Since you’re here… Share on LinkedIn All is set fair for a proper burn-up, so what we want is something that can cruise along behind and then pick up the pieces when those three have done each other in. I’m looking at you, Red Invader (3.15), not least because you’ve won on your last two trips to Lingfield and have now dropped back to the same mark you had for the most recent of those. The 12-1 looks pretty good. I also like the 3-1 about Kyllachy Gala (1.35), a Marco Botti production who has yet to win since joining him from Italy last winter. His best effort was his only previous attempt over this course and distance, back in January, when he was beaten a head off a mark 9lb higher than the one he has today. I saw renewed promise in his Wolverhampton effort last time, when he stayed on into fourth after trouble in running on only his second start after being gelded. This might be where we see the best of him. The meeting Wolverhampton was cancelled just before 10.30am. The track is raceable, but other areas of the course were too icy to allow racing to go ahead.Tips for all Monday races Lingfield 11.30 Mother Of Dragons 12.00 Wild Flower 12.30 Chip Or Pellet 1.00 Pretty Bubbles 1.35 Kyllachy Gala 2.10 Alsvinder 2.45 Little Boy Blue 3.15 Red Invader (nb) Wolverhampton ABANDONED (parts of course frozen)Ayr ABANDONED (frozen) Share via Email Read more Share on Pinterest Share on Messenger Talking Horses Share on Twitter Read more Topics The Recap: sign up for the best of the Guardian’s sport coverage Support The Guardian Cheltenham Gold Cup Horse racing tips Share on Facebook features Horse racing Cue Card may head for restaged Peterborough rather than King George Willie Mullins Now, there is no excuse for getting carried away with what Mullins has to say about long-term targets. He doesn’t make decisions until he has to and reserves the right to change his mind at the last minute, as we are all aware. I’m certainly not going to place any actual bets on the strength of this latest scrap of news. But I’ll take it as encouraging news that the trainer is facing in the right direction and is not seriously thinking about returning his hot-headed chestnut to hurdles. This wimpish course of action was being touted as a live possibility after Yorkhill got himself beat at Fairyhouse in April but that right-handed track was all against him. Just keep him turning left and he can still be a world-beater over fences. Even on a left-handed track, he’s still a bit of a loon, of course. He’s a tearaway whose talent is hard to contain. Can you imagine if him and Might Bite both ended up in the Gold Cup? We’d need an equine psychiatrist on the panel at every Festival preview night. I’m worrying again, looking at his form and noticing how Mullins hasn’t once tried him at three miles. It’s only a couple of years since I was wishing this same trainer would tilt at the Gold Cup with another of his JLT winners but that didn’t end particularly well. On the other hand, Yorkhill’s pedigree is rather more suggestive of stamina than was Vautour’s. Yorkhill is by Presenting (sire of Denman, War Of Attrition and On His Own) and out of a half-sister to The Listener. Really, it’s amazing he’s done what he has at distances short of three miles. To business. The betting market for the last at Lingfield is all about Entertaining Ben and Don’t Blame Me, having seemingly failed to notice that both are front-runners who might detonate each others’ chances with a pace battle. Let’s add Shackled N Drawn into that mix, since he can take a fierce hold and now wears blinkers for the first time. Today’s best bets, by Chris CookThose of us who want to see Yorkhill in a Gold Cup got some encouragement from an Irish Times piece yesterday, predicting he may make his return to action at Leopardstown over Christmas in the race formerly known as the Lexus (or the Ericsson if you go back a bit further). “Leopardstown at Christmas looks a good possibility,” Willie Mullins was quoted as saying. Share on WhatsApp … we have a small favour to ask. More people, like you, are reading and supporting the Guardian’s independent, investigative journalism than ever before. And unlike many news organisations, we made the choice to keep our reporting open for all, regardless of where they live or what they can afford to pay.The Guardian will engage with the most critical issues of our time – from the escalating climate catastrophe to widespread inequality to the influence of big tech on our lives. At a time when factual information is a necessity, we believe that each of us, around the world, deserves access to accurate reporting with integrity at its heart.Our editorial independence means we set our own agenda and voice our own opinions. Guardian journalism is free from commercial and political bias and not influenced by billionaire owners or shareholders. This means we can give a voice to those less heard, explore where others turn away, and rigorously challenge those in power.We hope you will consider supporting us today. We need your support to keep delivering quality journalism that’s open and independent. Every reader contribution, however big or small, is so valuable. Support The Guardian from as little as $1 – and it only takes a minute. Thank you. Reuse this content
However, last week’s follow-up, compiled by Nera Economic Consulting on the group’s behalf, certainly ramped up the controversy. And beyond the lack of permanent leadership at the Commission, and the potential for yet more changes with the minister responsible, the proposals also have the industry to contend with. He says that while the review of the 2005 Gambling Act is being driven by DCMS, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department of Education have a significant role to play. Tags: Peers for Gambling Reform Subscribe to the iGaming newsletter The Betting and Gaming Council’s response was swift and blunt. The report’s claims were “economically daft”, “fantasy” and the work of “prohibitionists”, according to CEO Michael Dugher. Further change at DCMS, with John Whittingdale replacing Nigel Huddleston as the minister responsible for gambling, add an additional element of uncertainty. “In other words, there was an eight-year gap between the start of the review and the implementation of the new legislation. Regulation Whatever the industry’s reaction, this approach could provide a blueprint for its retort. Since the fixed-odds betting terminal fiasco, the BGC has largely succeeded in developing a more effective public affairs strategy. A similar costing of the industry’s jobs, tax creation and positive impact would be hard to ignore, especially considering the reform campaigners’ response to the Peers for Gambling Reform document. “We are still convinced that there’s good evidence suggesting that while the profits of gambling companies will go down, they may still be making a profit,” he says. “There’s no suggestion of wiping out all the profits. That we think [these] will exceed the impact of our reforms. […] It doesn’t include the salaries of executives, because that’s technically counted as an operating cost.” It provided a costing of the reforms proposed in the 2020 report, concluding that measures such as stake limits, affordability checks and a ban on direct sponsorship would reduce industry profits by between £696m and £974m per year. The report goes on to claim that by reducing gambling harm – and in the process cutting participation – there would be a knock-on effect on other entertainment options – and the economy. This could help create up to 30,000 new jobs, and £400m in employee earnings, it estimates. It makes further bold claims, such as estimating that the cost to the government for treating those suffering from gambling-related harm is between £270m and £1.17bn. All of this is deliberate, Foster explains, in an attempt to widen the debate beyond the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), which oversees gambling, to other units of Westminster. Lords’ report looks to open new fronts in the gambling reform debate “I hope they will be filled as soon as possible so we can get that stability as needed, and the people in post will be able to take action to implement the reforms proposed by Peers for Gambling Reform.” “We’re pretty confident that those reforms will reduce, not stop completely, the level of gambling harm in the country and all of the damage that brings to individuals and society. We wanted to look at the same time at what the economic impact could be, as that inevitably is going to be a factor in the government’s decision as to whether to go ahead with any reforms.” “The whole purpose of doing this report was to give a clear indication as to what would be the likely impact and range of impacts on the introduction of reforms that were covered, at the sort of level that might be determined by the nature of the reforms,” Foster says. “We set out, as it were, headline details of the sort of reforms we want to see. “For example, in terms of stakes and prizes, speed of play and so on, there’s obviously so much detail to be gone into in terms of where we’ll end up. So in fairness, we’ve given a range to show that if you go to really high levels, this is what the effect would be. What we’re doing is very honestly showing the potential depending on the level government ultimately decides to go.” “We wanted to be open and honest with people,” Foster adds. While this would be higher than what the report lists as the sector’s overall profit, Peers for Gambling Reform chair Lord Foster is quick to stress that the profit estimates of £697m included in the report only cover Entain, Flutter, Bet365, William Hill and National Lottery operator Camelot. The actual figure for the wider industry, he believes, should be significantly higher. “But it doesn’t make what we’ve said fantasy,” he argues. “What we’ve said, very simply, is that it’s probably axiomatic that if you are going to put curbs on gambling, the level of profits on the gambling industry will be reduced and the number of jobs in turn may also be reduced. The peers’ report, Gambling Harm – Time for Action, while containing elements that were not well received by the sector, felt as if it aimed to be less punitive towards the industry and set out a viable blueprint for reducing harm. “Clearly we hope that is not going to inhibit the Commission from getting on and doing the things they can do within existing legislation,” Foster says. Despite the uncertainty at the regulator, he says senior figures there have assured him that any suggestion that affordability will not be at the forefront of the Commission’s mind are “simply incorrect”. Who that is may change further, Foster adds, saying a cabinet reshuffle is “very likely before very long”. “Since it is perfectly possible, and the House of Lords report has outlined, there are quite a number of reforms that can be introduced without the need for primary legislation, we will be urging the government to look at those areas, and get on with them rather than waiting for the conclusion of the whole review.” Each set out a blueprint for new restrictions on the sector. These ranged from the extreme (such as the APPG’s call to prohibit in-play betting) to the controversial (the SMF’s £100 soft deposit cap) and provoked strong responses from groups such as the Betting and Gaming Council. “I am slightly worried that if you look at history, the last major review of gambling was started in 1999,” he says. “The legislation that was eventually put into effect – not just enacted – it didn’t actually come into effect until 2007. He points to the regulator’s interim comments on its remote customer interaction consultation as giving credence to the claim that the Commission will not be “muzzled” on the issue. And Foster is also cautiously positive on Neil McArthur’s tenure, in contrast to reform campaigners who have condemned him for being too cosy with the industry and toothless. Last summer brought a flurry of reports on the gambling industry, and a series of proposals for reform. None of the releases, from the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Gambling Related Harm, the Social Markets Foundation (SMF) and Peers for Gambling Reform were welcomed by the industry. Email Address Whether the report ultimately forms the blueprint for regulatory change, and whether these in turn have the positive knock-on effect on society, remains to be seen. But by modelling the financial impact on various measures, Peers for Gambling Reform has arguably started to move the reform debate beyond simply putting out recommendations without any acknowledgement on the impacts they may have. “Peers for Gambling Reform are not against gambling,” he argues. “However, we do believe, and the research we’ve carried out and the witnesses who testified before the select committee demonstrated very clearly, that significant reforms are needed. “If we’re going to put curbs in, then it’s because we want to reduce the level of gambling harm that currently exists, so the question then is what is the impact of that change,” he explains. “Not just on the lives of individuals, which is obviously the most important, but to the overall economy.” Regions: UK & Ireland “I’m a little unclear how strongly he’s willing to move at the moment, and we will continue to work with whoever is the minister in charge.” 2nd June 2021 | By Robin Harrison He admits that this may ultimately prompt ministers to shy away from the strictest limits, considering the level of cuts to profits. It’s ultimately a drive to create a degree of parity between online and offline gambling controls, Foster says, but adds that the group recognises “there isn’t a complete similarity between the two”. Foster is not surprised that Dugher has rubbished the report. He agrees with what the former Labour MP details in his response, that the amounts paid by the gambling industry in tax and number of the jobs the industry creates, are factually correct. “I think given that there was this sudden ‘waking up’ of the Commission to the need to do much more, it’s a shame that he has gone,” Foster says. “That’s why I am nervous we are in a period of some uncertainty, both in terms of the chief executive and the chairman posts. “The whole structure of online is different to offline, so we’re not saying there should be exact parity,” he explains. That specific point sets the peers’ group apart from the APPG, which believes that total parity between the channels is the only option. Should consumer spend shift away from gambling, that money will largely be spent on more labour-intensive industries such as tourism and travel. “That overall has a net positive impact on funding to the Treasury, and additional money to fund research education and treatment.” This may be complicated further by upheaval at the Gambling Commission, in the wake of Neil McArthur’s departure from the CEO role, and the upcoming retirement of its chair, Bill Moyes. “[It’s] up to Michael to demonstrate what’s actually wrong with the research. It was done by an independent organisation with no influence from us in terms of the way they did it, the conclusions they came to. We’re content that it is a very solid piece of research.” Furthermore, he rejects Dugher’s accusation that the report is the work of “prohibitionists”. Peers for Gambling Reform aimed to send a message to the UK government that new controls on the industry would actually have a net positive benefit for society. But with the industry already dismissing its claims, how does its chair, Lord Foster of Bath, respond? In Foster’s view, the onus is therefore on the BGC to prove that the peers’ report is indeed fantasy. AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to FacebookFacebookShare to TwitterTwitter “But equally important will be the Treasury, and to some extent our report was almost focused at the Treasury rather than DCMS, to demonstrate that they should not be alarmed by looking at proposals for reform of gambling.” “People have said he’s perhaps closer to the industry and less likely to be willing to make reforms that are needed,” Foster says of the former culture secretary. “I’ve talked to John Whittingdale about these issues. He’s certainly taking them seriously. What shape these reforms take, however, should be a matter for government rather than campaigners, the report suggests. Unlike the APPG or SMF, Peers for Gambling Reform does not set out specific recommendations beyond the principle of structural limits such as stake curbs and spin speeds. Instead it models a range of different scenarios, and their impact on staking. Topics: Legal & compliance Marketing & affiliates Social responsibility Regulation Marketing regulation Sponsorship Problem gambling Responsible gambling Foster does acknowledge the Football Index collapse could lead to further criticism of the ex-CEO – “clearly something very badly went wrong,” he says – but believes the Commission did “move up several notches” in its social responsibility efforts under McArthur’s leadership. He believes many reforms can be carried out without devising and passing primary legislation, which in turn would avoid a years-long legislative process. But like the APPG, Peers for Gambling Reform is an advocate of swift action. While the government’s response to the call for evidence on the 2005 Act, launched in December 2020, is not due until the end of the year, Foster believes major changes can be made in the interim. “We’re content that it is a very solid piece of research,” Foster says of the report. It’s now up to the industry to provide its own.