Unveiling Racing Post’s Diplomatic Language Obscuring Strong Stance on Affordability in Gambling Commission’s Report

The response to the Racing Post’s letters page was filled with strong emotions. However, the official document published on Wednesday lacked the same fervor, and did not adequately represent the opposition to affordability checks.

Instead, it presented a balanced viewpoint before informing readers of the Commission’s decisions. While acknowledging the disagreement from many respondents, the document did not provide specific data on those who had worked in the gambling industry.

Respondents also expressed concerns about the impact on their spending freedom and the lack of regulation in other industries. Despite reporting these points, the Commission did not plan to engage with them directly.

The Commission did correct two misconceptions about its proposals, assuring that they would not act as a default cap on gambling or affect bettors’ credit ratings. Racing Post readers strongly opposed the idea of bookmakers considering job or address when assessing wealth, and the Commission seems to have reconsidered this approach.

Finally, the document mentioned bettors’ feedback on the potential misleading nature of certain data. The text also includes a mention of a Members’ Club Ultimate subscription.