Bookmaker – Page 2 – Geoff Banks Online Reports

The Great Suicide Deception – Part IV – What purpose is served by spurious statistics?

Dan Waugh-Regulus Partners May 2024

This is the fourth and final article in our series on attempts by state bodies to claim widespread suicide mortality associated with problem gambling. In the first three articles we demonstrated why estimates prepared by Public Health England and the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities were irretrievably flawed; we examined the conduct of PHE and OHID, including evidence of bias and inappropriate behaviour; and we considered the role played by the Gambling Commission, the Advisory Board for Safer Gambling and others in either propagating the PHE-OHID claims or withholding concerns about their reliability. We conclude by addressing the wisdom of attempts to boil down a matter as complex as suicide to any single factor.

It has long been understood that people with gambling disorder are at elevated risk of death by suicide. The DSM-5 (the American Psychiatric Association’s ‘bible’) comments on elevated rates of suicide ideation and attempts among people in treatment for gambling disorder (and makes similar observations in relation to a large number of other mental health conditions, including alcohol use disorder). Concerns in relation to gambling disorder and self-harm – and what might be done to prevent suicide by people with the disorder – are entirely valid.

It is also widely accepted that suicidality is a complex matter. In their 2016 meta-analysis of 50 years of suicide research, Franklin et al. made the following observation:

“…any individual with nearly any type of mental illness (i.e. internalizing, externalizing, psychotic, or personality disorder symptoms), serious or chronic physical illness, life stress (e.g. social, occupational, or legal problem), special population status (e.g. migrant, prisoner, nonheterosexual), or access to lethal means (e.g. firearms, drugs, high places) may be at risk for [suicidal behaviours and thoughts]. A large proportion of the population possess at least one of these risk factors at any given time, with many people possessing multiple factors.”

Understanding that people with a gambling disorder are at elevated risk of suicide is helpful when it comes to devising self-harm prevention strategies. For example, Hakansson & Karlsson (the Swedish researchers relied upon by PHE-OHID) conclude their 2020 study with the following recommendation:

“The findings call for improved screening and treatment interventions for patients with gambling disorder and other mental health comorbidity.”

It is questionable however whether studies of discrete associations between any single activity or human characteristic and death by suicide should – by themselves – be used to justify state controls on that activity. By way of illustration, a 2021 study on the prevalence of suicidal behaviour in a group of patients with behavioural addictions (Valenciano-Mendoza et al.) found:

“the highest prevalence of suicide attempts was registered for sex addiction (9.1%), followed by buying–shopping disorder (7.6%), gambling disorder (6.7%), and gaming disorder (3.0%).”

These findings may be useful for addressing risk of self-harm within population groups suffering from these mental health conditions. They do not – by themselves – justify bans on sex, shopping or playing video games. A 2017 study of young adults in England (aged 20-24 years, n=106) by Appleby et al., found that four deaths by suicide were linked to ‘gambling problems’; and this has been used to suggest that 250 deaths by suicide each year are ‘gambling-related’. The study also found that 44 of those who had died “had a reported history of excessive alcohol use. Illicit drug use was reported in 54 (51%)”; seven “were reported as experiencing problems related to being a student” (including five experiencing “academic pressures”. One might therefore estimate (using the same methodology as for gambling problems) that around 3,200 suicides are related to illicit drug use; 2,625 to excessive alcohol use; and 440 to academia. Such findings should prompt concern and policy responses; but it is questionable whether these should extend – for example – to complete bans on advertisements for beer or universities.

Some activists have called for coroners to assess, as a matter of routine, the possible involvement of gambling in deaths under investigation – the Bishop of St Albans has doggedly pursued a Private Members Bill to mandate this. At first blush it seems to be a reasonable suggestion. The problem is that it places an additional requirement on already over-burdened coroners; and risks distortion if other known factors are not also investigated with the same degree of rigour. The presence of Adverse Childhood Experiences (‘ACEs’) is a well-documented antecedent of suicide with one study (Dube et al., 2001) finding that as many as 80% of suicide cases analysed had a history of ACEs. There are also well-documented associations between relationship breakdown and self-harm. The practicality and wisdom of asking coroners to probe into every corner of the deceased’s life should be carefully considered.

Those determined to produce figures on the prevalence of gambling-related suicide should first set out a clear operationalised definition of what this term means. How is the relationship to be characterised (e.g. does the individual need to have gambled in the prior 12 months? Does he or she need to have a diagnosis of gambling disorder?) and to what extent is there evidence of causal contribution to death (e.g. was gambling disorder a significant factor or a minor factor?). Finally, they should be required to contextualise their findings by reference to other risk factors.

Running through some of the institutional responses to PHE-OHID is the idea that unreliable estimates of mortality serve a valid purpose pending the production of more robust statistics – something along the lines of ‘fake it until you can make it’. The chair of the Gambling Commission’s Advisory Board for Safer Gambling (‘ABSG’), Dr Anna van der Gaag, for example has written that:

“Good research, especially if it is on an under-researched area like this one, tends to begin and end in a different place, prompting challenge, replication, debate, and the research in this important area is no different.”

It is a view that overlooks four important points. First, the PHE-OHID work on the cost of gambling harms is riven with errors (including mathematical mistakes) and should not be considered “good research”. Second, the ABSG specifically called for “action” as a result of the PHE estimates – with no suggestion of the need for caution or refinement. Third, rather than welcoming challenge, the ABSG has engaged in ad hominem disparagement of those attempting to apply scrutiny to the PHE-OHID claims (likening this, without substantiation, to the activities of Big Oil). Fourth, it is questionable how far we should trust ‘better research’ if those responsible for it have propagated or tolerated misinformation in the past. As we saw during the Covid pandemic, the production of misleading statistics may in fact set back the cause of harm prevention by undermining trust in authority.

Suicide risk among people with a gambling disorder is a legitimate issue and warrants an intelligent response; but this is unlikely to be achieved through the publication of spurious estimates of prevalence. As the US economist, Professor Douglas Walker has observed;

“If researchers continue to offer social cost estimates, they should estimate costs that are measurable. But for other costs such as psychic costs that cannot be measured…let us identify them without providing spurious empirical estimates. Offering methodologically flawed cost estimates does not improve our understanding nor does it promote sound policy…In areas where research is still quite primitive, perhaps no data would be better than flawed data.”

Coda

We are aware that some individuals and organisations will resent this series of articles on PHE-OHID (not least the OHID researchers themselves). Our intention in writing them has not been to hurt or insult – but to shine a light on the way that some statistics are created and the distortive effect that ‘bad statistics’ can have on government policies. The application of scrutiny to research is an important part of the scientific process; and where state bodies are concerned, an important part of the democratic process too. It is entirely consistent to be concerned about a particular issue (e.g. risk of self-harm in a gambling context) and at the same time to believe that research into that issue should be conducted with honesty, openness and in accordance with scientific principles. In this way, we may hope to reduce the stigma associated with self-harm (such that gambling firms and other businesses gain the confidence to openly confront it); and that, over time, we may apply greater intelligence to the prevention of suicide in a gambling context and more generally.

Unreliable Suicide Claims in Gambling: ABSG’s Questionable Stance

The Great Suicide Deception. Part III – Conspiracy of Silence

Dan Waugh, Regulus Partners. May 2024

The Great Suicide Deception. Part III – Conspiracy of Silence

This is the third in a series of articles examining claims made by state bodies in England about rates of suicide associated with ‘problem gambling’. In the first we demonstrated that estimates of suicide mortality produced, first by Public Health England (‘PHE’, 2021) and then by the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (‘OHID’, 2023) were irretrievably flawed. In the second, we looked at the behaviour of PHE and OHID, finding indications of a priori bias or inexplicable negligence and unsound governance. In this third article, we examine the conduct of others in positions of authority and ask why so many people who knew that PHE and OHID’s claims were unreliable decided to look the other way. We also recognise those who were prepared to apply critical analysis. Once again, we observe that, while gambling disorder has been recognised as a risk factor for self-harm for more than 40 years, efforts to tackle this are unlikely to be advanced by the use of junk science.

1. Why did the Gambling Commission not ‘do the right thing’?

By April 2022, Britain’s Gambling Commission knew that estimates of suicide mortality published by PHE were “unreliable” and based on “inaccurate” assumptions. This may have been a somewhat uncomfortable finding, given that the regulator had previously described the review as “important and independent”. It had arrived at this opinion despite not having received anything more than an executive summary (which it had not read when it agreed to provide “a supportive quote”). It also knew that PHE was far from “independent”, having been made aware of its intention to apply tobacco-style controls to participation in betting and gaming.

At a meeting in March 2022, Gambling Commission officials admitted that they did not understand how PHE had arrived at some of its estimates (no-one could have been expected to – given the fact that the calculations were mathematically incorrect). In April, these officials circulated a highly critical review of the PHE report, in which they noted that the suicide claims were not based on “reliable data”. The Commission however, elected not to take the matter up with the OHID (which had subsumed PHE upon the latter’s disbandment) or to inform the Secretary of State. The market regulator – which counts “doing the right thing” among its corporate values – elected to suppress its critique. In one rather sinister coda to the Commission’s critique, one official speculated that PHE’s claim of more than 400 suicides might be rescued, if only future prevalence surveys showed a higher rate of ‘problem gambling’ in the population. At this point, the Commission had started work on a new Gambling Survey for Great Britain in the expectation that – as a result of methodological issues – would produce a higher rate of ‘problem gambling’ than reported by tNHS Health Surveys.

When asked by journalists whether it considered the PHE claims to be reliable, the Gambling Commission responded that it was not its role to review the work of other state agencies; but failed to mention that this is precisely what it had done. As late as 2023, its chief executive, Andrew Rhodes continued to defend the PHE-OHID estimates, despite being aware of the problems with them; and it seems likely that the market regulator has been involved in disseminating the misinformation via approval of regulatory settlement funds.

2. the ABSG and the irrelevance of accuracy

In the summer of 2022, the OHID wrote to the Gambling Commission’s Advisory Board for Safer Gambling (‘ABSG’) to ask for its opinion on criticism of PHE’s suicide analysis. In her response, the ABSG’s chair, Dr Anna van der Gaag appeared to agree that there were indeed a number of issues. She wrote: “I see their point about basing calculations on the Swedish hospital study leading to an over estimation of the numbers”. She then proceeded to suggest that accuracy in such matters was unimportant and that attempts to apply scrutiny was “a distraction from what matters to people and families harmed by gambling”. This represented a change in attitude from three months earlier when the ABSG had described PHE’s highly exact estimate of 409 suicides associated with problem gambling as a “catalyst towards action”. The Gambling Commission allowed the ABSG to publish this opinion in the full knowledge that it was based on unreliable data.

The following year, Dr van der Gaag was one of two co-adjudicators responsible for allocating around £1m in Gambling Commission (regulatory settlement) funding for the purposes of research into suicide and gambling. Applicants were specifically directed towards the OHID analysis (i.e. estimates that the ABSG knew were flawed) as well as claims by the activist group, Gambling With Lives (despite the fact that even the OHID had indirectly criticised one of GwL’s claims). One of the successful bids (a £582,599 award to a consortium led by the University of Lincoln) included Gambling With Lives as an active member of the research team.

3. the Silence of the ‘Independents’

Among those who have supported the claims of PHE-OHID are a number of self-styled ‘independent’ researchers. These include academics from the universities of Cambridge, Hong Kong, Lincoln, Manchester, Nottingham and Southampton, as well as King’s College, London, who have cited the estimates uncritically in their work. Perhaps they considered (naively, if so) that research produced by the Government is unimpeachable; yet the errors made by PHE-OHID are so glaring that no researcher of any calibre could have failed to notice them. The failure to subject such serious claims to critical analysis before repeating them indicates – at the very least – an absence of intellectual curiosity. Much is made of the need for research independence (typically defined solely by an absence of industry funding, regardless of ideology or other affiliations); but independence has little value if it is not accompanied by intelligence and integrity.

4. Breaking ground

A small number of groups and individuals have been prepared to apply scrutiny and challenge, despite the circumstances. The Racing Post and the think tank Cieo have published a number of our own articles on the problems with PHE-OHID (as well as other issues with research-activism); and a handful of journalists, including Chris Snowdon, Steve Hoare and Scott Longley have been prepared to challenge the PHE-OHID claims. Figures from trade groups, bacta and the Gambling Business Group have spoken out publicly on issues with PHE-OHID.

Officials at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport have displayed a capacity for critical analysis, notable by its absence elsewhere in Whitehall. Their White Paper on reform of the betting and gaming market acknowledged valid concerns about self-harm but conspicuously omitted the OHID figures. Lord Foster of Bath, a stern critic of the gambling industry, has acknowledged that the PHE-OHID claims are not reliable and – in a show of honesty and humility rare in the gambling debate – apologised for using the figures himself. He continues to make the case for self-harm to be treated seriously in a gambling context; but without recourse to spurious statistics. Philip Davies, the Conservative Member of Parliament for Shipley, has challenged unsound statistics in parliamentary debates; and Dame Caroline Dinenage’s select committee for Culture, Media and Sport noted concerns of reliability in its report on gambling regulation.

One member of the Gambling Commission’s senior management team – Tim Miller – has been prepared to discuss and acknowledge problems with PHE-OHID; an attitude that contrasts sharply with that of his colleagues.

5. ‘Noble lies’ and consequences?

Underlying the PHE-OHID saga is a sense that some people in positions of authority consider it acceptable to publish inaccurate or misleading statistics if the cause is – in their opinion – just. Some have even suggested that scrutiny of misinformation is unethical, rather than its manufacture. In July this year, the Gambling Commission intends to publish statistics on the prevalence of suicidality amongst gamblers. Given its role in PHE-OHID (in addition to major issues with its new survey), it is questionable why anyone should consider these results credible. It has also – via Gambling Research Exchange Ontario – sponsored a programme of research into wagering and self-harm. Given that these studies have been explicitly grounded in the PHE-OHID deception – and the complicity of many of those involved – suspicions of bias will accompany publication. It is the publication of unreliable research – rather than scrutiny of those statistics – that undermines public trust in authority. Attempts to address health harms in any domain will be ineffective if they are based on inaccurate evidence.

An independent and open review should be carried out into the PHE-OHID deception; but it is difficult to see how this will happen. The Department of Health and Social Care and the Gambling Commission are unlikely to embrace scrutiny; and the DCMS will not wish to embarrass either its regulator or another government department. There are too many people in Parliament and the media who have played a part; and too few prepared to break ranks. The gambling industry meanwhile (with a number of notable exceptions) has shown little inclination to challenge. There is one hope – that the Office for Statistics Regulation will be prepared to take an interest in the integrity of public health estimates. Such an intervention would go somewhere at least towards restoring trust in public bodies.

A Very Public Deception: On the manufacture of mortality statistics in gambling

Part II – Why did public health get things so badly wrong?

n the first in this series of articles, we examined the problems with claims made by state bodies – specifically Public Health England (‘PHE’) and the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (‘OHID’) that up to 496 deaths by suicide each year in England are associated with ‘problem gambling’. We demonstrated that the basis for these claims is irretrievably flawed. Analysis of the Swedish dataset upon which they rely concluded that “gambling disorder did not appear to be a significant risk factor for the increase in suicide” (Karlsson, 2023). PHE and OHID researchers overlooked critical research findings and clear warnings about the advisability of their approach. While gambling disorder has long been recognised as a risk factor for self-harm, the estimates published by PHE-OHID are categorically unsound.

Read Part One: Lost in Translation?

In this second article in the series, we attempt to understand why PHE and the OHID persisted in following such a clearly problematic approach in the face of strong evidence of its unsuitability; we examine a number of issues of governance; and consider whether officials may have deliberately misled policy-makers and the public.

The Tobacco Road: why did PHE make such unsound claims?

In May 2018, at the conclusion of its review into gaming machines and social responsibility, the British Government’s Department for Culture, Media and Sport asked PHE to “conduct an evidence review of health aspects of gambling-related harm to inform action on prevention and treatment”. More than three years later, in September 2021, PHE responded with the publication of five reports on the subject. One of these reports (‘The economic and social cost of harms’) claimed annual costs of £1.27bn a year associated with ‘problem gambling’ – with roughly 50% attributable to deaths by suicide.

It was this rather speculative document, rather than PHE’s more robust quantitative review of evidence from NHS Health Surveys, that officials chose to emphasise – prompting Britain’s Gambling Commission to surmise that PHE’s goal was, “to ensure gambling is considered as a public health issue.”

The Gambling Commission had already been given a glimpse of what “a public health issue” would entail. In a draft press release (seen by the Commission), PHE officials called for:

“a public health approach to gambling…similar to how we tackle tobacco consumption or unhealthy food consumption…”.

In the summer of 2022, the PHE researchers (now transferred to OHID) spelt out what this tobacco-style offensive would involve. Their paper, published in the Lancet Public Health, contained 81 measures for state intervention in the gambling market. The list included prohibitions on: all gambling advertising and marketing (including at racecourses); all in-play betting; and the sale of wine, beer and spirits in bingo clubs and casinos. It also included limits on the number of people permitted on a website at any one time, annual tax increases above the rate of inflation and even ‘plain packaging’ for all gambling products (no colours, logos or images permitted on playing cards, gaming machines, National Lottery tickets and so on).

There were other indications that PHE’s endeavours were not entirely objective – or morally neutral. In 2020, for example, its project leader stated that “more research is required to support advocacy and action” against gambling – hardly a statement of impartiality or scientific rigour. Meanwhile, documents made available under the Freedom of Information Act (‘FOIA’) reveal that PHE had agreed to be part of a research group set up by the activist charity, Gambling With Lives (‘GwL’) during the review period – an engagement it failed to disclose within its report.

Thank you for reading CIEO. This post is public so feel free to share it.

Why did OHID publish its report…and did officials mislead?

In January 2023, the Department of Health and Social Care (‘DHSC’) withdrew the PHE report and published an updated set of cost estimates – this time in the range of £1.05bn to £1.77bn a year (underpinned by a choice of 117 or 496 deaths). OHID described the decision to review PHE’s work as “a standard approach for previously published reports ”; but this seems to be untrue. The decision to re-examine the PHE cost estimates alone (none of the other four reports was reviewed – despite the presence of errors) was taken in July 2022 and announced to Parliament shortly afterwards. We have found no evidence that reviewing state agency reports within ten months of publication is a “standard approach” or that any such policy exists.

Disclosures made under FOIA reveal the true reason for review. On 26^th July 2022, an unnamed DHSC official circulated a memorandum, stating:

“We are going to need to make changes to two of the evidence review reports as an error has been spotted, and as it’s a change to results, its [sic.] probably what you would classify as a major change.”

Given that the PHE report contained quite a few errors, it is difficult to know which particular mistake prompted re-examination; but the decision was certainly not part of a “standard approach”. This raises the possibility that OHID may have deliberately misrepresented the grounds for review.

The Gambling Commission and the Advisory Board for Safer Gambling were both told by OHID researchers that “nothing in the report has changed substantially”; but this is incorrect. In fact, every single line item in the OHID cost estimate differed from the PHE version – in some cases substantially. Its estimate of direct costs to the Government was £234.1m lower than PHE’s – a reduction of more than one-third. This was masked by the introduction of a new area of intangible costs, relating to depression and several revisions to the suicide calculation. OHID’s estimates were also based on a ‘harmed population’ 59% smaller than in PHE. As chart 1 (below) shows, the claim that ‘nothing changed substantially’ appears misleading.

In August 2022, the then Health Minister, Maggie Throup MP advised Parliament that the PHE report would be reviewed and that the calculations underpinning its estimates would be published. The review however, has never been made public and – according to disclosures made under FOIA – no such document is held by the DHSC. Contrary to the minister’s pledge, the PHE calculations have still not been released. To do so would reveal a number of errors, such as the fact that PHE’s suicide figure was based on a 21% over-statement of the population prevalence of ‘problem gambling’.

The mystery of the OHID expert panel

OHID was at least prepared to admit – with a heavy dose of understatement – that its estimates were “uncertain”. It relied on a study of hospital patients in Sweden with a clinical diagnosis of gambling disorder (among many other health issues) to estimate the health risks for people in England with no diagnosed mental or physical health conditions whatsoever. In consequence, OHID leaned heavily on the opinion of its expert panel of health economists and academics who, it is claimed, approved the approach.

There are, however two problems where this opinion is concerned. The first is that one member of the expert panel, Dr Henrietta Bowden-Jones of the NHS had publicly criticised the PHE-OHID methodology. At a fringe meeting of the Conservative Party Conference in September 2022, Dr Bowden-Jones stated: “we cannot extrapolate from Swedish studies, from Norwegian studies – it doesn’t work”.

CIEO is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribed

The second issue is that the meeting of the expert panel – to discuss the most significant matter in the OHID report – is entirely undocumented. In February 2023, the DHSC admitted that:

“there was no agenda or papers shared before the meeting or minutes circulated afterwards”.

It is difficult to understand how this panel of experts might have been expected to review OHID’s work without access to any documents; and why officials did not consider it necessary to record the panel’s deliberations on this critical point.

Why did public health get things so badly wrong?

Inappropriate behaviour?

The task attempted by PHE-OHID was always going to be challenging, given the dearth of actual data available. This does not explain or excuse the large number of errors and omissions made by researchers and officials:

PHE and OHID ignored warnings by Karlsson & Håkansson about the representativeness of the sample in the 2018 Swedish study (upon which they relied);
PHE and OHID ignored findings in the 2018 study of high rates of mental and physical health comorbidities.
PHE and OHID ignored the follow-up study by the Swedish researchers (Håkansson & Karlsson, 2020), which found that risk of suicide attempt was significantly mediated by the presence of other disorders.
PHE and OHID ignored the opinion of Dr Anna van der Gaag, chair of the Gambling Commission’s Advisory Board for Safer Gambling, that the PHE calculation was likely to be inaccurate.

A large number of issues with the PHE-OHID reports were brought to the attention of its Director-General, Jonathan Marron in July 2022 and again in September 2023. On both occasions, Mr Marron promised to investigate. Last year, he wrote that he would provide “a proper explanation” for the errors and methodological flaws; but more than seven months later, none has been forthcoming. In what may well be a breach of the Civil Service Code, OHID officials resorted to ad hominem disparagement of their critics – including one national news media outlet – rather than engage constructively.

What is particularly disturbing about the PHE-OHID scandal is not the fact that researchers (presented with an unenviable task) made so many mistakes; but that state officials proved so unwilling to confront them – responding with hostility to legitimate scrutiny.

Next week, in our third article, we will consider the behaviour of others in positions of political or moral authority who variously connived in the deception or turned a blind eye to it. We will reflect on what this means for their future involvement in research and policy-making.

Dan Waugh

May 17th 2024

Regulus Partners

A Very Public Deception: On the manufacture of mortality statistics in gamblingA study of suicides in gambling, are we being told the truth? Part 1

Public Health England was closed down because it was incompetent and was too easily distracted by lifestyle issues when it should have been focusing on public health. It was more of an in-house lobby group than a serious scientific agency. It seems that closing it down and re-opening it under a new name (OHID) with the same staff was not enough to make the leopard change its spots.

Dan Waugh- Regulus Partners

In recent years, the claim that up to 496 deaths a year in England are associated with problem gambling has become a staple of the debate on gambling market reform. The estimates originate from a 2023 report by the British Government’s Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (‘OHID’) and have been used to support demands for a wide range of additional controls on consumers and the market. There is just one problem – they are based on junk science.

While it has long been recognised that people with gambling disorder are at elevated risk of self-harm, the specific estimates produced by OHID – accepted uncritically by many in Parliament and the news media – rely on a number of ‘flat-Earth’ assumptions.

In this series of articles, we examine the methods used (and errors made) in calculating these figures and consider the conduct of those who have propagated them. In this, the first article, we demonstrate why the OHID estimates are unsound. In subsequent weeks we will describe the behaviour of the public health officials responsible for their manufacture; consider the actions of other notionally responsible bodies; and ask what public benefit is served by the generation of spurious statistics.

The first state-sponsored estimate of gambling-related suicides in Britain appeared in September 2021 with the release of Public Health England’s (‘PHE’) report, ‘Gambling-related harms evidence review: the economic and social cost of harms’. It contended that, in England, 409 suicides a year were “associated with problem gambling only”. In January 2023, the PHE report was replaced (due to identification of errors) by an update from OHID. It offered a choice of either 117 or 496 suicides “associated with problem gambling”.

Both the PHE and OHID estimates were based on a 2018 study of the medical records of patients treated in Swedish hospitals between 2006 and 2016. Dr Anna Karlsson and Professor Anders Håkansson from Lund University found that patients in the dataset with a clinical diagnosis of ICD-10 ‘pathological gambling’ (renamed gambling disorder in the ICD-11) were on average, 15.1 times more likely to die by suicide compared with the general population. PHE applied suicide mortality ratios from this study to NHS Health Survey estimates of the prevalence of PGSI ‘problem gambling’ in England to produce a figure of 409 deaths a year.

In 2023, OHID repeated the exercise, using precisely the same information, and produced figures of either 117 or 496 deaths (the lower figure based on the application of the Swedish mortality ratios to the population prevalence of DSM-IV ‘pathological gambling’). In doing so they ignored critical information and clear warnings that their methods were unsound. The hospital patients whose records were analysed in the ‘Swedish study’ suffered from a wide range of diagnosed mental and physical health conditions (see charts 1 and 2, below). As a group, they were at elevated risk of self-harm, regardless of the presence or absence of gambling disorder. PHE-OHID thought otherwise – assuming that health risks for hospital patients in Sweden with a wide range of illnesses were the same as for people in England with no diagnosed health disorders whatsoever. In other words, they made the ‘flat-Earth’ assumption that there is no association between mental and physical ill-health and risk of suicide.

In making this assumption, PHE and OHID ignored a clear warning from Karlsson & Håkansson. Their paper advised that the hospital patients whose records they had studied were likely to suffer from particularly severe and complex disorders:

“It is therefore likely that results may be skewed toward a population of individuals with more severe forms of GD [gambling disorder]. It is likely that this once again implies that this study sample might contain patients with higher mental health comorbidity, as well as individuals with more severe forms of GD, since these individuals are more likely to receive specialized psychiatry care”.

The PHE-OHID researchers also ignored findings from the follow-up to this study (the second in a series of five undertaken by the researchers from Lund University). Håkansson & Karlsson (2020) showed that comorbid health conditions were even higher within the group of patients who had attempted or completed suicide (see chart 3).

Professor Håkansson and Dr Karlsson showed that risk of suicide attempt was five times higher for patients with gambling disorder if they also had diagnoses of alcohol use disorder and drug use disorder. Of those patients who had made a suicide attempt, 70% had a diagnosis of alcohol use disorder or drug use disorder or both. The researchers at Lund University provided a range of adjusted odds ratios based on the presence of other diagnosed mental health conditions (see table 1). This study – which was published ten months prior to the PHE report – indicated that suicide risk for patients with gambling disorder was halved where no alcohol use or drug use disorders were diagnosed. Even before adjusting for other risk factors, these findings clearly demonstrated the inappropriateness of PHE’s approach.

A third study assessed the effect of socioeconomic factors on risk of suicide attempt. In the fourth study, a control group was used to identify discrete risks associated with gambling disorder. It concluded that:

“gambling disorder did not appear to be a significant risk factor for the increase in suicide and general mortality when controlling for previously known risk factors”.

This finding creates a dilemma for OHID and those who have propagated its claims. If one believes that analysis of the Swedish National Patient register by Karlsson & Håkansson provides a reliable basis for assessing suicide risk in England, then one must conclude that – contrary to PHE-OHID assertions – gambling disorder is not “a significant risk factor”. If on the other hand, one does not believe this is a suitable approach, then the PHE-OHID claims also cannot stand because they rely entirely on the mortality ratios from the first of the Swedish studies.

The fact that PHE and OHID got things wrong does not mean that underlying concerns about gambling disorder and self-harm are misplaced – or that gambling operators, treatment providers and policy-makers should ignore the issue. It has long been recognised that people with the disorder are at elevated risk of suicide, even if the precise nature of the relationship is complex. A number of recent inquests in England have determined that excessive gambling contributed to loss of life. Operators should do more to promote positive mental health and to address risk of self-harm among their customers and employees – whether gambling is involved or not. The PHE-OHID claims are, however, irretrievably flawed and should be disregarded by policy-makers. There is simply no coherent logic that allows them to stand.

In next week’s article, we will consider why PHE-OHID produced such obviously flawed findings and examine potentially serious issues of governance attending their publication.

List of abbreviations

DSM-III: The third edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders.

DSM-IV: A screening questionnaire published by the American Psychiatric Association within the fourth edition of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders

OHID: the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities. Part of the Department of Health and Social Care.

PGSI: The Problem Gambling Severity Index. A screening instrument developed by Ferris & Wynne (2001).

PHE: Public Health England. A state agency, reporting to the Department of Health and Social Care. It was disbanded in 2021.

Dan Waugh is a partner at the global strategic sports and leisure advisory firm, Regulus Partners.

Don’t forget to gamble responsibly..

Watching the Oikball the other night, sitting next to my Sons, I observed West Ham sporting their snappy outfits pressed and laundered by Betway. Newcastle were sponsored by those nice people that lend money – Wonga. The stadia was adorned with Betway bunting. The adverts during the game were predominately sponsored by companies claiming their users ‘gambled responsibly’ – Especially Ray Winstone, who I doubt has had a tenner on anything in his life. But it’s great viewing for children. Honestly

If you like to watch sport, you’ll get used to this. If you like your late night telly – you know – stop camera action from the police force in Reading, the best looking penis, or shows about cars with fabulous emission ratings, you’ll also have become used to proliferation of gambling adverts. Some of whom sound almost heroic.
Of course we’re encouraged to ‘gamble responsibly’ by the yellow sign that tells us all (subliminaly) that when we’ve had enough FUN FUN FUN – we must learn to stop.
In other words, when you’ve run out of cash, maxed out every credit card you’ve got, kicked the fruit machine to bits, mortgaged your home to the hilt, turned your Missus into a Lesbian, and of course made the BBC documentary on ‘Britain At The Bookies’ – the home for all genuine sad acts, – then you’ll have truly arrived in the worlds of Bet365 and William Hill
If you’re in the minority, like me, the Mary Whitehouse types, you might pause for a moment and wonder what effect this siege of advertising has on our phsyche- not to mention those of our children. I mean we stop cigarette adverts, so why is it permissable that EVERY ad break tells us we have to spin to win? And sometimes more than once a break?

And of course, as every independent bookmaker and decent minded citizen knows- The UK’s ‘watchdog’ – the Gambling Commission, with all its fees and hype – does absolutely nothing. Nothing at all, to justify its very existence. ‘To protect the vulnerable.’

The ‘vulnerable’in this case appear to be online gaming giants

Little known- but worth mentioning, back in April I challenged Paddy Power on promotions headlined with the banner ‘money back’ on certain wagers. This was a headline grabber and peddled widely in the press. I invited them to desist from encouraging customers to wager under the entirely false assumption certain stakes would be refunded, when in actuality the customers were being refunded in ‘free bet stakes’. Of course the two are entirely different offers

Paddy Power declined to remove promotions with said headlines.

I challenged this with the ASA as misleading and wholly false. The challenge was upheld and they were ordered by the authority to cease free bet promotions with the headlines money back.

Paddy Power were not alone – Many firms were doing exactly the same, and in direct contravention to an earlier ASA ruling against Betfair for the same type of claims. These firms were directly contravening an earlier ruling

The question is this. Why did the Gambling Commission, the custodian of fair gambling and the vulnerable, not step in at any stage to order such promotions to be withdrawn? Is this agency actively complicit in protecting such firms from basic licensing conditions? Were said firms not in fact contravening several codes in licensing practices with such claims?

.
I think I’m a fair minded bookie. I try to give my customers a better class of service and compete on odds with the high street. And as a bookie you might expect me to side with my own. I mean I do have a gambling site. But I don’t bombard people with adverts at 2am about it, and if I were to shove it on my occasional trips to Channel 4, where I upset the establishment for your viewing entertainment, I’d get my backside kicked off pronto.
I’m deeply uncomfortable with what goes on. I feel for those who are suffering. I favour a UK wide ban on anyone who self excludes – not backed by the Gambling Commission. I disagree with the use of credit cards to fund gambling. I disagree with Gibraltar outfits shoving their ‘online’ products to Racing. Although I scoff at the BHA’s lack of backbone in any department, all sound bytes.
I hear a lot of complaints from punters, some of whom could accurately be described as ‘bonus junkies.’ The new breed of professionals who scour the bookie websites for top of the market hits. I have some sympathy with the bookie view that a lot of those types of customer are worthless to us in business.
BUT. If Paddy Power are to offer even money each of two in a Rugby match, with just the outside chance of a handicap ‘tie’ to save them, if Skybet are to offer a loss leading 6 places on the Cambridgeshire, if Coral are to offer 6/1 each of 2 in a tennis match to new customers only – and all of them make money, then I know they’re not getting fat on those sports, especially the increasingly worthless racing product.
So they’re fattening on gaming. – NAP

Bet365 seem totally content to treat their customers with err, uhm contempt, by offering a customer, their customers, a £1 wager. They don’t care about the PR implications of being described by the same as ‘total frauds’ for describing themselves as ‘Bookmakers.’ Because they’re global. And for every clued up punter they treat so poorly over here, there are perhaps 5% of these new accounts they dig up that make the whole exercise of pushing for new business worthwhile. And deeply profitable. One can admire their bottom line, if not their methodology
Should we feel sympathy for those professional types who complain so vociferously? Clearly we care about the genuine punters who fluke a 16/1 winner and find their next wager batted down to 36p. But the pros?
For myself, I never keep a customer on if I’m not prepared to lay him or her a bet to lose at least £50 as a minimum, and remember that’s my minimum, not the average of what we’re prepared to lay. But that’s because I have standards. I may not like what some customers get up to, but if I do, I close them down with a fair explanation of why it’s been done. We do not hide behind ‘trading decisions’
But the big companies are the ones peddling the prices and offers. They’re continuously driving for new gaming custom and fully prepared to be ‘best odds guaranteed’ or ‘best prices for all Channel 4 races’ – even if it guarantees a loss. It’s a bit like the supermarkets claiming they make nothing from milk, because they choose to sell it so cheap to get the customers into the stores in the first place. They don’t care if the dairy farmer ends up out of business.

These ‘companies’ have created the bonus and offer culture. The free bet. I heard recently Coral offering a guarantee to lay any horse to lose a decent amount, I’m uncertain if it was Coral’s diminutive UK division or their Gibraltar arm making the offer, because its hardly clear who you’re wagering with when you call up ‘Coral.co.uk’ . They’re not prepared to offer it online, nor even on their phones. Once again a headling grabbing offer that turns out not quite as good as it sounds. But in a way I support any move towards a sensible lay to lose – I’ve always advocated £100 as a startpoint. Coral stand alone in proferring any sort of guarantee to date, even if it’s only in their shops.
But they’re a multi million pound outfit, still un prepared to offer their advertised odds to all of their customers. A bit like Waitrose saying it’s 50p for that Cadbury’s flake, but not to everyone. Isn’t this sort of thing a trading standards issue? And of course pretty much all of the other outfits are exactly the same. Complaints litter about what they don’t do, far more than what they do. Now why is that?
So the next time you think about grabbing yourself a ‘free bet’ for a tenner. Ponder awhile. If you can afford not to support firms who behave with such overall disdain for large sections of their customers, why would you support them with your business? If you want change, you have to be prepared to boycott those firms you consider place little real value on loyalty.
And should they be mandated, as they are in parts of Australia, to lay a fair bet to any price they offer?
Well the Gambling Commission don’t agree with you, but I most certainly do.

Bing Bong – Pay Pay – the Bookies view of Ascot..

Anyone that describes racing as dull has to be an astronaut. If the highlight for your average rocket man involves periods of sheer terror sitting on tonnes of high explosive jet fuel, punctuated by moments spent trying to work out the on board toilet then I suppose racing falls somewhere between the two. Racing provides so much more gripping entertainment. My week started with ten minutes of fame on Channel 4. The director in my ear telling me to ‘pipe down’ – this is fairly standard. Two large security guards stand off camera ready to drag me off set.

So we chat about Gosden Horn, sitting in the sun, with forecast temperatures of 18 degrees. Lucky asks if I feel the greatest horse on the planet will take his chance. Now, I’m supposed to have done my research, which includes looking at this horse’s form.. – Unless I’m mistaken, the brute beat none other than Storm The Stars at Nottingham on ground described as good to soft- soft in places. Add the paltry 700 grand on offer, the thousands who had paid to see him, the kudos in doing the Derby-George double, that the horse had travelled, that the field was inferior, and that I’m paid to speak my mind – I said I was confident he would indeed take place.

Everyone knows I’m rarely wrong.

A gaggle of press accompanied Lord John on his perambulation around the track, sporting a knitting needle to stick in the muddy bits and accompanied by Anthony Oppenheimer, -carefully dipping his cheque book into the ground. And yes, indeed, race fans – it came up ‘moist’. Of course I jest – it was his credit card. Breeding beats prize money, there’s no appetite for a tussle anymore amongst the top owners

Feature of Ascot’s excellent support card – a big sprinty thing where they split into 9 groups and the commentator takes a pot shot at who’s actually in front. Now this gets entertaining! Unless you’re an official

History says Speculative Bid travelled the course without the jockey because Spencer was sitting on the stalls rather than the horse. Perhaps he was practicing his dismount? Starters don’t react to cries of ‘No No No’ these days- nor do they speedily inform the stewards of the status of the horse in this age of walkie talkies.

Now I know you’re dozing off here- because who gives a monkies if the bookies done more of their money than they should? Rub of the green. But there’s a strong message here – and it’s important not only to learn from it, but hold the BHA properly to account, because that is how we progress change. Of course folks make errors, but what struck me was the abject lack of taking responsibility or a will to apologise. A thorough lack of understanding from one of the most professional group of stewards in the game, that they’re responsible to the betting community and the general public- most of whom have had a bet.

Bing Bong

Error one – ‘we’re looking into an incident at the start- but the placings are unaffected’

Wrong.

If you’re enquiring into the status of the favourite as a runner, you’re most definitely affecting betting markets. Why not mention what you’re actually discussing?

Bookies paid out dutifully and swiftly without deducting one fifth of winnings as rules dictate.

Bang Wong

‘Weighed in’ –Now we all know someone didn’t do their job here. Who to blame? Perhaps the stewards themselves for taking so very long to find out what happened to the favourite

Bing Bong – Bing Bong Along

‘Stewards Enquiry – we’re looking into the status of the favourite and whether he was a runner or not’ – Say what??

Bing Ding Dong

‘The favourite was a non runner’ customers can get their money back – oh right, sure thing.

So we pay everyone out on the favourite. Which was an illegal instruction. In the meantime the Betting ring managers are besieged with confused customers. Although most bookies had paid out. Not to have done so under the instructions given by the stewards would have been unprecedented – would have potentially resulted in loss of licenses – and would have most certainly caused a riot.

90 minutes pass, during which time the betting ring manager high tails it to the stewards secretary to remind him that what they had done was an illegal instruction under the rules of racing and explain what a bet is. Oh and what ‘weighed in actually represents..

Ding-A-Lang Dong

‘Stewards now instruct that Speculative Bid was in fact a runner for betting purposes ‘ tra la la la la – go back to the bookies for more

Those few who had had rule 4’s deducted took the opportunity to return for another refund. Tee hee. (not all I would add- most realised the bookies were as much victims here- and behaved impeccably)

Jamie Stiers took to Racing UK to explain what went on, roughly. He refused to apologise. Not in his remit.

Here is the ‘decline to apologise video’ – this from the BHA’s head of regulation – so we should expect a polished performance. Instead it adds to the shambles by giving the impression even he didn’t understand the rules- or know what was occurring. ‘I am advised a rule 4 should have come with the withdrawal of the favourite’ – this is a staggering remark. I believe my 12 year old knows this one! As head of regulation he clearly had to have the rules of betting explained to him.

http://www.racinguk.com/news/article/36742/bha-to-launch-bid-inquiry

The stewards made enquiries and in their report they mentioned those findings would be shared with the Authority. Oh, I’ve heard this one before. The brush.

the official report from Ascot:-

The Stewards held an enquiry into the start to ascertain why SPECULATIVE BID (IRE), ridden by Jamie Spencer, failed to start and eventually left the stalls rider-less. They heard evidence from the rider and the starters. Spencer stated that the gelding was loaded late as he was known to be difficult in the stalls and just prior to the stalls being released SPECULATIVE BID (IRE) got his head over the adjacent stall 23. He added that when the stalls were released he was off the horse. Having heard their evidence and viewed video recordings of the start, they found that SPECULATIVE BID (IRE) was deemed not to have started and, under Rule (B)10.5, ordered the gelding to be withdrawn.

The Stewards further enquired into why the Weighed In signal was given before the enquiry into the start of the race had been concluded. They heard evidence from the Stipendiary Steward, the Clerk of the Scales and the Racecourse Announcer. Having heard their evidence they forwarded the matter to the British Horseracing Authority for further consideration.

Look, I can take a joke as much as the next man. I can easily accept errors are made. My problem with the Authority here is the abject lack of transparency, a failure to immediately apologise and take ownership of the problem. All businesses pay for their errors- except the BHA it seems. They want the bookmaking community not only to foot the bill, but take the flak, the assaults that took place on my colleagues, the inconvenience and the loss of face. In the meantime they will conduct internal inquiries and ‘move forward’. If moving forward is to set a precedent whereby we pay for their shambolic and ill informed stewarding – then I have one answer.

I’m sorry, but I’m tired of the simple lack of accountability for errors and the high minded attitude that comes with. Appalling race planning, 8 flat meetings on a Saturday in July, 3 jumps meets on a Sunday. Embarrassing integrity enquiries taking years to prosecute in which video of races are lost.The head of integrity is still in his post – headlines ‘we’re consulting ourselves into how we’re doing’. Yup. Race planning is for five year olds, yet its head sits in her chair. A general lack of consultation with the general public. The mundane press releases in the place of open press conferences like other sports in which journalists have an opportunity to test their performance.

I should say it makes me deeply uncomfortable to have to challenge the organisation. But I feel a clear need to defend my colleagues even if the actual cost to myself is minimal. Let’s hope they behave in a manner befitting new management and the promises made by Nick Rust to come together. Here’s your chance Nick

Of course the BHA have registered successes – more so from it’s rather under funded commercial arm – REL. The Champions series, Qatar involvement, marketing on a shoe string budget. This leaves the authority actually responsible for planning, integrity and regulation. It lacks any clear authority over racecourses to the detriment of the sport – and everyone has a job for life.

Why?

I’m convinced amongst appreciable talent in the BHA are a few individuals without the necessary qualities to represent the sport. In every walk of life it’s critical for performance to be achievably measured. Failing employees and managers to be moved out and replaced with stronger people. And what’s with employing a board lacking in any appreciable experience in racing? So they can be bullied?

A line from excellent columnist Rich Lee – worth quoting –

“ ~~’Has there ever been a racing authority that was not incompetent, lacking in imagination and dynamism, or out of touch with the industry’s needs?’ Guardian racing writer Chris Hawkins…asked this rhetorical question in 1996.” Plus ca change…!

In between times ‘Britain at the Bookies’ – little to say about this, rather dull if you’re not in betting- and feels like an advert for gamblers anonymous. Can’t help feeling this wasn’t a good idea

Goodwood. ‘Appointment with fear’ my Old Man used to say. A graveyard for bookies, some of whom are buried under Trundle Hill. Good news for the betting men with Hughesie retiring. He’s cost us a pretty sum over the years.. good luck to the legend in his new venture – a gentleman jockey.

And so we trundle on to York. Another track with a sense of style. A possible meeting for Golden Horn and Gleneagles? On a strip of council land. If you want to get in free, climb under the gate at the ten furlong marker and look like you belong..

Royal Ascot – 2015 – The Bookies View

www.geoff-banks.com/register.asp

Driving around Ascot is a pretty harrowing experience- streets full of burnt out Bentleys. Every once in a while you’ll pass a Waitrose, and really know you’re in a bad area.. they don’t do Tesco here – no matter what they make (? insert amount ??)

.
The trick to Ascot is finding somewhere convenient to park- there’s an exit one way system which sends you back to Sunninghill (a mile away) via Biddlecombe (286 miles away)- You have to know the system or you’re stuck in the High Street for several days

.
Flick knives and knuckledusters dutifully handed over, you’re greeted by throngs of gatemen. First thing you notice is how polite they are, they check what socks you’re wearing and smile. You see, at Royal Ascot- everyone feels like a Lord for the day – even if you’re entirely potless. Bookies enter with money, – they’re x-rayed on the way out to ensure they’ve left it all with the punters..

One enters the truly vast terminal- had it’s detractors when it was built, but these days thanks to ‘green fingers Barnett’ – the place resembles an advert for house and garden. Full of comfy armchairs- nooks and crannies to enjoy your glass of champagne. Uber civilised.Quality extends to every enclosure, a track run by toffs- but to everyone’s benefit – no enclosure escapes the personal touch – and you can escape the beer swilling hordes if that’s your bag

They don’t do Pomagne here!

And yes, they actually serve a bottle of champagne in an ice bucket, not a bag, and with a glass should you so desire. You see, if you’re not at Ascot, York or Goodwood, where they do things with panache- most tracks think you deserve a bowl or tumbler to drink your champagne from. Odd sort of business plan for your best spending customers wouldn’t you agree? Ascot hasn’t dipped standards to the banal trick of hiding customer service values behind health and safety. .

.
Ascot also don’t do themed evenings for people dressed in football shirts..possibly because they take the view their long standing real racing fans might object to spending their days with Yah Yahs..

.
But I digress

.
When they rebuilt the old Ascot – some of the members said they’d never return. Well I suppose if you’re pushing up daisy’s and by extension possibly not reading this – that could indeed be true. For the rest of the ‘I’m never going again’ mob – it appears to my inexpert eye, that Ascot have built one of the world’s best sporting arenas – outstanding restaurants, bars and service. In a racing environment obsessed with sand , it’s refreshing to walk into an Ascot or York where the focus still remains what goes on around the track – not (perhaps) in a betting shop.

I spot Nick Rust, the new BHA chief exec in the throng – clearly his suit was made for someone bigger – he’s chatting to someone about ‘coming together’. I wonder idly if he’s explaining why they dug up Newcastle to create a terribly interesting series of races in a straight line. For this week though, exceptionally and perenially, we have the best racetrack in the world.

.
The first race rolls around – there’s a lump from Hong Kong – ‘Able Friend.’ Our Gallic friends have sent over a Goldikova clone. Most bets are in euros, as the far east specialist proves more suited to racing at the back. Solow wins well and Maxine Guyon flicks a V sign at the toffs as he passes the post. I don’t blame him. The bookmakers rename the winner ‘Sorrow’

.
The rest of the day degenerates into the stuff of nightmares for the bookie types as the Festival lurches from Prince this and Queen that . If it’s not the favourite, it’s the galactically talented Ryan Moore sweeping the board. That won’t go down well on the High Street.

People that know me understand I’m one for speaking plainly. I have listened to several respected scribes eulogising on about the rather evident talents of Mr Moore. Little question he’s probably the most talented jockey we’ve witnessed on the flat. It goes along the lines of ‘isn’t he magnificent? What a rider! And to those that know him – apparently quite a wit’

.
Well, to the rest of us, who’d rather a jockey smile when he nails a Derby – he’s a thoroughly morose character – he doesn’t endear himself – nor promote the sport that makes him several millions in any way, shape or form. So no, I don’t find him admirable as a human being. Two weeks ago, we saw a brilliant horse take a Derby with a pilot who will do more for headlining the sport than Golden Horn himself. Leaping out of the saddle and engaging the crowd. That cost me a rake, but I smiled when I saw it. That’s what the fans want – not the taciturn one. He’s for betting – not for Racing. Shape up Ryan! Dettori, McCoy, Hughes, Walsh amongst many happily give of their time – you can’t manage a smile??

.
When you look at the results, you could easily conclude they didn’t look that bad for the bookies, but I suppose it was the combination of several favourites going in – and if they got beat, it was either Moore or Dettori on top. Thursday I think was the most entertaining betting day – with Moore bashing the firms with a 14/1 opener followed by a 5/1 winner. Payouts could potentially dwarf the Mullins quad at Cheltenham.. (Thanks Annie)

One major off course layer went into hyper drive sending nearly a quarter of a million back for Kingfisher in the Gold Cup- all those 10p accumulators, at guaranteed odds, I expect suddenly come to haunt. This time it was Maxine Guyon to the bookies’ rescue as he held Moore on his inside – causing him to switch paths at the critical stage. For me the week’s unlucky loser. For the major bookie involved- several pence retained on their share price. I expect they were not alone in hiding under their sofas as Kingfisher turned for home..

Racing festivals haven’t been that great for the firms over the last few years. Most lead with fabulous offers and price boosts created by their marketing departments. Combine that with a dip in on course margins – polarisation of expensive horses shared by a select few jockeys and trainers, and you have a problem for those betting on the product. Expect you’re reaching for a Kleenex right about now

.
Racing starts every day with a race for the Royals from the mile start in their fancy carriages. Now I’ve watched this for more years than I can remember- never once has anyone tried to pass the one in front. Surely I can’t be the only one who’s spotted the biggest bunch of non triers in racing?? Fair enough, they put on a good show, the whole event surely organised to give the bookies another betting heat to do their brains in – namely the colour of the Boss’s hat. But I’d like to see more effort from those in behind..I know I speak for all concerned who back the second carriage every year

God save our Queen..you won’t see a pageant like that at Goodison Park..a uniquely British summer scene.

.
I took one wander down from the Royal enclosure towards the Silver Ring. Ascot is so vast, the silver ring is nearer to Egham. As enclosures go, it’s really quite well turned out. I walk as far as is possible before the waft of chips overtake that of Chanel.. There are bookies all the way down the racetrack, making noise, taking bets. I wonder what will happen to the very flavour of racing when the tracks inevitably take over the betting. Don’t think we don’t know what you’re about, with your expansive plans for data charges etc etc – we’re on to your tricks!

.
Racetrack bet however, could do well at the festivals, I don’t think the punters are in any way price savvy, we know that from Chester – they just want service. But the diet of midweek racing we’re fed by tracks-horsemen-BHA, has leant itself to poor attendances from both customers and bookmakers. What’s the future without the ring? My dream we wake up before it’s all too late – the major betting firms have deserted racing for football and roulette. I suppose then the sand will go back to the bunkers. No Big Jim, Barry Dennis, Victor Chandler

Imagine a world where an exec at Channel 4 suddenly decides the network should quit racing, in the face of the often ridiculous criticism of a show affording the sport 44 cameras and the best coverage it has ever experienced. By comparison the BBC with its almost ‘cottage’ coverage. Racing feeds the network a diet of 5 runner group races almost weekly and wonder why the numbers are down- then makes it awkward for them to show alternate meetings in its coverage and ignores Channel 4 in any decision making processes at the highest level. Remember, they can make more money for less hassle from ‘Everyone loves Raymond.’. Don’t think the BBC will come back to save Racing from itself – they barely mention the National

.
Racing has an awful lot invested in very few options. Royal Ascot is amazing, but if Aston Villa play Scunthorpe it’s likely to pull in more sponsors, viewers and press coverage. The next few weeks Racing will go into its shell from Sunday to Friday, bang on 7 meetings on the Saturday, and bolster attendances with pop concerts and a grotesque obsession with selling as much beer as possible. Hmm, get back to the Racing. Ascot leads for me with the right balance and never loses sight of its focus on the Sport

.
It’s not supportable, but with a regulator fascinated by commerce, rather than how is the sport best served and gels together, – a board of novices to do as they’re told? As Nick Rust so accurately describes- the underlying trends are declining. He’s just not going to do anything about it. Sorry Nick, I don’t do sound bites. I did enjoy your BHA seminar though, with Rod Fabricious harking on about artificial insemination.. not sure who he wanted impregnated though..

.
Fortunately there’s enough quality in York, Goodwood, Cheltenham, Chester and Ascot to name a few to keep British Racing at the very top of the world order, British racing has a unique calendar of major Festivals. I wonder if there’s an RCA man reading this, sympathetic to the view most racetracks are struggling with an identity crisis? A racetrack, a greyhound track or just a vast pub. Here’s one to mull over – try proper segregation of long standing racing fans, who don’t feel to have beer spilt over their girlfriends, or even the often threatening environment, from the oiks that do, – rather than selling all in sundry a pass to the members enclosure, keep some areas with civilised folk in mind. Possible? I think also a lot of racetracks need to integrate their thinking with the words ‘social responsibility’ rather than ‘sales’

.
Early evenings at Ascot are spent gate crashing car park parties and pretending you’re one of the owners. Everyone standing quaffing champagne, leaning on their Astons, in an age old and endearing slice of the great meeting. It’s my time to get asked by people stuffed with my cash, how much I’d won that day.. (where’s that sharp knife?) Everyone turns up without being invited – ‘Who ARE you – and why are you stealing my champagne?’

How good was the meeting? Well to my mind pretty outstanding. How does it compare to Cheltenham? Well they’re rather chalk and cheese. Ascot is very much more about the social scene. But there’s no loss in focus on the racing. Quipco have stepped in. There’s a new Group one sprint attracting foreign raiders that really works. It has management focussed on quality at every turn. Entrance charges to the meeting aren’t steep – considering what is delivered. Cheltenham has a different feel. Far more the betting event, with months focussed on it’s feature races. The two great events provide balance. Is it a bit toffee nosed? I don’t think so, sure the babies are on Smoked Salmon, and they tow away Ford Escorts, but one has to keep the Riff-Raff out 🙂

.
See you at York – could it possibly get any better?

The 2015 cheltenham festival – the grubbie bookie’s view

I suppose all racing fans grew up with great memories of Cheltenham in March. I recall as a boy, betting in the underaged class, on the Cheltenham rail into the members enclosure, nobody was surprised in those days to be served by a 13 year old – that you just couldn’t move for the absolute crush of humanity. Most of whom appeared to be called Mick. Although a few were Paddy’s. These days we’d invent a quango to count them by age, sex, social class and type of BMW

I prepare for Cheltenham months in advance by calling up the babestation offices to see if any of their talent is free. I got one. Brandy Brewer was her stage name. I think we should all have stage names, don’t you agree? So we downloaded an app (and you said I was a dinosaur?) put in our names and received new ‘porn star’ equivalents. I was Dan Cucumber. I was quite pleased with that.

I added two more lusty girls, bearing in mind sex sells. That I have absolutely no morals whatsoever. That it would upset the gambling commission. That some fellahs would hang around even after I’d emptied all their pocket change, asking daft questions like – how big are they when they’re out? You get the picture

Just in case any mary Whitehouse types were lurking, I threw in a couple of old grizzlies who have worked for me forever and never break a nail. We jumped into our Bentleys for the Cotswolds. And Mulllins.

It’s all about Mullins you see. Henderson has voted himself a non runner these days, as he declares the entire season to date as ‘soft’. The galactacos of racing who’ve won very little of late. One day they’ll whisper in his ear that cotton wooling of stars is a miserable failure, horses need to race, and the giant that is Seven Barrows will wake up to find Paul Nicholls has been eating his lunch for months. I’d like to see that, Henderson is a decent chap and we desperately need competition

The run up to the great party gives our beloved journalists to call up their three favourite trainers. Pre requisite to any convo is to get in early and often the phrase ‘it’s a privilege’ – or you’re struck off ze list of approved hacks. Lesser trainers don’t have phones and who’s interested in Hobbs or Bradstock anyway?

ATR extend ‘Bookie hour’ to a 3 hour slot daily. Tarts..

It was all about Faugheen, Vautour, Douvan, Un De Sceaux, Annie Power and Don Poli. Throw in Peace and Co for good measure. The average SP of the first 4 mentioned this year in all races? 3/10. Gripping stuff we’ve been treated to. Thanks Willie- you deserve a few quid extra in your wages at Cheltenham

Of course we know now – only one got beat, courtesy of the biggest howler in racing for many a years as she grinned at the crowd and paddled the last. Been a long time since I heard such a moan. Genuine shock – the biggest fail at the Festival since I tried chatting up Emma Spencer. Multiple bets up and down the land were waiting on her due diligence. Walsh set it up and she fluffed her lines

There will be those of you, reading this, who take the view betting is the dirty end of the sport. That it’s all about breeding and the majesty of the horse. You’re the type who adores a 5 runner race. You don’t care if Faugheen is 1/6 as he powers away from horses two stone inferior. You don’t care if The New One or Annie Power are doing the same in Haydock or Leopardstown. It’s all magnificent.

Actually, you’re already dead and on the Eastbourne hall of fame. Check yourself

Well for those of you who don’t care about betting or the bookies, give yourself a pinch. Because I assume you care about the finances underpinning the sport? You want owners properly rewarded, yes? Well to educate you, the Levy Board was about to have a crisis meeting had Annie duly obliged, such would the whole have been in the finances of the sport.

(so good – I put it in twice..)

You see, racing is about the punters – they fund it. You think Steve Harman’s ‘racing right’ is coming to save you? Ha! The commercial acumen in racing has always lain with the bookies. They did their stones at Royal Ascot, King George and sundry other ‘biggies’. But you’re looking at their bottom lines – aren’t you?

Modern racing festivals these days in betting terms are characterised by ‘offers’. Credit to some firms ie Betfair (did I just plug Betfair? I need a shower! Who described their offers as what they were- free bets. Companies who did not distinguish themselves led by Paddy Power and Boylesports, who fronted with money back offers – that were nothing of the kind. I think this odious practice should be stopped. Cats being kicked into trees has to stay 🙂

On the plus side, firms like Paddy Power are giving their customers some amazing offers – I’ve never seen the likes of some of the deals they do, even if you’re only getting an extra bet, it’s still a lot more than in days of yore. What concerns me, is they’re mainly targeted at racing. It simply cannot be good for the sport for the number one festival the vehicle for ‘new business,’ rather than profiting from the racing itself. Take Peace and Co for example. A rock solid 2/1 chance for months- 4/1 in the morning. Not good, not good at all.

Thursday morning, Brandy broke a nail. It was so sudden I don’t think any of us expected it. The wailing and sobbing was akin to Annie Power’s departure from the festival. One moment – ten perfect porcelein fakes – the next- nine., Brandy wasn’t in the best of spirit. Punters were clambering over each other – not for her – but to press guinness sodden fivers in her hand for horses, fart and leave. What’s this about? This never happened at Babestation. She only had to flash her tatas and the phones would buzz. Anyway, to her eternal credit, this girl has guts for sure, she knuckled down and gave Vicky (AKA – Ritzy Jiggler) and Stephanie (Tara Cream) a hand in fending off the drunken. Some of which were bookies, a lot appeared to be jilted ex’s of Stephanie. Brandy will be back next year to entertain the masses we hope

In keeping with gambling commission edict 198.259 sub section 5 ‘dealing with total morons’ – we checked with everyone if they were over the age of 13 and not in fact in the paid employ of the commission itself trying to catch us out.

By Friday morning – I was in a shell shocked state, given depressing results, and the prospect of shaming myself on the Morning Line Saturday- my office had taken the phones off the hook and the website down. Come back Ffos Las, all is forgiven. Results outside the championship races were pretty fair – especially the ridiculous plunge on China Doll in the Queen Mother Champion Chase. Surely more likely to pull up than compete seriously?

It was a festival for the new. The performance of the meeting wasn’t the unchallenged Vautour for me – nor Faugheen, but the Denman-esque performance of Conygree. By the start of the 2nd circuit, he had many class performers firmly off the bridle. He quite simply ran them all into the ground. And who WAS that jockey??

Surely the BHA should lamp Bradstock with a 60 day ban for ‘upstaging Mullins’? Well done to the authority, however, for having the last ‘laugh’ as usual and a whip ban in the gold cup to a lesser jockey – they never disappoint

Was it the best Festival in modern times? – that’s hard to say, Loads of talking points. it certainly was out with the old and in with the new. Everyone knows I worry about the all enveloping nature of it. Months of discussing five runner graded events and odds on chances is something a caring authority wants to take very seriously, with the prospect of a repeat next year.
I have one suggestion, which will have some people nodding in approval, the purists in horror, and the BHA copping a deaf un. That Mares race. 6 years in a row a grade one animal reducing the worst rated event at the meeting to somewhat of a procession. Not really the point is it? Not good for the finances non plus. Perhaps an upper rating level of some description? We all know Annie Power will line up again next year – but in reality she should be in the World Hurdle, and not hiding away in selling class. NAP

I always mention the whiners. Taking a break from the Betfair Forum. Those who moan about Channel 4’s coverage could only be uber impressed at some of the amazing images treated to our screens, the features, the slo mo’s. Fine, I’m an occasional guest, but I’m entitled to an opinion and in comparison to the beeb? No comparison. Enjoy the float race Clare. Dreadful choice over the Grand National, really it is. But we’ll have Luck and Gok- fair trade.

And finally, yes, you made it. To one jockey. Given the amounts of cash I’ve heaved out over the years over this man, the times I’ve cursed the man, you might be surprised I’m as teary as the rest of you at the departure of a legend. I think to put it into some kind of perspective, the British public admire most the total and unadulterred energy he put into every ride. His iron will over sometimes doubtful horses. It’s a shame Jonjos stable has been in such miserable form this season or he would have signed off with more winners. AP has carried himself wih humility and class and gave every punter 100% commitment. That’s why they love him. And I will very much miss the very engine of National Hunt Racing.

The BHA – Acting in the best interests of Racing or Stakeholders?

It’s become routine these days to hear and read informed commentators, pundits, industry experts discussing the issue of small fields in racing, indeed last year the BHA undertook an expensive consultation into fixture levels in an attempt to combat the issue of small fields and lack of competitiveness in racing.

The result? More fixtures in 2015

BHA announces races attracting small fields will be deleted from the programme

The result? No races removed, a three month trial period suddenly introduced, and one deleted race restored in the face of opposition from horsemen

9 new board members with little, or no experience running racing, at the BHA. Two of these new directors have been appointed to ‘bed in’ six of the others. Tell me you’re joking, or have the stakeholders grabbed two important ‘blockers’ on the board?

The BHA announces the scrapping of small field events to address the appeal of the sport.

The result? The BHA backs down in the face of opposition from the trainers involved in the race and the NTF. It goes further in placing an NTF official to the BHA Board. I’m sure he’ll be supportive of an initiative which followed an expensive consultation.

What’s the value in an authority that doesn’t govern the sport with its best face in mind? Someone tell me.

After the removal of the best politician we’ve ever had in charge, Paul Bittar, from the equation we’re left with an entiely new board, in every sense of the word. Opposing these new directors – the stakeholders. Betting, Owners, trainers and racetracks and their interests. And they’re clearly out for what’s best for them, even if the sport cannot progress

Do you care? Or would you classify yourself as one of the silent apathetic ones- to criticise the sport is wrong, it’s just not done. To my mind, constructive criticism is a requirement and you should get involved and stop taking the guided tour

Quite what the Australian did wrong or whether he had just had enough is unclear. Nobody is asking the question. I didn’t always see eye to eye with Bittar during his tenure, I’m always going to take issue with the pace of change, but it’s clear he shared many of the same concerns. Particularly in regards to ‘stakeholders’ and their negative impact on the sport, and integrity issues relating to low funded racing we seem determined to produce more thereof. He was capable of pulling the disparate parties together given time. Continue reading “The BHA – Acting in the best interests of Racing or Stakeholders?”

Cheltenham Open Festival- The Bookies Eye

I know the National Hunt season doesn’t really end with Aintree, it burbles on without it’s stars through the summer. I’d like to see it curtailed for a month – perhaps in June when Racing is so resplendent with riches such as Ascot and Epsom. For me, though, the season really starts with Cheltenham’s excellent ‘Open’ Meeting.

It needs a new title, because Open doesn’t do it justice, and we need Festivals in the winter, perhaps they should call it ‘The Tweed’ – it’s the only venue which accepts folk in that ridiculous garb. Children point and stare – you can’t blame them..

For me, it’s suits. I pack several to go with the alternating seasons Prestbury affords us. I pick up the delightful Miss King and head off into the rainstorm. I talk, she texts her boyfriends and updates her facebook. It’s an odd relationship. I’ve become dull

There will be a few of you who accuse me of using sex to sell betting tickets. All true. Don’t write to your MP or call the cops. I admit it.

We stop at what used to be the Hotel De La Bere, to pad JP’s income. I read the paper, Stephanie has a text argument with one of her spotty friends. The office bombard me with calls, on bets we shouldn’t be laying. Disappointingly for a Bookie who works indoors at 72 degrees ambient, the sun has come out, and will wreck my takings

The bastard.

Friday isn’t as busy as Saturday for the Bookies. We work hard at offering a service not only at Cheltenham, but at the ‘away’ meetings. I’m glad I had Mick and Vicky dedicated to paying out, because Wolverhampton was on. Hitler should have bombed Dunstall, I wouldn’t have minded speaking German then.What I made at Cheltenham, i gifted back to those betting at Wolverhampton. The decent people of Jockey Club stop by for a chat, they’re comfortable in the product and with good reason. People vote with their feet, the attendances are good, and racing needn’t always be seen as a vehicle for the Ladbrokes Life. JCR are experts at Festival meetings and I admire their sense of decency.

I’d like one day to persuade this influential body to see exchanges outlawed from bookie software on course , it’s a thorough cancer on service, and emptying the sport of money it deserves. Make sure you support me here if you value the flavour of the betting ring or I will ignore you at parties.

As a sidebar, people who bet at the All Weather don’t wear tweed, they’re known as bonus junkies. They scout around for ‘free bets’, – never go racing, – just sit at home in their underpants ‘greening up’. Sand racing is for camels, but we’re stuck with it, it seems. Don’t blame me, I can’t stop the fascination with grunge. Saville is a sick man, he’s hoping Jesus makes a comeback and performs a loaves and fishes trick on field sizes, with rocking horses to bolster poor fields. I wouldn’t be surprised to hear 68 fixtures being awarded to Comet 506b (taken from York.) I mean it does have the perfect racing surface..

It’s not busy on friday, so Mick finds time for a hug. He’s a charmer and ‘The Rinser’ doesn’t work that hard. Here’s one of her, not on her phone, with my main man

Friday night is a predictably boozy night in a gorgeous country pub. Everyone tells stories, – mostly lies. My favourite is telling everyone I was in the SAS, which I think everyone believes. Mick orders the fishcakes and is crestfallen when they offer us free fishcakes, by way of canapes, at the bar. He doubles up anyway.

Saturday dawns, The Morning Line tips all the favourites, Paddy Power makes me chuckle and the show hums along in entertaining style. They have someone on from Timeform, I’m glad he didn’t launch into an explanation of ‘Sectionals’ – probably gagged I expect. I wish people would stop whining about Ch4, we’re all so damned fussy about what we want to see, and my good friend Barry Orr and his x ray specs represent good value as a stand up comic 🙂

We arrive early at the track, the crowd looks substantial. Entrance fees are very fair, the track looks the business. Cheltenham is the class of National Hunt. Except for those odd plastic beakers they dosh out to customers in their lovely Golden Miller bar. The only mild blemish for me. I give the catering boss a hard time for flogging me an £85 bottle of Veuve in a kiddie cup. He tells me glasses are a health and safety issue. I ask him what the champagne comes in. He says he will feedback my comments..

The Centaur has a brash new screen, 6 hard working Bookies, the Magic Sign and Tote. They serve clods of Guiness, so everyone has their bet, farts and leaves us with the smell. I suppose given the results that’s about fair. We massage a victory. It’s very busy. Do we bet a bit better than outside? Yes we do, a half a point here and there, but we’re in business and our focus is service, not begging a bet. Besides, most traders outside don’t understand the concept of ‘sustainable margin.’ Punters are a fair lot. They just want to be treated with respect and I find most would rather they found Bookmakers who lay a fair bet and pay up with a smile. We don’t do ten pound offers, we leave that to the really BIG bookies. I’d see that outlawed when I’m in charge

We take just over 2000 bets, we don’t have any hedges, they’re for gardens. Results go in favour of the punters but I catch a break with one favourite actually winning me money and I walk away heavier than when i arrived as the punters clap me out. We peel off the bets as fast as we can and try to pay out with the same alacrity where possible. A customer with his money in my pocket isn’t wagering in the next. Punters climb over the weak and infirm to get on, experienced pensioners trample young fit men to get on. As far as we know we didn’t lay any 17 year old Gambling Commission stoodges any bets. But you can’t be too sure..they’ll write to me I expect. I don’t fancy my chances with Mrs Williams

There’s no other way to describe the Racing on offer than exhilarating. Horses that looked done in, walked all over, came back to win or held on. We were lucky with one of Geraghty’s- Druid’s Nephew, who ran too free and got under his fences, but jumping is the game. Cheltenham tends to offer some of the most unpredictable finishes in the Sport. Some horses turn in going easy and flop, and others, like Caid Du Berlais, whose jockey supplanted whip for cattle prod. It’s the very soul of National Hunt racing. I understand why the track dominates the code.

I recall one slightly inebriated looking fellah who walked up to me, gambling commission plant methinks. I lay him a bet.

‘tenner each way on Budweiser’ he slurred, displaying his opt out of gambling forever card

‘Don’t you mean Buywise Sir?’

‘Err, yeah, sorry, er, repetition, you know, – been drinking for four days, – where am I?’

He loses his money. Well, to be fair, 13 year olds shouldn’t be betting- and no mistake..

A couple of suggestions to friends in charge to improve the quality of winter racing. Do away with both Jumpers bumpers on the all weather, as well as ‘racecourse gallops’. It’s time to force the stars back to work in races which struggle for quality entrants. I know you’re all looking at each other round the board table at that one.

Saturday night is predictably good, another beautiful Cotswold pub and a few bottles of the firm’s champagne to reward the team for looking after my clients. They guzzle as if its their last, particularly ‘The Rinser’

Sunday is predictably quiet, although the racing remains competitive. The day starts with the shock news of Dessie Hughes’ passing. A minutes silence is strictly observed as we watch replays of the mighty Hard Eustace, as if we needed reminding! Many Bookies turned their boards off and I didn’t hear anyone talking in the ring. A great tribute to a legend.

One odds on chance at the meeting is all, a load of great finishes, punters and bookmakers alike celebrated a great trainer, the gate staff are the same people the track has employed for years, the views remain beautiful, – the Open became a showcase for two decent fellahs, Phillip Hobbs and Richard Johnson. Little wonder the season tends to revolve around this jewel in the Cotswolds

Put fifty pounds in the box on your way out. Thanks

	Speed Kills! – Geoff… on Speed Kills!
	Ellis on Open Letter To Jenny Williams…
	Donovan Leech on it’s ok to lie- in a goo…
	Ewan Raffan on it’s ok to lie- in a goo…
	Geoff Banks Online on Racing or Lorraine?