The Great Affordability Check Petition Farce: What Racing’s Selective Outrage Teaches Us

Eighteen months ago, I launched a petition to outlaw both bookmaker and Gambling Commission affordability checks. It was a rallying cry for punters and racing fans, a chance to stand up against the creeping intrusion into our simple pleasure of having a flutter, safe or otherwise.

What happened? It got ignored. The racing media, the establishment, and anyone else with a platform turned their backs. Why? Because I had the audacity to point out that bookmakers, as well as the Gambling Commission, were complicit in creating the mess we’re now in. My petition barely scraped under 5,000 signatures, despite addressing the very issues now throttling racing, that Cruddace and co. now are complaining about.

Fast forward nine months, and along comes Nevin Truesdale, armed with a more sanitised petition. Bookmakers? Not a word about them. Instead, the focus was squarely on the Gambling Commission. The result? His petition eked out just over 100,000 signatures, a respectable number but still nowhere near enough to force legislative change.

And what did it achieve? Meaningless discussions managed by a DCMS and Stuart Andrew more interested in maintaining appearances than holding the Gambling Commission to account. Affordability checks remain firmly in place, and the sport’s financial woes continue unabated. Both petitions, despite their good intentions, achieved absolutely nothing.

Lesson 1: Bookmakers Are Off-Limits

If there’s one thing my experience taught me, it’s that bookmakers are untouchable. Racing’s establishment relies too heavily on their money to ever publicly criticise them. Sponsorships, media rights, levy contributions—all of it adds up to a sport that simply can’t afford to bite the hand that feeds it, even though it originates with the unrepresented punter.

My petition dared to address the elephant in the room: bookmakers’ own affordability checks, restrictions, and sharp practices, which alienate punters and shrink betting turnover. That was enough to doom it from the start.

Truesdale, on the other hand, played it safe. By focusing solely on the Gambling Commission, he avoided ruffling bookmaker feathers. The media and the establishment found his petition more palatable because it kept the sport’s main benefactors out of the firing line.

Lesson 2: The Racing Media Only Fights Safe Battles

The media’s response including the Racing Post (or lack thereof) says it all. My petition? Crickets. Truesdale’s? Lavish coverage and industry support. Why? Because going after the Gambling Commission is safe—it doesn’t buy advertising space or sponsor races. Bookmakers, on the other hand, are racing’s cash cows. Highlighting their role in affordability checks would risk upsetting them, and that’s a risk no one in racing’s media or leadership seems willing to take. Nicholls,Henderson et al with bookmaker relationships were happy to push something that didnt threaten their own lucrative deals.

Lesson 3: Power and Timing Matter

Let’s not pretend my petition ever had the same chance as Truesdale’s. He was CEO of the Jockey Club, a major player in the sport, with the platform and influence to command attention. The racing establishment rallied behind him because he was one of their own—a safe pair of hands with a message they could get behind. (Has he now resigned with the nightmare of Dido Harding as Chair?)

My effort, by contrast, didn’t have the backing of a big-name institution. In racing, hierarchy and influence reign supreme, and those without them are easily ignored.

Lesson 4: Both Petitions Achieved Nothing

Despite all the noise around Truesdale’s petition, it ultimately achieved no more than mine did. Sure, he got over 100,000 signatures to my under 5,000, but neither petition moved the needle. Affordability checks remain in place, bookmaker restrictions continue to alienate punters, and the racing industry is still grappling with declining turnover and prize money.

In the end, both petitions were little more than exercises in frustration—symptoms of an industry unwilling or unable to address its deep-seated issues.

What Racing Can Learn

1. Call Out Bookmakers: The industry needs to stop shielding bookmakers from criticism. Their restrictions and affordability checks are strangling turnover and driving punters away from the sport.

2. Unite Around Meaningful Reform: Racing’s leadership must put aside its fragmented self-interest and unite behind a comprehensive strategy that addresses both Gambling Commission overreach and bookmaker practices.

3. Support Grassroots Efforts: The industry and media need to recognise that good ideas don’t always come from CEOs or institutions. Dismissing grassroots campaigns like mine only reinforces the perception of racing as an insular, self-serving establishment.

The Takeaway: Racing’s Real Villain

If there’s one thing this saga illustrates, it’s that racing’s greatest enemy isn’t the Gambling Commission or even the bookmakers—it’s the sport’s own inability to tackle inconvenient truths. Both petitions may have failed, but the real failure lies with an industry too timid to confront its reliance on bookmaker cash and too divided to fight for real change.

Until that changes, racing will remain trapped in its cycle of selective outrage, reactive leadership, and short-sighted self-interest. And the punters? We’re left out in the cold, no matter how many petitions we sign.