UK Parliament / Open data

London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

I have tabled my Amendments Nos. 67 and 68—which are virtually one and the same—as serious probing amendments and as examples of the extent to which one might wish to go to prevent, or attempt to prevent, any effect from betting on the 2012 Olympic Games. I declare an interest as a director of an online betting company called Bet on Sport plc, which floats on the stock market in London, and so I have a small amount of knowledge about these matters. When looking at the issue of gambling in relation to the 2012 Olympics, one has to consider the effect it may have on the athletes. In professional games such as football, which the noble Lord mentioned, horseracing and other sports, we know that within the United Kingdom there is a small amount—and probably a larger amount outside—of what I call cheating. That includes bribery of the athlete or the sportsman concerned to either break the rules or perform less well, to help the other side in one way or another or to bend the result, if I may use that phrase. In dealing with that problem, I may be naive in some areas but I do not think that I am when it comes to the Olympic Games. Let me introduce the issue of drugs. The use of performance-enhancing drugs in the Olympic Games and most sports is still a serious problem. Athletes take performance-enhancing drugs at considerable risk to themselves, both physically and legally, and certainly career-wise. Why do they do it? They do it because of the value of winning. The Olympic Games are all about winning but not completely about getting a gold medal. Coming in the first six or getting into the final can make a huge difference to an athlete’s future career, depending on where he or she is in the structure. I am not saying that no athlete could ever be bent by a potential bet—perhaps an old pro who has been around a long time and thinks he has a last chance of making it—but I would not like to be the person placing the bet. It would not be a good bet. The point I am making is that athletes in the Olympic Games have one desire and burning ambition—to produce a result, to win, and so they are highly unlikely to be got at by would-be punters. Hence, that removes 95 per cent of the chance of gambling on athletes in the Olympic Games causing cheating. The next thing is the reality of attempting to prevent all gambling or betting taking place in the 2012 Olympics—even if we decided that it was the right thing to do. Something over 75 per cent of betting today takes place on the Internet. Not even the Americans have managed to control the Internet in any tiny way. Our company gets 70 per cent of its revenue from North America—from sports betting on North American football league, baseball, hockey and college sport. In North America it is illegal to use the telephone wires to bet. There is something called the Wire Act, from 1969 or thereabouts. The Americans have been trying for a long time to enforce their regulations against such use, and they have totally and absolutely failed. They were taken by Antigua to the World Trade Organisation for restriction of trade and lost—and appealed and lost again, to little Antigua. That is the power of the Internet—and most of gambling and sports betting is done through the Internet. One of the other ways in which to attack it is to attack the banks. Another issue that we must consider is that if we attempt to restrict betting in this country on the Olympic Games by making it illegal for companies that operate within GB, we are legislating unfairly against them because we have removed their possibilities. The big boys will not bother, as they have offshore stations anyway, but the little boys and the smaller people will suffer. Lastly, I make the point that we have the Gambling Commission, which the gambling industry in this country heartily supports. People from the industry may lobby the commission and argue with it, but what the industry wants is to be well regulated and to operate an environment that is strictly and tightly regulated, which does all that it can to remove the risk of cheating and an unequal playing field. So as much as I would like to think that we can insert my Amendments Nos. 67 and 68, what I am really trying to do is to make it clear to Members of the Committee that it is totally unrealistic to think that the proposals could actually be enforced in any meaningful way. I beg to move.

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

678 c232-4GC 

Session

2005-06

Chamber / Committee

House of Lords Grand Committee
Back to top