'The ramifications are too worrying to contemplate' - more Racing Post readers share their views on affordability checks

Credit checks on your bets is sheer madness

I would like to share my experience to highlight an area of concern with ­affordability checks.

Last Saturday I logged into an account I hold (or held) with a well-known national bookmaker who had been advertising about a special offer for the day.

I had trouble logging in and, having decided the account may well have been set to dormant, I went through the process of re-establishing the login and password.

Once the password was reset I was directed to the home page only to be faced with a box containing a statement that due to government-required affordability checks, the organisation would require credit checks on me which were to be substantiated by Transunion.

I find this sinister in the extreme as I am not asking for credit, am not buying goods nor am I taking out a loan or credit agreement. I am simply asking to pay for a bet with tax-paid cash or, in this case, take part in a nationally ­advertised promotion.

The issue here is that the Gambling Commission’s assertion that affordability should be proven in some way now runs the risk of having all my personal information, associated with a leisure pastime, being shared with a credit reference agency who will no doubt share that ­information with the many other companies who use their services. It is wholly unreasonable of anyone to assume that this would not be the case.

Fortunately, I am of an age that dictates that the likelihood of me applying for credit, a credit card or mortgage has long gone, but my leisure activity and spending, should I wish to bet, will no doubt become part of a wider web of information available to companies who subscribe to the many credit reference agencies worldwide.

Why on earth would anyone want to be part of this madness knowing that their partner who lives at the same address could be adversely affected (by ­association) should they decide to replace their car or a similar item using their own money?

While I have sympathy with those who cannot control their gambling activities, I do not think that a wholly sinister method of establishing my suitability which could be open to abuse is acceptable in a free world.

The ramifications of confusing a leisure activity using tax-paid cash and credit scoring for purchase on credit or loan is too worrying to contemplate.

In future, am I going to have to answer to Transunion, Experian or some other agency to establish if I am allowed to go to the local pub for a few pints, never mind a bet?
Dave Tobutt

Penalised for a hobby

I am 59 years old and have been betting on horses nearly all my life.

I am now retired, but I draw an income from my pension which is currently valued in excess of £800,000. My mortgage is a modest £61,000 against a conservative property value of £400,000. My wife works as a teacher and we have no problem meeting our monthly commitments and never ever have.

I bet every day on the horses mixed with a bit of football.

I note with interest your recent reports of owners quitting the sport due to intrusive checks which appear to be highlighted by the BHA. However, the majority of punters are not owners. I have yet to be subjected to any financial checks, but if I was then they will not be getting any information from me.

How is it that I could buy £100 of lottery tickets/scatchcards every day or alcohol and nobody would say a thing, but as soon as I have a bet then I must be told how I can spend my own money?

While high-profile owners/punters get the headlines, there are far more ordinary punters being penalised for doing something they love and are in complete control of.

There have been quite literally millions of pounds of fines levied against the ­bookmakers, but nobody seems to know where this money is being used and to what effect.

This must be a cause for concern and highlighted for immediate review. After all, these are the people this vendetta is aimed at helping.
Nigel Goodin

Time to protect owners

I am a small owner with shares in a couple of syndicates which are going very well at present.

As yet, I have not been the subject of any affordability checks as I tend only to bet small amounts when and if I fancy one of our horses. I am, however, appalled by the prospect of checks on my betting as I should be free to spend my money as I choose.

If the proposed checks are adopted, I will inevitably be caught at some point as, like everyone else, I have losing runs.

Evidently, there are some people who suffer from a gambling addiction and there should be some form of ­protection for them, whoever they may be. It is not necessary, however, or in any way proportionate to invoke standard checks on everyone simply to protect those at highest risk.

One idea I would suggest is a register of racehorse owners who, by virtue of their ­ownerships and place on the register, should be exempt from any checks on affordability. Such a register would protect the industry and allow all owners to bet as they choose.

While it is possible that a few owners may become addicted to gambling, there is good reason to believe that such people have the necessary resources to choose how they spend their hard-earned money.

No one checks whether we can afford the next yearling or breeze-up horse or, for that matter, a Porsche or Aston Martin.

By adopting a register, perhaps simply through membership of the Racehorse Owners Association, at least we would be protecting those who have a vested and financial interest in the wellbeing of our sport.
Roy Tozer

To complete the Gambling Commission’s consultation on affordability checks, click here 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.

Change to Irish Derby distance won’t work

Patrick Cooper’s argument (August 30) that reducing the Irish Derby to 1m2f would be more popular with connections of the best colts is ­unsupported by the facts.

So far this year in Britain and Ireland, Group 1 races run over a mile and a half have averaged nine runners, while over a mile and a quarter they have averaged only six. It was a similar picture last year. So reducing the distance of the race is unlikely to have a positive impact.

The wider point is that there simply aren’t enough quality horses to populate Group 1 races over a mile and a quarter and beyond.

There have been 13 such races completed this year to date and they have attracted just 70 individual horses with 100 runners.

As for three-year-olds, just 38 have competed in these races so far in 2023 and only six have competed in Group 1s over a mile and a quarter, so it hardly looks like a vast untapped reservoir of potential for Irish Derby runners.

The simple truth is there are far too many Group 1 middle-distance races relative to the number of horses capable of competing in them.

Perhaps a reduction in these races would allow the remaining contests such as the Irish Derby to command bigger fields and greater prestige.
Ged Shields
Silkstone, South Yorkshire

Auguste Rodin wins this year's Irish Derby: there have been calls to give the race a revampCredit: Patrick McCann

Importance of training

Staff and Trustees at the National Horseracing College were saddened greatly to read of the situation at Ireland’s Racing Academy and Centre of Education (RACE).

It draws into sharp focus the challenges of resourcing the training provided to the racing industry in Britain.

Since the 1980s, the NHC and its sister school, the British Racing School, have accessed government funds that would not be available otherwise to the industry and made the most of their ­charitable status to enable racing now to benefit from over 40,000 person training days per year at a huge discount from the real cost.

The fate of RACE reminds us all that stakeholders and partners need to recognise the importance and value of our own training pipeline and work together to ensure our industry can continue to benefit from our people being trained at highly specialised facilites by staff who know what is required and at significantly subsidised rates.
Col Stephen Padgett OBE
Chief executive, National Horseracing College

Follow France’s lead

During Glorious Goodwood I worked live on the radio for Snaitech, a major bookmaker in Italy.

On one of the day’s racing, one of my colleagues raised a very ­interesting question talking about the fines given to both Jim Crowley and Rob Hornby for hitting their horses too many times in the King George.

He pointed out that if a horse is found to be doped with performance-enhancing drugs then they are disqualified.

He believed that the ­performances of the winner Hukum (hit three times over the limit by Crowley) and runner-up Westover (once over the limit by Hornby) were enhanced at Ascot, so the pair should have been ­disqualified.

The new whip rules in Britain state that runners in Flat races will be disqualified if a jockey hits them 11 times or more.

Recently, France Galop announced that any horse struck nine times or more with the whip would be disqualified. An extremely good decision.

In my opinion, the BHA should take the same route as France Galop very soon.
Carlo Zuccoli
Como, Italy

Read more on affordability checks here:

'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.