[clevfan]

Kelly venture with Web site not worth it

11/18/2005
BUFFALO NEWS

By BOB DICESARE

Who do you like this weekend, Jim Kelly? Give me some guidance. Who do you think scores first in the Indy-Cincinnati game, and is it a touchdown, a field goal or a safety? What will be the highest scoring quarter in New England against New Orleans? Do you have any insight on that one? It's a toughie, but I'm intrigued.
Come on now, Jimbo. Don't hold back. Give me the dope. My faith is with you after reading your welcome message on the bookie's Web site, a profile that concludes with you urging clients to gamble responsibly. So I'm figuring you must know something I don't, you being a Hall of Fame quarterback and all, because it never dawned on me that betting that a safety will account for the first points an NFL game could be construed as a responsible wager. But at 5,000-to-1, I'm more than a little bit interested.

Give me some direction, Jimbo. Point me toward the land of financial independence. Baby needs a new pair of shoes.

People are saying they can't understand why you're dirtying your name, sullying your reputation, to raise some fun money by pimping for an illegal Internet gambling operation. They're wondering why someone of your stature would stoop to such an endeavor when just being Jim Kelly is still worth $1 million a year without playing cutesy with the law.

I'm not one of those people. I think I understand your motivations. Greed and ego in tandem are a potent combination. We learned that when your fling with the restaurant busted and you left all those vendors hanging, hid behind the corporate structure, even though you had the wherewithal and then some to make good on the debts. That escapade brushed more than a little taint on your image as a blue-collar kind of guy, just one of us.

I'd urge you to think twice about this new venture, except that would assume you've thought about it once, and I'm not ready to take that leap. So proud are you of your association with the cyber underworld that your only comment through a spokesperson is no comment. Now there's a ringing endorsement. Where do I sign up?

So certain are you this is all on the personal up-and-up that your contract with the company ostensibly grants you absolution in the event legal problems arise. Which strikes me as kind of odd, something like the drug peddler telling the distributor, "If I get nabbed, you take the hit." Do you think, if the feds call in all the chips, that this little side agreement secures you any legal leniency? Register me as skeptical.

I keep waiting for the hammer to come down on all these Internet books that have evaded the law through the luxury of distance. You have to figure they're next up on the agenda, Congress finally having resolved baseball's steroids scandal to its liking.

Doesn't it make sense there would be a federal crackdown on enterprises that illegally shift multi-millions out of the country? You'd have to admit, offshore gambling's an easier mark than the drug trade. And when it happens, what makes for bigger headlines? Tossing out the unrecognizable names of the bookmakers, or simultaneously roasting the feet of the celebrities so willing to make a quick and easy buck as absentee touts? Believe me, the feds weren't after Victor Conte.

Come on, Jim, I know you're smarter than this. If you can read a zone blitz in a millisecond you should be able to recognize that this is a throw into triple-coverage, disaster waiting to happen. It's shady as it is, luring people into long-term no-win propositions offered by casinos and bookmakers alike. Doubly so when it's illegal to begin with. Think about it. Would you front for a Buffalo book if the price was right. Can't see it.

You need the money? We'll pass the hat. The Wall of Fame already has its fill of scandal.