IANAL, and I am not the one being quoted... with that said, it seems to me that you're reading way too much into that statement, and in the process, more-or-less ignoting the context. To me, what's being implied here is precedent...
IANALE, but my understanding is that precedent, though a primary principle of common law legal systems, is of somewhat lesser importance in systems arising from other traditions. That's not to say the ruling cannot possibly have any significance, only that the bookmakers' windows are still open.
