There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
How black market bookies have spread through racing - and even solicit business at Cheltenham
author image
Lee Mottershead
Senior writer
The black market has become a huge problem for racing - and it promises to get worse
The black market has become a huge problem for racing - and it promises to get worse
No racing event is more important for bookmakers than the Cheltenham Festival. That truth applies equally to firms operating on the right and wrong side of the law, as became surprisingly and brazenly apparent at jumping's mecca last March.
Most major bookmaking firms have a presence at Cheltenham. Some are there laying bets. Others use the four days to promote their brands through big-race sponsorships or by providing hospitality. Almost all the major firms have close links to a meeting synonymous with the betting industry's household names. But it is also useful to firms whose identities are much less familiar.
That was certainly true last year, as Fitzdares chief executive William Woodhams can testify. While entertaining clients at Cheltenham, it became apparent some of Woodhams' guests were being approached by a representative of a large online operator licensed on the Caribbean island of Curacao but thought to be based in Montenegro.
That business, which is not regulated by the UK Gambling Commission and therefore should not accept UK customers, is ostensibly a cryptocurrency operation but is believed to accept bets and pay out in sterling, including on British horseracing. Multiple sources told the Racing Post that prominent within the organisation is a high-society Englishman with contacts in the sport.
"In the last 18 months we've seen a sustained attempt by offshore bookmakers to engage our customers," says Woodhams. "We even discovered an employee of one operator offering free bets to our members in the Fitzdares Club at the Cheltenham Festival. There is perverse irony that offshore operators can take boxes and entertain at racecourses even though they don't contribute to the data, levy and tax costs that fund the racecourses."
Fitzdares chief executive William Woodhams believes 80 per cent of his customers will face affordability checks
William Woodhams: "In the last 18 months we've seen a sustained attempt by offshore bookmakers to engage our customers"
Credit: Astrid Templier
This story is just one example of how the booming black market is no longer the preserve of shady offshore websites or anonymous figures on encrypted messaging apps, but increasingly operates openly, sometimes fronted by well-known figures, offering high-rolling punters, including owners and trainers, a bespoke, unrestricted betting service, the like of which many can no longer access via the regulated market since the advent of affordability checks.
The size of the gambling black market is huge globally, but historically has accounted for a relatively tiny slice of UK betting activity – a consequence of Britain having such a diverse and developed regulated market. However, it is growing rapidly. A PwC report commissioned by the Betting and Gaming Council claimed the amount staked by UK online gamblers on the unregulated market in 2020 had doubled to £2.8 billion in the previous one to two years. For British racing that trend is dangerous, with the BHA calculating that for every £10 million of gross win that moves to the black market, the sport loses £1m in levy funding and around £1.5m in media rights.
Through simple online searches, it is easy to create accounts with offshore operators unlicensed by the UK Gambling Commission. Such sites can be attractive to those finding it hard to bet with regulated bookmakers due to affordability checks or account restrictions.
Many of these offshore firms also explicitly target those signed up to the UK's Gamstop service, which blocks access to bookmakers. A search for 'non-Gamstop bookmakers' brings up 441,000 results on Google, with results including pages titled '31 Most Trusted Betting Sites not on GamStop 2024', 'Legit UK Betting Sites Not On GamStop' and 'Non Gamstop UK Betting Sites 70+ Legit Sites Ranked'.
Illegal betting does, however, come in many forms. Punters pushed away from the regulated market can find other avenues to bet, including via websites such as those found through search engines, but big punters are increasingly being tempted by an informal network of seemingly reputable agents, typically operating on WhatsApp. As well as being unlicensed and thus contributing nothing to British racing or the exchequer, it is believed these are often simply the lowest level in a pyramid of ever increasing liquidity, at the top of which sit gangs involved in organised crime and money laundering.
The scale of the problem
The Hong Kong Jockey Club and the Asian Racing Federation Council on Anti-Illegal Betting and Related Financial Crime have been central to the sport's efforts to learn more about the betting black market, which the HKJC last year described as "the number-one threat to the integrity of racing".
Highlighting that threat and the size of the black market, HKJC executive manager racing integrity and betting analysis Tom Chignell says: "The offering on horseracing by illegal and under-regulated operators has increased in the last few years – the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime estimates a total of US$1.7 trillion is bet illegally annually. An example of this is that large crypto market-based operators are offering fixed-odds betting on global racing, including British racing.
"Integrity investigations are compromised when operators fail to provide account-level detail with regulators. Betting operators who rely on agent networks to manage their customers often do not actually know who their customers are due to the agents blurring the audit trail between the operator and the customer and lack of KYC [know your customer] processes."
The Hong Kong Jockey Club's Tom Chignell told the Asian Racing Conference that affordability checks are driving punters to the illegal market
Tom Chignell: "The offering on horseracing by illegal and under regulated operators has increased in the last few years"
Credit: Scott Barbour
Some believe the UN estimate now falls far short of reality. Technical intelligence platform Yield Sec says the true figure could be $5.1tn, although working purely to the UN's calculation, it believes the $1.7tn being bet illegally translates to a profit for those operators of $340bn, "dwarfing legal gambling profitability by more than eight times".
Identifying what the black market explosion means in Britain, Martin Purbrick, a consultant for GVS EQ and former director of security and integrity of the Hong Kong Jockey Club, says: "In Britain all consumers have open access to the huge global range of online internet-based betting and gambling websites that have been clearly shown by expert analysts as involving a large amount of unlicensed – and usually illegal at the point of sale – betting operators, many operated by major organised crime groups, particularly in Asia.
"We know from analysis and reporting from around the world that consumers are attracted to these online illegal betting markets because of price, product and customer experience. This is no different in the UK. The UK, without doubt, has a problem with a growing number of consumers going to online illegal betting operators. Our challenge is measuring this.
"Consumer access to illegal betting is not immediately measurable, largely because online betting customers do not respond honestly to survey questions that ask if they have taken part in an illicit or illegal activity. So we know from the expert analysis and reporting that the illegal betting and organised crime problem is huge, but we have difficulty knowing exactly how many consumers bet in these markets."
Purbrick adds: "If any online betting operator that does not have a licence in the UK accepts bets from consumers in the UK, ie at the point of consumption, then this is surely a criminal offence under the Gambling Act. However, there is no apparent enforcement action by the UK gambling regulator against offshore online unlicensed betting operators and also no major commentary regarding the problem.
"Considering what we know from expert analysis regarding the large amount of unlicensed – and usually illegal at the point of sale – online betting operators, this seems to be a major gap in UK enforcement activity."
Outlining its position, the Gambling Commission claims it always investigates allegations relating to unlicensed gambling platforms and that when assessing a case it will consider whether an operator has sought to actively block UK consumers. The regulator reports it works with various relevant parties, including HMRC, banks, website hosts and payment providers, and states 452 enforcement actions were taken in 2022-23, up from 89 actions in 2021-22. The commission also says it last year referred 7,048 individual website domains to Google with a view to their removal from search results.
'The horse has bolted'
When addressing the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee in September, Gambling Commission chief executive Andrew Rhodes told MPs the size of the black market is "very small", a comment that shocked other regulators, experts and the BHA.
Gambling Commission chief Andrew Rhodes faces questions
Gambling Commission chief executive Andrew Rhodes told MPs the scale of the betting black market had been overstated
The Racing Post’s 2023 ‘Big Punting Survey’ found 3.6 per cent of respondents had already used a black market operator in the last 12 months. More recently, the Horseracing Bettors Forum carried out its own survey that showed 73 per cent of the 296 respondents would consider using the black market if bookmakers requested additional private information to allow them to continue betting.
However, evidence for growing black market usage is, unsurprisingly, largely anecdotal. One punter, 'Mike', who has been in regular contact with the Racing Post but wishes to remain anonymous given the subject matter, has already crossed the line having decided affordability checks were an insufferable and unacceptable invasion of privacy.
He says: "Following UK bookmaker restrictions I could only use Betfair, which then asked to see my financial papers to carry on using their platform. I will never hand over any financial documents to any bookmaker and nobody should. I refused to hand over the documents and they closed my account.
"The black market bookie I use is licensed in Curacao and it's fantastic. Now I have no stake restrictions, no affordability checks, good continued deposit bonuses and withdrawals the next day into my UK bank. All you need to do is prove your ID and address on opening the account, which is fair enough. There will, of course, be no UK levy kickback from my bets anymore and British racing will therefore suffer. It's a farce.
"I have no concerns about using the black market and have recommended my black market bookie to lots of friends who were in the same boat as me regarding restrictions and affordability checks."
Mike, of course, should have concerns, given the lack of legal protections that come with using an offshore bookmaker, yet he is one of many who have discovered it is easy to find illegal bookmakers – or to be found.
"I know people who could send me down the black market route but I wouldn't want to do that because it's no good for racing," trainer Ed Bethell told the Racing Post this month. Professional punter Neil Channing has received similar overtures.
Neil Channing: 'I made a policy decision to give myself longevity'
Neil Channing: "The number of people who have offered me the black market facility of a WhatsApp bookmaker I vaguely know has doubled"
"The number of people who have offered me the black market facility of a WhatsApp bookmaker I vaguely know has doubled from two to four in the last year," says Channing.
"There are people I know who are using black market bookmakers who probably did that in the past but they are now using them more formally on a day-to-day basis due to affordability checks. I know someone who always used to bet with regulated companies who has no chance of passing affordability checks and can maybe now deposit £100 a month, which equates to his average bet. He is now using the black market.
"Another guy I spoke to has a big Betfair account and found people asking him to place bets for them because they were over their monthly deposit limit. He now lays those bets himself. In effect, he is operating as an illegal bookmaker. That sort of thing must be happening quite a lot.
"Also happening much more is big punters and big punting syndicates trading with each other. Syndicates with ten people who have £1m or £2m between them and bet £10,000 or £20,000 all talk to each other and they all lay each other bets. It equates to illegal gambling and loads of it is happening – and there is more of that now than there used to be."
Woodhams offers one ray of light, saying: "The vast majority of customers who go black return after a year due to some rather shoddy business practices. Who wants to risk their deposits in another jurisdiction?"
Punters do indeed risk losing their money when lodging it with businesses whose very nature means they offer no meaningful player protection or security. Initial join-up offers that seem too good to be true are likely exactly that, while the Racing Post has previously reported that former VIP managers for regulated bookmakers had been approached by black market firms seeking their customer lists.
"For me, the interesting part is shutting it down, although I imagine there is limited resource at the Gambling Commission, BHA and BGC to deal with this," says Woodhams.
"I would suggest the data owners should aggressively police their property and there perhaps needs to be a public consensus that the black market is bad for UK racing. Punters who use the black market are choosing to destroy the sport they love, however valid they may feel their reason to be. Either way, we are tacitly encouraging black market business and then trying to shut the door after the horse has bolted."
One thing leads to another
There is a grim irony that the regulator and government are the architects of this outcome, having introduced a system of affordability checks designed to protect consumers but which has had the unintentional consequence of encouraging punters – both those with and without addictions – towards the black market.
"Affordability checks imposed on betting operators are self-defeating and will inevitably lead to greater long-term levels of gambling harm to consumers," says Purbrick. "This is because the imposition of these checks directly impacts ease of use of online betting by consumers, which is a factor to drive them to online illegal betting websites where there are no checks on customer affordability or often even identity.
"Because online illegal betting operators are not subject to any licensing conditions and regulation, there is immediate potential for far greater levels of gambling harm. I have seen this across Asia, where consumers experience debt from borrowing to fund betting with illegal betting operators. This is a vicious cycle as criminals are often those lending money at extremely high interest rates to fund continued gambling with the illegal market. This is the prospect facing the UK as the affordability checks on legal operators inevitably drive consumers to the illegal markets."
Martin Purbrick has challenged the approach taken by the UK Gambling Commission
Martin Purbrick: "Affordability checks imposed on betting operators are self-defeating"
Asked if he has a message for those attending Monday's debate, Purbrick adds: "Members of parliament would do well to consider the long-term impact of continually adding regulatory conditions to the legal betting market, when the worse negative social impact comes from illegal and illicit gambling channels. This has not been well considered by the regulator, which is focused on what it knows, licensed betting operators.
"It is important for parliamentarians to remind the regulator to better assess social harm from gambling in parts of the market it does not know, which is online offshore illegal betting operators."
That call would no doubt be supported by British racing's governing body.
BHA chief regulatory officer Brant Dunshea says: "As an active contributor to racing's efforts to monitor and understand the threats posed by illegal and under regulated betting operators, the BHA is conscious that interventions have already led to a migration of customer activity away from legal and well-regulated environments. Not only has this been identified through published international studies, it has also been observed by the BHA in delivering its integrity functions."
One last observation is made by Channing, who references the ongoing decline in wagering on racing, with the Gambling Commission having released figures that show betting turnover on racing fell by £900m in 2022-23.
"There is another point worth making," says Channing. "If current monthly turnover is down 15 to 20 per cent year on year but the Gambling Commission wants to stick to a line that there isn't any significant increase in black market activity, then what they are saying, in effect, is these people have quit betting.
"By definition then they can't be addicts or problem gamblers and thus their actions have simply cut turnover and funding to our sport while failing to achieve their aim. If they want to claim the 20 per cent fall is a measure of the success of implementing affordability, they are either saying these addicts were able to simply quit instantly or they joined the black market."
author image
Lee Mottershead
Senior writer
The black market has become a huge problem for racing - and it promises to get worse
The black market has become a huge problem for racing - and it promises to get worse
No racing event is more important for bookmakers than the Cheltenham Festival. That truth applies equally to firms operating on the right and wrong side of the law, as became surprisingly and brazenly apparent at jumping's mecca last March.
Most major bookmaking firms have a presence at Cheltenham. Some are there laying bets. Others use the four days to promote their brands through big-race sponsorships or by providing hospitality. Almost all the major firms have close links to a meeting synonymous with the betting industry's household names. But it is also useful to firms whose identities are much less familiar.
That was certainly true last year, as Fitzdares chief executive William Woodhams can testify. While entertaining clients at Cheltenham, it became apparent some of Woodhams' guests were being approached by a representative of a large online operator licensed on the Caribbean island of Curacao but thought to be based in Montenegro.
That business, which is not regulated by the UK Gambling Commission and therefore should not accept UK customers, is ostensibly a cryptocurrency operation but is believed to accept bets and pay out in sterling, including on British horseracing. Multiple sources told the Racing Post that prominent within the organisation is a high-society Englishman with contacts in the sport.
"In the last 18 months we've seen a sustained attempt by offshore bookmakers to engage our customers," says Woodhams. "We even discovered an employee of one operator offering free bets to our members in the Fitzdares Club at the Cheltenham Festival. There is perverse irony that offshore operators can take boxes and entertain at racecourses even though they don't contribute to the data, levy and tax costs that fund the racecourses."
Fitzdares chief executive William Woodhams believes 80 per cent of his customers will face affordability checks
William Woodhams: "In the last 18 months we've seen a sustained attempt by offshore bookmakers to engage our customers"
Credit: Astrid Templier
This story is just one example of how the booming black market is no longer the preserve of shady offshore websites or anonymous figures on encrypted messaging apps, but increasingly operates openly, sometimes fronted by well-known figures, offering high-rolling punters, including owners and trainers, a bespoke, unrestricted betting service, the like of which many can no longer access via the regulated market since the advent of affordability checks.
The size of the gambling black market is huge globally, but historically has accounted for a relatively tiny slice of UK betting activity – a consequence of Britain having such a diverse and developed regulated market. However, it is growing rapidly. A PwC report commissioned by the Betting and Gaming Council claimed the amount staked by UK online gamblers on the unregulated market in 2020 had doubled to £2.8 billion in the previous one to two years. For British racing that trend is dangerous, with the BHA calculating that for every £10 million of gross win that moves to the black market, the sport loses £1m in levy funding and around £1.5m in media rights.
Through simple online searches, it is easy to create accounts with offshore operators unlicensed by the UK Gambling Commission. Such sites can be attractive to those finding it hard to bet with regulated bookmakers due to affordability checks or account restrictions.
Many of these offshore firms also explicitly target those signed up to the UK's Gamstop service, which blocks access to bookmakers. A search for 'non-Gamstop bookmakers' brings up 441,000 results on Google, with results including pages titled '31 Most Trusted Betting Sites not on GamStop 2024', 'Legit UK Betting Sites Not On GamStop' and 'Non Gamstop UK Betting Sites 70+ Legit Sites Ranked'.
Illegal betting does, however, come in many forms. Punters pushed away from the regulated market can find other avenues to bet, including via websites such as those found through search engines, but big punters are increasingly being tempted by an informal network of seemingly reputable agents, typically operating on WhatsApp. As well as being unlicensed and thus contributing nothing to British racing or the exchequer, it is believed these are often simply the lowest level in a pyramid of ever increasing liquidity, at the top of which sit gangs involved in organised crime and money laundering.
The scale of the problem
The Hong Kong Jockey Club and the Asian Racing Federation Council on Anti-Illegal Betting and Related Financial Crime have been central to the sport's efforts to learn more about the betting black market, which the HKJC last year described as "the number-one threat to the integrity of racing".
Highlighting that threat and the size of the black market, HKJC executive manager racing integrity and betting analysis Tom Chignell says: "The offering on horseracing by illegal and under-regulated operators has increased in the last few years – the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime estimates a total of US$1.7 trillion is bet illegally annually. An example of this is that large crypto market-based operators are offering fixed-odds betting on global racing, including British racing.
"Integrity investigations are compromised when operators fail to provide account-level detail with regulators. Betting operators who rely on agent networks to manage their customers often do not actually know who their customers are due to the agents blurring the audit trail between the operator and the customer and lack of KYC [know your customer] processes."
The Hong Kong Jockey Club's Tom Chignell told the Asian Racing Conference that affordability checks are driving punters to the illegal market
Tom Chignell: "The offering on horseracing by illegal and under regulated operators has increased in the last few years"
Credit: Scott Barbour
Some believe the UN estimate now falls far short of reality. Technical intelligence platform Yield Sec says the true figure could be $5.1tn, although working purely to the UN's calculation, it believes the $1.7tn being bet illegally translates to a profit for those operators of $340bn, "dwarfing legal gambling profitability by more than eight times".
Identifying what the black market explosion means in Britain, Martin Purbrick, a consultant for GVS EQ and former director of security and integrity of the Hong Kong Jockey Club, says: "In Britain all consumers have open access to the huge global range of online internet-based betting and gambling websites that have been clearly shown by expert analysts as involving a large amount of unlicensed – and usually illegal at the point of sale – betting operators, many operated by major organised crime groups, particularly in Asia.
"We know from analysis and reporting from around the world that consumers are attracted to these online illegal betting markets because of price, product and customer experience. This is no different in the UK. The UK, without doubt, has a problem with a growing number of consumers going to online illegal betting operators. Our challenge is measuring this.
"Consumer access to illegal betting is not immediately measurable, largely because online betting customers do not respond honestly to survey questions that ask if they have taken part in an illicit or illegal activity. So we know from the expert analysis and reporting that the illegal betting and organised crime problem is huge, but we have difficulty knowing exactly how many consumers bet in these markets."
Purbrick adds: "If any online betting operator that does not have a licence in the UK accepts bets from consumers in the UK, ie at the point of consumption, then this is surely a criminal offence under the Gambling Act. However, there is no apparent enforcement action by the UK gambling regulator against offshore online unlicensed betting operators and also no major commentary regarding the problem.
"Considering what we know from expert analysis regarding the large amount of unlicensed – and usually illegal at the point of sale – online betting operators, this seems to be a major gap in UK enforcement activity."
Outlining its position, the Gambling Commission claims it always investigates allegations relating to unlicensed gambling platforms and that when assessing a case it will consider whether an operator has sought to actively block UK consumers. The regulator reports it works with various relevant parties, including HMRC, banks, website hosts and payment providers, and states 452 enforcement actions were taken in 2022-23, up from 89 actions in 2021-22. The commission also says it last year referred 7,048 individual website domains to Google with a view to their removal from search results.
'The horse has bolted'
When addressing the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee in September, Gambling Commission chief executive Andrew Rhodes told MPs the size of the black market is "very small", a comment that shocked other regulators, experts and the BHA.
Gambling Commission chief Andrew Rhodes faces questions
Gambling Commission chief executive Andrew Rhodes told MPs the scale of the betting black market had been overstated
The Racing Post’s 2023 ‘Big Punting Survey’ found 3.6 per cent of respondents had already used a black market operator in the last 12 months. More recently, the Horseracing Bettors Forum carried out its own survey that showed 73 per cent of the 296 respondents would consider using the black market if bookmakers requested additional private information to allow them to continue betting.
However, evidence for growing black market usage is, unsurprisingly, largely anecdotal. One punter, 'Mike', who has been in regular contact with the Racing Post but wishes to remain anonymous given the subject matter, has already crossed the line having decided affordability checks were an insufferable and unacceptable invasion of privacy.
He says: "Following UK bookmaker restrictions I could only use Betfair, which then asked to see my financial papers to carry on using their platform. I will never hand over any financial documents to any bookmaker and nobody should. I refused to hand over the documents and they closed my account.
"The black market bookie I use is licensed in Curacao and it's fantastic. Now I have no stake restrictions, no affordability checks, good continued deposit bonuses and withdrawals the next day into my UK bank. All you need to do is prove your ID and address on opening the account, which is fair enough. There will, of course, be no UK levy kickback from my bets anymore and British racing will therefore suffer. It's a farce.
"I have no concerns about using the black market and have recommended my black market bookie to lots of friends who were in the same boat as me regarding restrictions and affordability checks."
Mike, of course, should have concerns, given the lack of legal protections that come with using an offshore bookmaker, yet he is one of many who have discovered it is easy to find illegal bookmakers – or to be found.
"I know people who could send me down the black market route but I wouldn't want to do that because it's no good for racing," trainer Ed Bethell told the Racing Post this month. Professional punter Neil Channing has received similar overtures.
Neil Channing: 'I made a policy decision to give myself longevity'
Neil Channing: "The number of people who have offered me the black market facility of a WhatsApp bookmaker I vaguely know has doubled"
"The number of people who have offered me the black market facility of a WhatsApp bookmaker I vaguely know has doubled from two to four in the last year," says Channing.
"There are people I know who are using black market bookmakers who probably did that in the past but they are now using them more formally on a day-to-day basis due to affordability checks. I know someone who always used to bet with regulated companies who has no chance of passing affordability checks and can maybe now deposit £100 a month, which equates to his average bet. He is now using the black market.
"Another guy I spoke to has a big Betfair account and found people asking him to place bets for them because they were over their monthly deposit limit. He now lays those bets himself. In effect, he is operating as an illegal bookmaker. That sort of thing must be happening quite a lot.
"Also happening much more is big punters and big punting syndicates trading with each other. Syndicates with ten people who have £1m or £2m between them and bet £10,000 or £20,000 all talk to each other and they all lay each other bets. It equates to illegal gambling and loads of it is happening – and there is more of that now than there used to be."
Woodhams offers one ray of light, saying: "The vast majority of customers who go black return after a year due to some rather shoddy business practices. Who wants to risk their deposits in another jurisdiction?"
Punters do indeed risk losing their money when lodging it with businesses whose very nature means they offer no meaningful player protection or security. Initial join-up offers that seem too good to be true are likely exactly that, while the Racing Post has previously reported that former VIP managers for regulated bookmakers had been approached by black market firms seeking their customer lists.
"For me, the interesting part is shutting it down, although I imagine there is limited resource at the Gambling Commission, BHA and BGC to deal with this," says Woodhams.
"I would suggest the data owners should aggressively police their property and there perhaps needs to be a public consensus that the black market is bad for UK racing. Punters who use the black market are choosing to destroy the sport they love, however valid they may feel their reason to be. Either way, we are tacitly encouraging black market business and then trying to shut the door after the horse has bolted."
One thing leads to another
There is a grim irony that the regulator and government are the architects of this outcome, having introduced a system of affordability checks designed to protect consumers but which has had the unintentional consequence of encouraging punters – both those with and without addictions – towards the black market.
"Affordability checks imposed on betting operators are self-defeating and will inevitably lead to greater long-term levels of gambling harm to consumers," says Purbrick. "This is because the imposition of these checks directly impacts ease of use of online betting by consumers, which is a factor to drive them to online illegal betting websites where there are no checks on customer affordability or often even identity.
"Because online illegal betting operators are not subject to any licensing conditions and regulation, there is immediate potential for far greater levels of gambling harm. I have seen this across Asia, where consumers experience debt from borrowing to fund betting with illegal betting operators. This is a vicious cycle as criminals are often those lending money at extremely high interest rates to fund continued gambling with the illegal market. This is the prospect facing the UK as the affordability checks on legal operators inevitably drive consumers to the illegal markets."
Martin Purbrick has challenged the approach taken by the UK Gambling Commission
Martin Purbrick: "Affordability checks imposed on betting operators are self-defeating"
Asked if he has a message for those attending Monday's debate, Purbrick adds: "Members of parliament would do well to consider the long-term impact of continually adding regulatory conditions to the legal betting market, when the worse negative social impact comes from illegal and illicit gambling channels. This has not been well considered by the regulator, which is focused on what it knows, licensed betting operators.
"It is important for parliamentarians to remind the regulator to better assess social harm from gambling in parts of the market it does not know, which is online offshore illegal betting operators."
That call would no doubt be supported by British racing's governing body.
BHA chief regulatory officer Brant Dunshea says: "As an active contributor to racing's efforts to monitor and understand the threats posed by illegal and under regulated betting operators, the BHA is conscious that interventions have already led to a migration of customer activity away from legal and well-regulated environments. Not only has this been identified through published international studies, it has also been observed by the BHA in delivering its integrity functions."
One last observation is made by Channing, who references the ongoing decline in wagering on racing, with the Gambling Commission having released figures that show betting turnover on racing fell by £900m in 2022-23.
"There is another point worth making," says Channing. "If current monthly turnover is down 15 to 20 per cent year on year but the Gambling Commission wants to stick to a line that there isn't any significant increase in black market activity, then what they are saying, in effect, is these people have quit betting.
"By definition then they can't be addicts or problem gamblers and thus their actions have simply cut turnover and funding to our sport while failing to achieve their aim. If they want to claim the 20 per cent fall is a measure of the success of implementing affordability, they are either saying these addicts were able to simply quit instantly or they joined the black market."
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 36
|
By:
Why do Fitzdares get all this free publicity recently in RP? Its not like they are any different to the rest - i was restricted after 1 bet at them. Which lost. And was Antepost in the Lincoln about 3 weeks before race. 16/1 - started 8/1 And the RP wonder why people go to the Black mkt.
|
|
By:
Interesting that the issue of restrictions is starting to find its way into this debate; a far older problem than AC's, yet for years now the RP has acted like it never happens. The visual media has fawned over the reps, giving air time to garbage about "money from the right people" while we have to grit our teeth over knock backs to literally pennies. ACs are a big problem, but for the ordinary Joe who given a fair run would usually end the year either black or around even, the door has been closed a long time now. For myself, I'm happy enough to get my fun keeping stakes quite low and turnover higher than it ever used to be. But if I had access to bookmakers it would be the other way round.
|
|
By:
£25ew is obviously high roller territory now. Well it was, until I got knocked back by everyone.
I remember being in the bookies when I was 17 or so, 40 years ago, & more money was being bet then......and there was a 10% tax to pay on stake or winnings. No wonder funding for the sport is going down. |
|
By:
bookies been doing their own affordability checks since the inception of online gambling. you're quite good / shrewd / price sensitive so we can't afford to have you gambling with us.
targeted the mugs and the vulnerable, so they know exactly who needs an AC and who doesn't |
|
By:
if you can get a grand on a horse with boilsports you should have to complete an AC.
for the other 99.3% of their customers, who are limited to max win £10, it's not required. |
|
By:
My son had an account with Spoilsports , all he had was £10 football bets the weekend.
i had a 50p ew Yankee on the Saturday before Christmas 2 years ago, 4 horses that pricewise gave, i backed them at midday on the Saturday. I asked him to put it on for me as i was out. they all won, i got £2200 . the following day it was closed. Cowards. |
|
By:
And i took all the bottom prices ^^^
|
|
By:
No wonder people go to the black market, i know a guy who use to bet in thousands on all Sport, a prolific loser,
Got restricted, then was asked by all the firms for proof of earnings, He's legit, but told them to Feck off, now he bets ££££££££££ on the black market. I'm sure there's many more like him. The bookies are screaming but they've made a rod for there own back a lot of the time |
|
By:
bookies should be forced to disclose on any marketing material what % of accounts are subject to any form of restriction
to give people some kind of idea what they're dealing with |
|
By:
This spat between the punters, bookies and regulator is juvenile, scaremongering, disingenuous and virtue signalling. Nevertheless, the bookies need to understand the present scenario (AC) is bookies induced. The constant argument (for and against), and the blaming (rightly or wrongly) will never be agreed or accepted by every party.
Just issue online bookies including those with high street representation (with fobt) with a new betting licence reflecting the digital age; those without fobt could operate utilising the present betting licence. Action speaks louder than words; less talk and more action please. |
|
By:
Good question racing6699
|
|
By:
The Racing post are bought by the firms, without them, they'll go bust sooner rather than later.
|
|
By:
As a horseracing fan and punter I'd rather the Racing Post go bust (jobs lost, etc) than for the Racing Post to exercise lazy journalism and repeatedly and regularly print and spout bookies views and biasness.
A paper masquerading as a horseracing paper eg Racing Post when it is not out to be defunct as it's not fit-for-purpose. |
|
By:
You’ve really got it in for the racing post, impossible123.
|
|
By:
Cant stand the Racing Post either. They need to concentrate on the horse, rather than their own pockets!
|
|
By:
the irony of these trainers that put us away for years asking for our help to keep them in clover
henderson, prescott and co  |
|
By:
Horse Racing finances are in fact in a good state. I don't believe a word they write. Cheltenham Festival and Grand National meetings along with Ascot are enough to fund the sport from top to bottom.
|
|
By:
Is there a decline in horse racing interest? Yes. Does that affect turnover? Yes. That's what industries do, they EBE and flow through the years.
|
|
By:
I hope you have an accountant and don't own a business Trident!!
|
|
By:
Interest in the sport and money coming into the sport are not the same thing. There could be a doubling of on course attendance but if they are all betting on illegal web sites then the sport gets nothing apart from course entrance money. The whole thing is a mess and unless the Government, BHA and Gambling Commission get together and sort it out, half of the horses will be sold abroad in the next 2 years. I have not been approached about affordability so I don't know how it works but if a bookmaker asked me for a copy of my bank account I would tell them to get lost. Bank details are a form of currency among criminals so how could I be sure that my account details are not sold to scammers?
|
|
By:
unless the Government, BHA and Gambling Commission get together and sort it out
There's your problem, right there. Three (three!) sprawling boards of bureaucrats, all being paid to legislate, regulate and generally ruin things for the rest of us. I don't want to see them getting together. I want a chainsaw taken to them. |
|
By:
The on course market could be In for a boost, as you won’t be able to deposit decent money on here when you have a bad run, wheres that money come from lol, we need to check you can afford it, it’s the beginning of the end it will finish the exchanges if it goes like I’m thinking
|
|
By:
It will indeed know all would you want shares in a betting company over here that is why there is this rush to the USA. Next will be FOBTS mark my words big shake up next 12 months shops will have to close and hard working staff will be on the sausage. GC are robbing the rich to pay the poor how anybody can tell anyone how to spend their money is just beyond me.
|
|
By:
liberator of the oppressed 23 Feb 24 07:45
It will indeed know all would you want shares in a betting company over here that is why there is this rush to the USA. Next will be FOBTS mark my words big shake up next 12 months shops will have to close and hard working staff will be on the sausage. GC are robbing the rich to pay the poor how anybody can tell anyone how to spend their money is just beyond me. Sheep,we accept it all quietly and just get on with it……they will win … |
|
By:
If the worst comes to the worst eg there is only sufficient funds and sponsors (not-bookies) and race meetings are curtailed it could be a blessing in disguise. I firmly believe culling the bookies and fobts could attract non-bookie sponsors as the present bookies and their business methodology tarnish the ethos of sponsorship and goodwill of society.
If so, I'd resume going to race meetings to enjoy the atmosphere, non-AC and bookie restriction. |
|
By:
If one day you have 2 x £500 losers you will have to keep chasing to avoid the £1000 loss in 24 hours financial check
 |
|
By:
The silly thing is that my investments go up or down by £1000 in a DAY and nobody checks. That is more than my profit or loss on horses or any other betting in any YEAR this century! The clowns in charge seem to think that anyone who buys £50k of shares is less at risk than someone who bets £100. The reality is that investments can quickly disappear if you don't watch them every day.
|
|
By:
Sage- they will never touch shares, it's where they make their money day in day out.
|
|
By:
"They will never touch shares"
You're absolutely right. Investmenting in shares is the pastime of the wealthy and powerful, and usually profitable over a long period. It's also a hedge against inflation. And, horseracing is not. You'd lose the lot in a jiffy eg a sprint race, even quicker if your selection comes under order but does not take part. No government has legislated against Bitcoin either, why? The powerful, wealthy and even major financial most notably Goldman Sachs is a proponent of it. Otherwise, this crypto would have tanked ago ago. The present scenario has been on-going for far too long. It's also been bookies-led; bookies-conducive; societal-detriment. A radical approach to address these biasness and anomalies contrary to business ethics and practices and responsibilities to society. |
|
By:
sageform
bank details are like gold dust to scammers etc but channing no,s loads of people handing over 10,s of 1000,s daily to illegal blackmarket sites ,rather than going through AC,     .com |
|
By:
Just read Shamima Begum lost her appeal- a win for common sense, there is some hope now, so come on MPs and turn up in force on Monday and win another one for common sense.
I were 99% certain the deal was done after the GC statement and only a handful of MPs would turn up but there is hope if they turn out on Monday, been lots of examples on here about how ridiculous all this is- here's another, spend over thousand pounds every year on bird food but working people can't spend £500 on gambling! Come on MPs don't let the people down, you know it makes sense. I know reality is AC but the light just got a little bit bigger. |
|
By:
1st time poster- nobody wants AC but going back to black markets
 If it all goes through can see double digit threads in 2 years about not being paid out on winning bets. |
|
By:
I know somebody who refuses to do AC but shops online for everything
How many different companies have his bank details |
|
By:
'1st time poster(10:46)', if so I hope their banks will not refund for any funds lost to this avenue eg no refund from banks from money lost to dodgy crypto platforms. Otherwise, free banking and more expensive overdrafts will be the norm in the future.
|
|
By:
Retailers, banks and financial instis have a pool of funds to deal with frauds; the 2nd and 3rd are governed by FCA code of conduct. The participants pay into them as insurance for possible claims against any of them.
But, bookies do not. Bookies take money unlawfully from punters eg from sleepers, account closures, misrepresentation of t&c citing bookie discretion. Bookies introduced and exercised their t&c for their own interests with impunity. |
