Ajay-Robbie

An open challenge to @jranoyes, @mattzarb and @WillProchaska. What do you say to a proper, public debate? You three on one side. @DanielWaugh6, @chrisgambler247 and me on the other. @nickluck has always struck me as fair, knows racing and betting inside out, and would be an ideal independent host assuming he’d be willing. No echo chamber. No friendly panel. No carefully selected audience. No hiding behind 280-character exchanges. Just three against three, equal time, a neutral chairman and the evidence on the table. Let’s examine the claims and statistics that are repeatedly being used to influence gambling policy and see which actually survive scrutiny. Let’s debate the differences between gambling products and their relative harms. Let’s debate affordability and financial-risk checks. Advertising. The black market. Gambling-related suicide statistics. The GSGB and the 1.3/1.4 million figure. Racing and the consequences of reform for its 85,000+ directly and indirectly supported jobs. And let’s discuss something that receives considerably less attention: Funding. Relationships. Commercial interests. And who may ultimately benefit from the regulatory architecture being advocated. That includes the documented connections between campaign organisations, funders, advisers, technology businesses and Parliamentary activity. Nobody gets ambushed. Sources can be supplied in advance. Any factual claim should be capable of being challenged by either side. You regularly say that your position is evidence-led. Good. Let’s test the evidence. And let’s do it publicly, in full, with neither side controlling the room. I’m perfectly prepared to have my own arguments challenged in exactly the same way. So here’s the challenge: Will you three debate us three. YES or No? If there’s a genuine scheduling problem, fine. Name alternative dates. If you don’t like the proposed chairman, suggest another genuinely independent one. But let’s not pretend that another one-sided conference panel is a substitute for having the arguments tested by informed people who disagree with you. You have spent considerable time asking Government and Parliament to accept your evidence. Are you prepared to defend it when knowledgeable opponents are sitting across the table? @jranoyes, @mattzarb, @WillProchaska, the invitation is open. My prediction is that there will be no acceptance. I’d genuinely like you to prove me wrong. Because this debate is too important for British racing, consumers and public policy to remain a conversation in which one side largely talks to itself. Over to you.