[ONEDUNME]

Run an internet search for the words "Ryder Cup punter" and one of the first items which appears is a story about a gambler who in 2006 placed £347,000 on America to win the Ryder Cup.

Well, actually, no it wasn't but that's the sort of sloppy comment I'd expect from the BBC website to honest.

As for the gambler, he's a complete cock and deserves everything he gets. I'd say that the William Hill lawyers would make mincemeat of the guy if it wasn't for the fact that their case could probably be won by a twelve year old.

The gamcare type exclusion thing will no doubt be voluntary and they will have terms and conditions to cover themselves for eventualities such as these.

If he had been allowed to use the account that he'd excluded that I could see a case for his argument but as it was, the fact that he used deceit the bypass the banning of that account and create another one makes him a loser in every sense of the word.

There are warnings on nearly all bookies sites and leaflets in shops etc to try to help you identify if you have a problem and pointyou in the right direction towards help.

Nobody can help you if you choose not to be helped.

I'll end my rant with a quote from the William Hill website regarding exclusion.

Whilst most customers are able to enjoy their gambling, William Hill recognises that for a very small number of customers gambling ceases to be fun. For those customers who wish to restrict their gambling, William Hill provides a self-exclusion facility enabling customers to close their account or accounts for a minimum period of six months up to five years as requested.

The point of my highlight being that they didn't allow him to place bets on the account that had been excluded but on a different account. In fact, this makes their case even stronger because it's not as if the guy wasn't aware that he had a problem because this had become obvious by his previous self exclusion and they will argue that it was entirely within his power to exclude himself from this second account.

If the sums were not so big I'd have said they'd have chucked him a few quid as a sweetener out of court. As it is, they can't afford to lose a test case like this and they'll just paste the cock.