Talking Horses: Racing could pay heavy price in gambling reform

A couple of hours after the government’s White Paper on gambling reform was finally published last week, Julie Harrington, the British Horseracing Authority’s chief executive, was asked whether the proposed legislation took into account the fundamental difference between betting – on racing and other sports – and gaming, on fixed-margin casino products.

“There is some good language in there, accepting that there is a difference between sport and evidence of faster losses on those casino-based games,” Harrington said. “I think on a more detailed reading, you’ll see that it may not be the headlines, but the language below really does differentiate that, so it’s clear that that has landed.”

As anyone who has flown with a budget airline may confirm, however, “landed” can feel like a relative concept when there is still a 30-minute yomp to passport control to come. And whatever “the language below” might suggest, the simple fact remains that when it comes to the proposed introduction of “affordability” checks for punters – a potentially significant threat to racing’s funding from betting – there is no differentiation at all.

Initial “frictionless” checks on punters’ finances will be triggered by a net loss of £125 over a month, or £500 in a year. Potentially more intrusive checks will be made if a customer shows signs of “binge” gambling, defined as a net loss of £1,000 in 24 hours, with further consultation on an additional trigger of a £2,000 net loss in 90 days.

As things stand, these thresholds apply regardless of whether a punter gambles solely on sport, solely on casino products or a mixture of the two. And while the relative speed of losses on casino games is acknowledged by some of the government’s language in the