the Gambling Commission board members responsible for Thursday's crucial affordability checks decision? 

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.