gambling; the devil's work, apparently.

​Not being a bettor or gambler, I do not possess the vested interest to fuel my thoughts on the government’s white paper on the future of gambling. I am, though, dedicated to the best interests of the sport and with the sport being aligned hand in glove with the betting industry, I, as it is with anyone with an interest in the subject, have the right to have my say. And say I will!
Several aspects of the subject bother me to the same extent as the problem of addictive gambling bothers me. To begin, historically the betting industry should have been, I will say, more robust - though in that I am suggesting they should have taken more than a passing interest in the welfare of addictive gamblers - in tackling the issue decades ago. Where we are now is a direct result of gambling companies paying more attention to profit than how they accumulated profit. Slot machines in betting shops was the start of the slippery slope to where we are now.
As people more knowledgeable on the topic of gambling have said, the white paper should differentiate horse racing from on-line bingos and casinos and, I would go as far as suggesting, all other forms of sport betting. There was a time, believe it or not, when the only sport the public could bet on in a betting shop was horse racing (greyhound racing, too. So that’s two sports). Then the government took the decision that gambling was good (source of government revenue) and opened-up all sports to the betting public. As my betters have said, punters can go on losing and winning runs, with monthly profit margins from punting varying enormously. The Gambling Commission does not seem aware of this fact.
But what irks me the most is the governmental finger pointing suggestively to the public at large that addictive gambling is the work of the devil, whereas addictive alcohol drinking is merely an extension of a socially acceptable way of life. There can be no debate on the benefits of preventing someone going into a betting shop, or through an on-line gambling account, and gambling the whole of his or her bank account away in a single afternoon, yet that same person can go into a supermarket and empty their back account on whiskey, lager and gin without anything being said other than ‘don’t drink that lot in one go, will you, mate?’ Ho Ho Ho!
My fear is that ‘affordability checks’ on gamblers is an experiment that in time will be extended to all walks of life. A cashless society – it is inevitable as it is part and parcel of the W.E.F.’s ‘Great Reset’ which all the G10 member countries have signed up to – is programmable, allowing ‘Big Brother’ to monitor and control where people spend their ‘money’ or ‘credit points’, on what and to what amount. It may come across as ‘conspiracy theory’ but it is not. Go research ‘The Great Reset’ and you will discover the dystopian future that we are slowly creeping towards.
I actually doubt that horse racing will feature in that future, if I am being honest. Good that I will be dead when the ‘Klaus Schwab way to live’ is at everyone’s door.
What the government’s white paper on the future of gambling makes fuzzy is that the gambling industry is messy, almost a behemoth out-of-control. Betting is the very air that horse racing breathes. Horse racing is no longer the very air the gambling industry breathes. In gambling terms, I believe horse racing should be separated from all other forms of sport betting. Horse racing has no relation to tennis or golf. Neither of those sports, or any other sport, except greyhound racing, goes hand in glove with betting. You can bet on who wins the Wimbledon Final but tennis gains nothing from either the hot favourite or a rank outsider lifting the trophy after two-weeks of grunt, growl and money exchanging hands over the internet or the bricks and mortar of a high street bookies. The winner of the Grand National may return at 8/1, the winner of the Ladies Final at Wimbledon is not announced on the B.B.C. news as the even-money favourite.
The B.H.A. must advance the case to government that horse racing must be treated differently to other forms of sports betting. It must make clear that on-line betting on casinos and bingo is nothing less than a game of chance, whereas betting on horse racing requires experience and knowledge of many aspects of the sport, jockeys, trainers, recent form and past form, the configuration of racecourses, the preference of horses to certain ground conditions, ete etc. As with the horses themselves, punters hit form and go off the boil. But mostly, office staff at betting shops should be allowed to treat their customers as individuals, unlike the faceless punters who bet on-line, where some form of control must be established.
As I suggested, I am ill-informed on this subject to be taken seriously. My concern is for the sport. I accept betting as a necessary bedfellow, not a best buddy. I just wish gambling companies could only take bets on general sports, with bets on horse racing conducted through a Tote/racing monopoly. Fantasy. Pure Fantasy!