Racing Post readers on affordability checks: 'This legislation is having untold effect on the everyday punter'

It’d be a travesty to lose such social revelry

While this is an issue for racing in terms of industries with most to lose, I believe these checks are a threat to the very act of gambling itself and the institution of the betting shop.

These places are often loud and brash and (in some cases) busy, they are a meeting of opinions, of discussion, of characters.

Betting shops in my opinion are first and foremost the meeting place of friends, the safe place to conduct oneself in a discussion on all sports with like-minded individuals who will also no doubt have their own opinion. 

The shops have the ability to fight loneliness for some and for others provide a genuine purpose, and I don’t mean here the purpose of chasing money, I mean the purpose of following a sport one loves and solving the puzzle of a 20-runner 6f handicap on a Saturday. 

I have been in betting shops in York, Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool, Bath, Newcastle, Glasgow, Edinburgh and London and struck up conversation with strangers over an array of different sports and sporting highlights.

What I take from this intervention, this nanny state, this attack on gambling, is a distinct and clear misunderstanding of the act itself and the nature of 99.9 per cent of the individuals involved. 

By some, including the media at times, gambling is branded a dirty word, a despicable act, no matter if it is controlled and well within a person’s limits.

I believe that these checks and their premature application are an extension of this misunderstanding, most likely by people who have never visited a betting shop or who would likely not understand the excitement of sharing with other customers the 12-1 winner that they managed to find on Saturday last.

If this situation is allowed to bear out then this sort of ­socialising will be lost. 

What for many is a positive and harmonious outlet and something to be celebrated and championed is being turned into an almost criminal feeling. 

This looming legislation has hit owners, the sport and the industry, but it is also having untold effect on the everyday punter, who is at risk of losing space in which to share all of the above in unison with their betting peers.

I once read a line which said “gambling is always better when done with friends” and I couldn’t agree more.  

If you would ever like to see this in action then the Betfred shop on Millfield Avenue in York between 9-12 on most Saturday mornings is the place to see this in action, and to lose such revelry as takes place would be a travesty.
Gavin Shillito

The Racing Post 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.

I’ll curtail my interests

Without wishing to pour more oil on troubled waters I had the inevitable contact this week from one firm seeking detailed financial information in order to keep my betting account open. I told them to close it as access to my personal financial details will never be made available. 

I have no financial problems and, as a hobby, breed ­racehorses, some of whom I sell and some of whom go into training. 

I have not had a call yet from the Racehorse Owners ­Association asking for ­affordability checks as to my ability to keep horses in training. At £25,000 per horse per annum, you would need every one at Class 4 level to win a number of races every year just to pay the training fees. This just doesn’t happen, and while all my horses have won at some point, it is a loss-making exercise. 

So I can afford to keep horses in training and support the racing industry without any checks, but I can’t have a bet unless I undergo a financial audit. 

I will no longer be betting and will now sell my breeding stock abroad.
Roy Kingston

Options very limited

I am a relatively small owner with five horses at James Moffatt’s Pit Farm Stables.

I am also a retired business owner who likes a flutter mainly when mine run.

I’ve had some decent successful bets along with many more unsuccessful, but always within my means and I never chase losses.

However, after refusing to provide intrusive financial information to a faceless company whose employees I don’t know, I’ve had several accounts closed down. To comply with this is absolute madness, but my options are now very limited.

I’m being pushed towards illegal bookies or to carry big wads of cash to bet on course.

This situation is complete madness and if it continues I will be pushed into reconsidering my involvement in racing.
Dave Simpson

How to respond to the Gambling Commission consultation: Views can be provided at this page. After completing the introductory questions, select 'Remote gambling: financial vulnerability and financial risk' from the 'Consultations contents page'. You can choose to answer as many or as few questions as you wish. Further Racing Post guidance on responding to the consultation can be found here.

Like losing oxygen

I am 72 years old and have been backing horses for 50 years. I have also owned ­racehorses at a modest level and was one of the early Brits to send horses to the US due to the example set and advice kindly given by Philip Mitchell, trainer of Running Stag. They were trained at Philadelphia Park (now Parx) by Randy Allen. 

Before the advent of the internet, I used telephone credit accounts to bet. It was an age of mutual trust and respect. I paid my losing accounts on time and received my winnings promptly. 

As I became accustomed to using the internet I left telephone betting and opened deposit accounts with the bookmakers I had previously used including the Tote. 

Earlier this year I placed a £10 Placepot online with the Tote. Although my account had funds to cover it, the bet was declined. 

I immediately rang the Tote to ask what was going on. A young man answered my call and informed me that my bet had been declined due to the possibility I had a gambling problem (or words to that effect). 

Once I had recovered from the shock of the situation I reminded him that we still live in a law-abiding democracy, that I would not have my civil liberties curtailed by the Tote or anyone else and instructed him to close my account there and then. 

As many of your readers will understand, I was furious and it took me ten minutes of deep breathing to calm down. Half an hour later the phone rang. It was the Tote to say there had been a mistake at their end, that I should not have been denied my bet in the first place and would I please reconsider. 

To my delight I recognised the voice as being one of the wonderful ladies from Wigan who used to take my account bets decades ago on the phone and we had a chat like old friends. 

She confided that affordability checks were making life as miserable for the staff as they were for the punters. I asked her if I might consider her call as a formal apology from the Tote and she said yes whereupon I reinstated my account. 

Although some people cannot control their personal compulsion to gamble, this is not even a good moral reason to restrict or impede the decisions of all others who play responsibly. 

If the government refuses to see this then there is a potential answer to the gridlock. Just as bookmakers need to be licensed, maybe punters can too. 

If what would be needed to succeed in an individual’s application to a licence was pitched to a minimum requirement, it might solve more problems than it creates. 

If you are a cash punter you would show the licence to the counter staff at your local bookmaker. If you punt online you would supply the number and expiry date to the online bookmaker. 

Racing has been a wonderful education for me over all these years. Like life itself, the racing industry provides an arena for huge triumphs and the meanest of tragedies. With this in mind the person it has taught me most about is myself. 

Any attempts to diminish the financial risks involved with affordability checks would miss the point completely. It would reduce the very oxygen of the game and eventually snuff it out altogether.
Rick Reeves

Enough is enough

After 25 minutes confirming I was comfortable with my investment levels, the final straw that broke the camel’s back was when I was asked how long I spent on gambling sites.

Enough, I closed my account.
John O’Flaherty 

Read more on the Gambling Review

'This is a vicious circle' - trainer Gary Moore adds voice to growing number of affordability check critics 

'We shouldn't tell people how to spend their money' - MP Laurence Robertson to press minister over affordability checks 

'The world's gone mad' - Mick Channon boycotts betting over controversial affordability checks 

Racing Post readers: 'Affordability checks are a devastating threat to my punting passion'  

Subscribe to Racing Post Members' Club Ultimate Monthly and pay just £9.99 per month for your first two months! 

Available to new subscribers purchasing Ultimate Monthly using code SUMMER. First two payments charged at £9.99, renews at full monthly price thereafter. To cancel please contact us at least seven days before subscription is due to renew. Offer expires 30/09/2023.