gaming laws

[imaufo]

EU to study gaming laws

At the end of July, the European Union’s executive (European Commission) has published a call for tender for the delivery of a study on gambling services in the Internal Market consisting of 25 EU Member States.

The purpose of the study is to evaluate how the differing laws in EU Member States regulating on-line and off-line gambling services as well as certain types of promotional games. The study will assess the impact upon the smooth functioning of the Internal Market for these services and how they could restrict the economic and employment growth associated with such services. The study will cover all forms of gambling, including betting on horse and dog races.

The budget for the study is €225,000. After the appointment of the winner of this call for tender, the study should take 11 months to conclude. It will include an extensive consultation with all interested parties.

With this study, the European Commission will decide whether to propose a liberalization of the Internal Market for gambling services. The final decision-making will be done by Member States and European Parliament. Various EU Member States have already objected any attempt to harmonize gambling laws.

EMail: mbruggink@horseracingintfed.com

[phoenix]

The previous ruling in this arena, seems to be the international legal reference...



D-day for BHB vs William Hill


THE long-running battle between the BHB and William Hill over data rights will be determined in London on Wednesday when the Court of Appeal issues its judgement on the case.

Representatives of both sides will assemble in Court 75 to hear the verdict of Lord Justices Pill, Clarke and Jacob on an issue that is critical to the future funding of the sport.

The case dates back to 2000, when the BHB initiated legal action against Hills for allegedly infringing the BHB’s data rights by publishing lists of runners and riders on the bookmaker’s website.

In 2001, the High Court ruled in the BHB’s favour. Hills appealed and the Court of Appeal sought guidance from the European Court of Justice on the interpretation of an EC directive on the legal protection of databases.

Despite an opinion by the Advocate General favourable to the BHB, last November the ECJ ruled that Hills had not infringed the BHB’s data rights.

Wednesday’s ruling will determine whether the BHB can pursue its plans to replace the levy system, which the government is intent on abolishing, with a funding system based on the commercial sale of data to the gambling industry.

[phoenix]

JC hunts for definition of “inside information"

by Howard Wright


THE Jockey Club has started a hunt for one of the most elusive elements in British horseracing in a bid to combat corruption - a definition of the phrase “inside information”.

Once an acceptable form of words has been agreed, it will be used to crack down on misuse of potentially crucial knowledge that is not in the public domain.

Deciding whether there is any difference between a ‘tip’ and ‘inside information’ has been accepted as a key decision for a panel of inquiry set up under the chairmanship of John Bridgeman, who heads the Jockey Club regulatory board and will have a similar position when the new, independent Horseracing Regulatory Authority is set up.

The panel, which includes Jim McGrath, of Timeform and Channel 4 Racing, and former jockeys Richard Dunwoody and John Reid, has a brief to review current arrangements and to identify an appropriate approach to deal with future use of inside information in racing and related betting industries.

Bridgeman, who said on Monday that the potential misuse of “inside information” in connection with betting was a matter of public concern and could threaten the integrity of horseracing, outlined a series of high-profile events that had led to the need for a definitive inquiry.

He explained: “It was identified as just such a threat by the joint Jockey Club-BHB security review that reported in June 2003, following earlier damaging media coverage, including the TV programmes Panorama and Kenyon Confronts.

“The joint parliamentary committee on the Gambling Bill twice raised it as an issue requiring further attention last year, as did the All Party Parliamentary Betting and Gaming Group in February this year.

“In addition, the misuse of ‘inside information’ has featured in high-profile criminal trials involving persons connected with horseracing, as well as in a growing number of cases investigated by the Jockey Club security department, which have involved licensed persons allegedly breaching the Rules of Racing.”

Bridgeman said that further impetus for an inquiry into all aspects of ‘inside information’ had been provided specifically by the creation of the new offence of ‘cheating’ in the Gambling Act, and generally by the new regulatory regime for betting, which is expected to begin in 2007 after the creation of the Gambling Commission later this year.

The inquiry panel, which has already met for the first time, has come up with one possible definition: "Information known by owners, trainers, jockeys and stable staff about the chances of a horse winning (or not winning) a race, which is not generally in the public domain."

However, Bridgeman stressed that this was up for debate, and a wide cross-section of bodies and individuals within the racing and betting industries, as well as the general public, are being asked for their input.

Written submissions are also being invited from government departments, the Gaming Board and other sports regulatory bodies.

As well as seeking a definition of ‘inside information’, the panel wants views on what measures and changes may be necessary to control its use and misuse, whether the ban on jockeys being able to bet should be extended to owners, trainers and/or stable staff, and the questionof more information on a horse, including training, racing and statistical data, being made publicly available.

The inquiry panel will report its finding before the end of the year, when a separate working group chaired by Jockey Club director of security Paul Scotney will have started to put together recommendations on how the use of ‘inside information’ is regulated in the future.

The second-phase report is expected to be out next spring.

Bridgeman said that although the principal focus of the inquiry was on horseracing, the findings and recommendations could be relevant to the regulation of other sports, particularly in view of increased betting on a wider range of activities.

He summed up: “With the growth of betting opportunities now available, there is a clear need for more guidance for owners, trainers, jockeys and stable staff and the racing public over ‘inside information’ and how it can or cannot be used.

“The establishment of this broadly-based panel of Inquiry clearly demonstrates that maintaining public confidence in the fairness and integrity of the sport, and the betting it attracts, is a priority for the whole of racing.”

McGrath said that when asked to join the working party, “as a regular punter I'd no hesitation in agreeing”.

He added: “Consumer confidence is vital to any strong and healthy market. Determining a definitive understanding to suit all parties might not prove straightforward but, in an era when horse racing’s share of the gambling industry is facing increasing competition, it's high time we tried.”

[phoenix]

Victory for Hills in BHB battle

by PA Sport Staff


THE long-running battle between the British Horseracing Board and William Hill over the issue of data rights has ended with defeat for racing's rulers.

The case came to a conclusion at the Court Of Appeal Wednesday morning as Lord Justice Pill, Lord Justice Clarke and Lord Justice Jacob delivered their verdict.

The judgement brings to an end a legal process that began back in 2000 when the racing authority initiated action against the bookmaking firm for using information extracted from theBHB database, specifically lists of runners and riders.

The European Court Of Justice ruled that William Hill should not have to pay for using the final lists, but the BHB argued before the Court Of Appeal last month that the declarations should be seen as part of a larger process.

Success would have enabled the BHB to continue with its plans to finance the sport and replace the existing Levy system by charging bookmakers for the use of such data.

In outlining the reasons for their unanimous decision to allow William Hill's appeal, all three judges admitted that while they had sympathy for the BHB's case, guidance from the European Courts of Justice was clear.

Lord Justice Clarke explained: "I am conscious that...I have agreedto allowing an appeal against a decision which I was inclined to think was correct when the case was last before the Court of Appeal in July 2001.

"The reason for my change of view is of course the decision and reasoning of the ECJ.

"The whole point of a reference to the ECJ was to ensure, so far as possible, that the relevant directive is construed in the same way throughout the European Union."

A further hearing later in the afternoon is expected to confirm costs, with William Hillbelieved to have spent in the region of £800,000 on the case.

However, the greatest cost to the BHB may yet be to come with existing contracts based upon the sale of data to bookmakers in Ireland and other countries.

While the BHB have beenadvised by their legal counsel that these contracts remain valid despite Wednesday’s judgement, a forthcoming court case in Dublin could in theory force the BHB to return payments already received under the contract.

BHB spokesman Alan Delmonte said: "This is a disappointing result, a disappointment that will be felt across racing."

A statement from William Hill read: "William Hill is pleased that the Court of Appeal has confirmed that the judgement of the European Court has found in its favour and allowed the appeal.

"Whilst any future litigation remains at the call of the BHB, William Hill hope that the racing industry will now look forward to developing a valid alternative for the future funding of racing."