The Barstewards’ Gamble: The Fallout and Follow Up

The Barstewards’ Enquiry podcast with Lee Keys,Chris and Jon Leng, known for its sharp wit and no-nonsense approach to racing’s many crises, delivered an engaging and thought-provoking episode and a follow up on affordability checks this week. The topic earlier this week divided those interested in betting and affordability, and their guest, Matt Zarb-Cousin, was never going to make the conversation any easier, in fact potentially more difficult. For someone with a reputation as the scourge of gambling, his sudden advocacy for horseracing has raised eyebrows—and rightly so.

I agreed with 95% of what the Barstewards had to say in their follow up. Their analysis was spot on, their arguments well-constructed, and their overarching stance—that racing is woefully underprepared for the existential threat posed by affordability checks—was hard to fault. They were also right to stress that bold, creative thinking is essential if the sport is to navigate its current storm. However, there was one glaring misstep: the Barstewards gave Zarb-Cousin an unnecessarily easy ride, which was defended.

95% Spot On, But That Missing 5% Still Matters

To their credit, the Barstewards made a strong case for engaging with Zarb-Cousin’s proposal to create a separate wallet for horseracing, shielding the sport from intrusive affordability checks. It’s a contentious idea but one worth discussing, and they rightly highlighted the stagnation within racing’s leadership and media as a major barrier to progress.

However, where the episode faltered was in its handling of Zarb-Cousin himself. As a prominent figure in the gambling harm space and someone with a track record of lobbying for sweeping reforms, his sudden pivot to advocating for horseracing whilst still being violently opposed to greyhound racing, deserves deeper scrutiny.

The Barstewards missed a golden opportunity to ask critical questions:

1. Why Now?
   After years of opposition to gambling as a whole, why has Zarb-Cousin suddenly decided that horseracing is worth saving? Is this a genuine change of heart, or is it motivated by other factors?

2. What Are His Current Connections?
   Zarb-Cousin’s involvement in “safe gambling” apps and advocacy groups raises legitimate concerns about potential conflicts of interest. These affiliations could both influence his position and play a significant role in driving change—assuming his intentions are pure. The Barstewards should have delved into these connections and their potential impact.

3. Can This Wallet Actually Work?
   The idea of a segregated racing wallet isn’t new, and bookmakers have resisted it for years. Why does Zarb-Cousin think it’s feasible now? Does he have the political clout to push it through where others have failed?

4. Who are these connections he currently has and whats the plan for bringing about influential change?

By not probing these areas, the Barstewards risked undermining their own reputation for incisive critique. While their avoidance of hostility was understandable, there’s a way to ask tough questions without descending into combativeness.

Affordability Checks: A Hard Truth Racing Must Face

The Barstewards were absolutely right in their broader assessment: affordability checks aren’t going away. The question isn’t whether the racing community can stop them—it’s how to adapt in a way that preserves the sport’s financial future without alienating its most loyal punters.

This is where Zarb-Cousin’s proposal deserves credit. A separate racing wallet, if implemented correctly, could shield punters from the most intrusive checks and ensure that betting revenue continues to flow into the sport. But this idea, while bold, is fraught with challenges:

• Bookmaker Resistance: Segregating racing from more profitable gambling products, such as online slots, would require bookmakers to sacrifice a significant revenue stream.

• BHA Inertia: Racing’s governing body has shown little appetite for tackling affordability checks head-on, leaving it unclear who would champion this proposal.

• Regulatory Risks: Even if a racing wallet were introduced, it wouldn’t guarantee long-term protection. Regulators could easily revisit the issue and apply affordability checks across the board.

The Barstewards were right to highlight these complexities, but their assertion that no one else is thinking outside the box was a little unfair. There are people exploring alternatives, including ideas for diversifying racing’s funding model and reducing its reliance on gambling revenue.

Racing’s Bigger Problem: A Lack of Unity and Leadership

At its core, the affordability checks debate highlights a deeper issue: the fractured state of British horseracing. As the Barstewards pointed out, the sport is plagued by weak leadership, a disjointed media, and a lack of coherent strategy.

Key Challenges:

1. BHA Paralysis: The British Horseracing Authority has been slow to respond to affordability checks, often deferring to bookmakers rather than advocating for punters.

2. Media Silence: Racing journalists, many of whom are sponsored by bookmakers, have largely stayed quiet on the issue, leaving independent voices like the Barstewards to fill the void.

3. Punters’ Frustration: Racing’s most passionate supporters feel increasingly alienated, with affordability checks acting as the final insult after years of being sidelined by bookmakers and regulators.

For racing to survive, it needs more than just bold ideas—it needs unity. The sport’s stakeholders must come together to present a clear, coordinated strategy that addresses both affordability checks and the broader funding crisis.

Final Thoughts: A Step in the Right Direction, But More Questions Needed

The Barstewards’ Enquiry deserves praise for tackling affordability checks head-on and for engaging with Zarb-Cousin’s proposal but possibly not the man with interogation, even if it meant ruffling a few feathers. Their willingness to think outside the box is exactly what racing needs in these challenging times.

To test any proposal with the anti-gambling lobby,(Zarb Cousin or others), you must first understand their core objectives—namely, reducing gambling-related harm and ensuring accountability from the industry. Present the proposal as a potential solution that aligns with these goals, demonstrating how it addresses their concerns while safeguarding legitimate, low-risk activities like betting on horseracing. Engage them early, inviting input to ensure the proposal is framed in a way that resonates with their priorities. This requires transparency about potential outcomes, clarity about how safeguards will operate, and—critically—a willingness to confront and address their skepticism. If the proposal can withstand scrutiny from the most ardent campaigners, it has a far better chance of gaining wider traction.

However, they missed an opportunity to interrogate Zarb-Cousin’s motives and connections more rigorously. While his proposal for a separate racing wallet is worth exploring, its feasibility—and his role in implementing it—remains unclear. By asking tougher but fair questions, the Barstewards could have delivered a more complete and compelling analysis.

Ultimately, I agreed with 95% of what they said. Their critique of racing’s leadership, media, and reliance on gambling revenue was spot-on. But the missing 5%—a more robust interrogation of Zarb-Cousin—left an important gap in the conversation.

The solution to affordability checks might just lie with the bookmakers’ greatest frenemy: artificial intelligence. After all, if they can deploy state-of-the-art algorithms to sniff out anyone with the audacity to turn a profit—banning “winners” faster than a suspiciously hot roulette spin—surely, they can use the same tech to gently steer chronic “losers” away from financial ruin? Imagine an AI-powered nudge: “We noticed you’ve had six losing bets on 2:30 at Kempton—perhaps a nice walk would do you more good?” It’s the same surveillance, just pointed in a different direction. Let’s call it “Responsible Gambling 2.0: The Bet That Didn’t Get Taken.”

We need to make a better case than the Gambling Commission and anti gambling lobby not through argument but asolid researched case in the form of an alternative white paper with supporting evidence and data.

Racing’s survival depends on bold ideas, but also on accountability and transparency. If Zarb-Cousin truly has the political connections and pure intentions to drive meaningful change, let’s hear more about them. And if he doesn’t? Then it’s up to racing’s own community to stop waiting for saviours and start fighting for the sport’s future themselves.