![](\"https:\/\/i2-prod.dailystar.co.uk\/incoming\/article31349397.ece\/ALTERNATES\/s615b\/0_Epidemiologist-says-halting-football-before-gatherings-ban-may-have-saved-lives.jpg\")
<\/p>\nRacing industry bosses have launched a petition against \u201cintrusive\u201d affordability checks on punters who lose just \u00a31.37 a day.<\/p>\n
Proposals were set out in the Government\u2019s Gambling White Paper published in April. The first tier of \u201cfrictionless\u201d background checks will be for those who lose as little as \u00a3125 in 30 days, or \u00a3500 a year.<\/p>\n
Second-tier checks will mean more detailed scrutiny for gamblers with losses of \u00a31,000 within 24 hours, or \u00a32,000 in 90 days. Checks will use \u201cpublicly available data\u201d and involve credit reference agencies. Bookies will also be required to ask customers for personal documents such as bank statements and payslips.<\/p>\n
READ MORE: Breeders' Cup horse racing favourite dies of suspected heart attack in front of fans <\/b><\/p>\n
READ MORE: 'Miracle' jockey who died and came back to life now set for new role in horse racing <\/b><\/p>\n
The Jockey Club, which operates 15 of the UK\u2019s biggest racecourses, fears the move could have a \u201ccatastrophic\u201d impact on the industry. Jockey Club chief executive Nevin Truesdale said the proposed affordability checks were \u201ca significant infringement on personal freedom\u201d.<\/p>\n
He added: \u201cIt is deeply disturbing that racing fans may have to prove they can afford to lose what amounts to less than \u00a310 a week having a flutter on the sport they love.\u201d<\/p>\n
What do you make on the proposal? Let us know in the comments section.<\/i> <\/b><\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
The petition registered in the name of Jockey Club chief executive Nevin Truesdale launched on behalf of the racing industry and its customers read: \u201cWe want the government to abandon the planned implementation of affordability checks for some people who want to place a bet.<\/p>\n
\u201cSuch checks \u2013 including assessing whether people are 'at risk of harm' based on their postcode or job title \u2013 are inappropriate and discriminatory. The proposed checks could see bettors having to prove they can afford their hobby if they sustain losses as low as \u00a31.37 per day. <\/p>\n
"We accept the need to help those with problem gambling but more intrusive checks triggered at a higher threshold risks bettors moving to the black market where there are no consumer protections or safer gambling tools. There will also be a negative impact on British horseracing's finances due to a reduction in betting turnover and resulting fall in levy yield."<\/p>\n
<\/b><\/p>\n