What Does Online Gambling Have to Do with Terrorism?...By Hartley Henderson

[blogguy]

Found this from the Sunday Times in London, written August 13, 2006. Not saying it's proof of anything...just posting what overseas journalists were reporting. I'll see if I can find more....

I'm not sure how to make something a live link. Maybe one of you can cut and paste it and turn it into a link.

Of possible interest is the paragaph you can look for in the middle:

"As The Sunday Times recently revealed, these were the same offices Betonsports had shared with companies linked to mafia crime families. "

On Wall Street: Dominic Rushe: Betonsports founder knew odds were against him-Business-TimesOnline

Betonsports said last Friday that it will shut down its services for American gamblers — a move that surely spells the end for the company. Charged with racketeering and fraud, Betonsports plans to stop operating in Costa Rica and Antigua following a court order for the company to stop taking bets from the US.

Up to 800 people will lose their jobs.

Bets from US customers made up three-quarters of the company’s business.

The bookmaker is claiming that the move will allow it to build sales in Europe and Asia, to help it pay creditors. But analysts are less confident. Bookies would give long odds on Betonsports pulling through.

None of this should come as a surprise. Internet betting is illegal throughout the US — no matter what the online gaming firms would like to believe.

They have long sneered at the US laws on internet gaming, arguing they were unenforce-able. Few sneered as hard as David Carruthers.

Back in April, Carruthers, Betonsports’ now-jailed boss, went head-to-head with congressman Jim Leach in the pages of The Wall Street Journal. Leach is heading a crackdown on internet gaming.

Offshore internet gambling sites, which target the US market and accept bets from Americans, operate in direct violation of US law. This is not theoretical or subject to interpretation.

When a site solicits and accepts wagers on sporting events and games of chance, it violates the Wire Act and the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, wrote Leach.

When consumers give their information to online gaming companies, they are by definition handing over their personal information to individuals engaged in criminal activity, he added.

Sports betting in America has long been dominated by organised crime. Law enforcers say it is often the No 1 money spinner for gangs, ahead of drugs and prostitution. So it is little wonder that the authorities are sensitive on this issue.

Carruthers was having none of it: “I run a multi-billion- dollar public company listed on the London Stock Exchange, and we operate with the highest standards of practice,” he wrote. Leach was relying on an “outdated, irrelevant law”.

He invited Leach to Costa Rica to check out Betonsports’ facilities and see how well run the operation was.

It’s a good job Leach didn’t take him up on the offer. As The Sunday Times recently revealed, these were the same offices Betonsports had shared with companies linked to mafia crime families.

The collapse of Betonsports has left many of its punters in limbo, wondering when or if they will get back the money they deposited with the firm. Then there are the company’s shareholders. With the US business closed, is there really any future for Betonsports? I wouldn’t bet on it.

But this will not be the end of the saga. The biggest question of all remains: why was this company allowed to float on the LSE? Carruthers’ proud boast about his London listing now looks especially hollow. Had anyone asked the Justice Department ahead of the flotation about the legal status of online sports betting in the US, they would have been told categorically it is illegal.

The company would no doubt like to pin this trouble on the mysterious Gary Kaplan — founder of Betonsports and a man with some very dodgy friends, by all accounts. But the Kaplan factor doesn’t get around the fact that Betonsports’ main business is regarded as a criminal enterprise by the FBI.

In fact it seems Kaplan, now in hiding, is the only one who took the law seriously.

[blogguy]

Here's a link to an additional story.

Bet firms fear widening of US investigators' net-Business-Law-Corporate-TimesOnline

I won't cut and paste the whole article this time. It does reference the allegations from the US indictment of Bet on Sports. Again, I'm not saying whether anything's true or false, or mouthing the government's line. Just posting material that can be used for discussion in future posts by Major and Hartley regarding this topic...

"Gary Kaplan and others operated an illegal sports betting business in and near New York. After Gary Kaplan’s arrest on state gambling charges in 1993, he relocated his gambling operation to Florida. In 1995, he moved the illegal gambling business to Aruba, but he continued to operate primarily in the US. The businesses established toll-free telephone services and websites and caused these services to accept sports wagers from gamblers in the United States. In 1996-97, he relocated the operations to Antigua and then Costa Rica. Their primary revenue-producing business was illegal sports wagering in the US.

Among the first internet gambling businesses operated by Gary Kaplan was a computer-based sports book, which evolved into BetOnSports.com. He advertised it as the world’s largest online wagering service. His websites offered illegal wagering on professional and college football and basketball, professional and amateur sporting events and contests.

In 2004, BetOnSports plc, a holding company, was incorporated under the laws of England and the United Kingdom. Gary Kaplan, through a holding company called Boulder Overseas, retained approximately 44 per cent of BetOnSports stock.

David Carruthers was chief executive officer of BetOnSports.com and a director of BetOnSports plc.

BetonSports.com and related entities received taxable wagers of approximately $1 billion a year from 2001 to 2004 and Gary Kaplan, who owned and controlled them wilfully evaded the tax by failing to make wagering excise tax returns.

The defendants have acquired interests subject to forfeiture of at least $4.5 billion including all right, title and interest in BetOnSports plc, its subsidiaries and affiliates."

[blogguy]

I found an article from the same British publication regarding gambling addiction. Since Britain is regulating the industry, it might be informative to the debate to see what their media is saying about this one particular issue...

The human cost of net gambling-Newspapers-Sunday Times-Scotland-TimesOnline

[blogguy]

I know Clevfan and possibly others posted articles related to the arrests in November of what was called a New York gambling ring. It was a group that was using the internet to expedite their process, even though they were located in New York. It would be an example of how organized crime (no mentiones though that the Giordano family here was part of organized crime) could use offshore places to make things easier for themselves. Hartley mentioned addressing that in one of the upcoming articles, so perhaps he can refer specifically to this case in that article...

New York Hits Internet Gambling Operation

[blogguy]

Did you guys here about the Nigerian guy who stole names from BOS and wreacked havoc with the information? I hadn't. If clevfan has posted stuff on that I apologize for missing it. Saw the article and figured I'd post a link. It looks like the information was stolen from BOS...so BOS wasn't involved in anything fishy. It's possible that regulated places would take better care of their information than unregulated places...but hackers are creative. Figured I'd post it here too.

BetonSports ID Thief Sentenced to 34 Months

[Hartley]

Come on blogguy, you hear of people suffering identity theft because they swiped their debit or credit cards at gas stations.

I think this is where you and I fail to really see eye to eye. And this is the type of bullshit I hear from politicians all the time:

In your opinion, if things are done in the open then it is impossible for things to go wrong. Regulation ensures that nothing funny can happen whereas online it all goes into this deep dark hole where evil lurks at every turn.

In my opinion you can regulate and keep things above reproach whether it's online or not online. If there are enough checks and balances in place then things should go smoothly although it's not guaranteed. If the thing is not set up well and there are loopholes that allow shady people to take advantage then they will. That goes for any business and whether it happens on shore, in a boat, in an airplane, in America, in a different country or online. The problem is that the U.S. government has its head in the sand and refuses to listen to arguments as to why regulation can work and what benefits it can create.

You've seen those dateline episodes where perverts go to a house where they assume they'll be able to have sex with a minor and then they are exposed. The internet was just a median for them to do this. Prior to the internet there were still perverts luring children to their home for illegal sex by offering money, candy etc. The problem isn't the internet, the problem is the pervert. Similarly, if you feel gambling is a problem then the problem isn't internet gambling, it's gambling. That's what I've been showing for the several months I've been writing now. What we have in the U.S. is a bunch of politicians who have a problem with gambling. They want all gambling gone but know they could never do it, so they've decided to attack the easiest thing - the internet as a start to their ultimate goal. I guarantee you that if Frist or Kyl had been elected as president that they would have had a study into gambling in general. I know that's the slippery slope argument but I don't trust these guys as far as I can throw them because IMO (and yes it's MY opinion) - when you start voting and making policies for any reason other than what is best for your country and your constituents you make me nervous. And all these guys have proven by their actions that they don't vote based on what's best they vote on personal convictions - just look at my article called why is America based on Religion. Patterns don't lie.

And by the way this is a classic clip by Barney Frank and really lays out the basic issue IMO. It's from Youtube and unfortunately the sound isn't in sync with his lips but the message is what is important:

YouTube - Update: Barney Frank Clip on Daily Show Last night

[Highwayman]

Don’t think logic can be found in answering the question of topic considering the US government has been known to supply weapons and financial aid with tax-payer dollars to terrorist such Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein…let alone finding the shrine etched with the names of the specific American Government officials responsible for aiding and abetting these terrorist’s atrocities.

[blogguy]

Please...wanting things regulated is something we see eye to eye on. Can't imagine where you got the idea I don't think online gambling should be regulated.

I definitely don't think it's "impossible" for things to go wrong if they're regulated though. Jeez. It's not anything we've ever even discussed. Not sure why you would characterize it that way....

You scolded me for saying this (which I never said): "Regulation ensures that nothing funny can happen"

And then you said this: "The problem is that the U.S. government has its head in the sand and refuses to listen to arguments as to why regulation can work and what benefits it can create"

The pieces aren't fitting together there...

I'm for regulated online gaming. I'm for this website creating a coherent vision that can be expressed in the debate. I'm against this website mis-characterizing the other side of the debate when we can win the debate on the facts alone. I'm against using name-calling or derogatory labelling when we can win the debate on the facts alone.

I posted the Nigerian identity theft thing because I found it interesting and hadn't come across it before. I thought I made that clear in the post. Hackers can manage identity theft in all sorts of ways.

I recall the article about religion. I had lengthy posts in that one too because I felt the whole thing missed the point regarding the headline. America isn't based on religion, and the separation of church and state doesn't forbid religious people from being part of the government. I can see having a problem with what these particular religious people were doing. I don't see why we would want to misstate how the democratic process works while making that point.

Can you explain this sentence to me regarding the politicians?

"they don't vote based on what's best they vote on personal convictions"

I'm pretty sure they voted based on their personal convictions on what's best for the country. We can disagree with them. But, they are religious people who think it's best for the country that gambling be illegal everywhere. They were voting their convictions about what's best for the country. Yes, they have a religious agenda. It goes hand in hand though, those aren't opposite things. You wouldn't trust them because they were religious people who voted against gambling? If they were religious people who preached against gambling but then voted for it...I could see not trusting them. They voted what they believe. We disagree with what they believe. Why would anyone think they weren't voting for what they thought was best for their country?

Regarding NBC Dateline...there are multiple problems there. It's not one or the other. The internet has made it much easier for perverts to scout out unsuspecting naive minors. Perverts have always been a problem. Internet access increased the problem. Using the internet to catch these guys helps counteract the problem though. The internet can be used by either end to speed up the process and make it more effective. The internet is both part of the problem and part of the counterattack. You want to go tell the families of a victim that the internet wasn't part of the problem? That's how the bad guy met the kid. That's how bad guys increased the number of kids they could meet. Of course it was part of the problem. Did MySpace make dramatic changes to help ensure the privacy of the kids who post there because they didn't think the internet was exacerbating the problem? Horrible example.

I'm going to bed, lol. If you post again this evening we can pick up the discussion tomorrow. I'll bring the kool-aid...

[The Major]

Blogguy, you can find specific examples of crime in every single industry. It is impossible to argue with your conclusions because in fact, yes, there have been cases or organized crime in gaming. There have been cases of organized crime in every industry known to man. Does that mean those industries should shut up and listen to the rhetoric the government would like to shove down our throats? No Blogguy ,it doesn’t. Does that mean those industry's should "showcase" those rare examples? No Blogguy, it doesn’t.

Found this from the Sunday Times in London, written August 13, 2006. Not saying it's proof of anything...just posting what overseas journalists were reporting.

And then a paragraph later you say

I'm for regulated online gaming. I'm for this website creating a coherent vision that can be expressed in the debate. I'm against this website mis-characterizing the other side of the debate when we can win the debate on the facts alone. I'm against using name-calling or derogatory labeling when we can win the debate on the facts alone.

If you are interested in winning on facts alone you would not support your arguments with articles followed up by a "not saying its proof of anything".

If you are interested in gathering the facts, please do. I suggest you start by interviewing JC. I will arrange that for you. Instead of suggesting that people at this site who have spent many years and thousands upon thousands of dollars trying to fight the rhetoric that the Government has tossed our way, are doing nothing right, perhaps you could take a kick at the can. Actually sit down and get your hands dirty instead of suggesting we may be doing it wrong.

Reading your posts oddly reminds me of the old.......”when did you stop beating your wife”...question.

If you want to create a coherent vision that can be expressed in a debate, create it. If you don’t like Hartley's approach, give it a shot yourself before criticizing others efforts, albeit constructive criticism.

I look forward to your factually based coherent vision to be published on the front page. You have 100% of this site's resources and support behind you. Between you and Hartley I am sure that we can arrive at something good.

Russ

[blogguy]

Jeez,

If we're going to convince voters, or decision-makers that online gaming should be regulated, we have to properly state what the anti-gambling position is so we can refute it. To show that it's "rhetoric" that shouldn't be shoved down our throats, we have to acknowledge what's correct in what they're saying, and expose what isn't. Name calling doesn't do that. Pointing this out doesn't mean I believe the full scope of the rhetoric, or that I'm supporting that side of the argument.

You said, "It is impossible to argue with your conclusions because in fact, yes, there have been cases or organized crime in gaming." I appreciate the change in tone from calling me a koolaid drinker who's spreading myths, lol. If we're going to refute the other side, and make the case for legal, regulated online gambling, we have to deal with things in that manner.

Hartley said in a post:

"So far they have arrested David Carruthers, Peter Dicks, Jay Cohen, John Lefevre and Stephen Lawrence. Which of those is in organized crime? "

David Carruthers was running a company that was created by a mob bookmaker, and was 44% owned by a mob bookmaker when it went public in the UK. I read some financial articles talking about how mad some investors were that this wasn't common knowledge at the time over there. They wouldn't have invested in the company if they had known that. The BOS offices in Costa Rica shared space with mafia companies. Carruthers threw parties for the BOS whales where they brought in local prostitutes and flew in prostitutes from the US. We all know this to be fact even if the newspaper's weren't reporting it (and we ran an account of this on the site right after the arrest).

AND OUR FRONT PAGE ARTICLE WRITER IS SAYING IN TWO DIFFERENT POSTS IN THIS THREAD THAT THERE'S NO PROOF THAT ONLINE GAMBLING HAD CONNECTIONS TO ORGANIZED CRIME, AND THERE'S NOT A CONNECTION BETWEEN CARRUTHERS AND ORGANIZED CRIME.

How much research could have gone into those statements? How stupid does that make us look when we had posted earlier articles detailing the connections? Now you're stating that "of course" organized crime had been involved in gaming. Why didn't Hartley know that?

Regarding my posting of those articles...as I stated at the time, I was doing it so there would be a frame of reference for Hartley's future series. I wasn't running them as "proof of anything". And, there's no connection between those articles and the quote you highlighted about being in favor of online regulation anyway. I don't get that hunk of material at all...

I didn't suggest that the site is doing "nothing right." I was pointing out blatant errors in our presentation that would kill our credibility in any debate. From saying that the separation of church and state means religious elements can't influence the government to creating a subway poisoning that never occurred. If we're going to influence the debate we can't do stuff like that.

How is there any connection between anything I've said and a "when did you stop beating your wife" analogy? Hartley's articles featured misstatements of fact and a tendency to use derogatory labels. If we want to influence the debate in a way that leads to results we all want, how does that move us forward? What does coming up with a coherent vision that focuses on the facts have to do with a beating your wife analogy?

I'll be happy to interview JC. What should the interview be about? If the goal is to find a coherent vision for influencing the debate on regulating online gambling, and he can help shed light on that...great. If it's just to say that money laundering is easier in Vegas than offshore, and it would be easy in regulated online gaming too...I don't see how that's going to help get things legalized. It would just make people leary of the whole thing.

I'd love to help come up with a coherent vision. But, if method of stating the vision involves misrepresentations of fact, outright falsehoods, and a bunch of name-calling...that's not going to get us anywhere. First, we have to know what it is we want. Saying we want a government that doesn't shove rhetoric down our throats is true, but it's not something you can change without pointing out the errors and hot air in their rhetoric. Constantly repeating that people in power are doing this won't convince anybody that regulated online gaming can be a good thing for the country. If we can convince people of that, then the other side's rhetoric and hot air will be exposed.

We have to show how regulation could lessen the influence of organized crime. We have to show how it could take away the potential of terrorists using offshore places to do evil (regulated onshore places would have so many customers that unregulated offshore places couldn't profitably exist). We have to show that elements will be in place to counteract the problems of addiction and underage players.

If we can agree on trying to do that, then I'm game.

[count zero]

I hope we don't have to read many more of these posts. It's beyond depressing to see someone so anxious to submit to a lawless, self-interested institution that has just deliberately robbed most of us twice. I think the lack of any groundswell of agreement with your suggestions shows that most people here are rightly cynical about appealing to the rationality of a government that has showed many times over that it will only undertake actions that are in its own political or economic interest.

On the merits, the argument for medicinal marijuana is a lot more convincing than the argument for offshore gambling, and respectable scientific types have been making that argument for some time. All it has gotten them is arrested. The most effective statements on behalf of medicinal marijuana have come from users who stand up to the government by publicly asserting their constitutional rights and refusing to back down. And the heroes of American history are not those who proposed to work within the system to convince King George to stop fucking with us.

[drunkguy]

Originally Posted by blogguy

Jeez,

If we're going to convince voters, or decision-makers that online gaming should be regulated, we have to properly state what the anti-gambling position is so we can refute it.

ok, everyone who wants online gambling regulated please raise your hand



seeing none, that brings us to the crux of the problem

who wants the U.S. govt to regulate it? Certainly not the bookmakers. They know they will be subject to all kinds of fees, regulations, and taxes. Certainly not the players either. There is nothing like the government throwing a nice little tax wedge in there to kill the profitability on both sides of the counter.

If the U.S. government gets involved, say goodbye to reduced juice. Say goodbye to deposit bonuses. Say goodbye to free deposits and withdrawals. Just not going to be possible anymore. Just not gonna happen with govt taking 30% or more from everyone involved.

And what's the trade-off? To avoid prosecution? I am not going to be prosecuted for placing bets so I really don't give a shit about legal action. For financial safety? Maybe a decent reason but I have been betting offshore for 10 years and have yet to be stiffed one cent. Yes, some of that is definitely luck since some books going under really couldn't be forseen, but nonetheless that is not really that compelling of a reason for me to want the government to come in and muck everything up.

I would not be surprised if one of the first steps in regulation was to create databases of every bet placed, for tax purposes and to identify "problem gamblers". Actually, the first act would be implementing a "sin tax" on winnings. Are these the things we really want to be pushing for? Because the govt is going to have a heavy hand if they get involved.

A U.S.-government regulated environment is not really a great situation and I'm not sure that's what we should be advocating. The industry was in quite good shape before the Carruthers arrest. We should be trying to get UIGEA repealed and that's probably the most government action we should be hoping for. Keeping lawmakers out of the industry is likely in everyone's best interest.

David Carruthers was running a company that was created by a mob bookmaker, and was 44% owned by a mob bookmaker when it went public in the UK. I read some financial articles talking about how mad some investors were that this wasn't common knowledge at the time over there.

That is their own fault. It wasn't exactly top secret information. Maybe 10 years ago you could have used that excuse, but when BOS went public you could have typed "Gary Kaplan" into Google and I bet something about warrants and stateside bookmaking would be the first result you got. Investment bankers go over these companies with a fine-tooth comb and there is no doubt people were aware of the facts but chose to ignore them.

[blogguy]

So what would the heroic thing to do be here Count? What's the plan of action we should follow? I understand that you don't think we should submit to inferiors. What SHOULD we do?

[homedog]

ok, everyone who wants online gambling regulated please raise your hand



seeing none, that brings us to the crux of the problem

who wants the U.S. govt to regulate it? Certainly not the bookmakers. They know they will be subject to all kinds of fees, regulations, and taxes. Certainly not the players either. There is nothing like the government throwing a nice little tax wedge in there to kill the profitability on both sides of the counter.

If the U.S. government gets involved, say goodbye to reduced juice. Say goodbye to deposit bonuses. Say goodbye to free deposits and withdrawals. Just not going to be possible anymore. Just not gonna happen with govt taking 30% or more from everyone involved.

And what's the trade-off? To avoid prosecution? I am not going to be prosecuted for placing bets so I really don't give a shit about legal action. For financial safety? Maybe a decent reason but I have been betting offshore for 10 years and have yet to be stiffed one cent. Yes, some of that is definitely luck since some books going under really couldn't be forseen, but nonetheless that is not really that compelling of a reason for me to want the government to come in and muck everything up.

I would not be surprised if one of the first steps in regulation was to create databases of every bet placed, for tax purposes and to identify "problem gamblers". Actually, the first act would be implementing a "sin tax" on winnings. Are these the things we really want to be pushing for? Because the govt is going to have a heavy hand if they get involved.

A U.S.-government regulated environment is not really a great situation and I'm not sure that's what we should be advocating. The industry was in quite good shape before the Carruthers arrest. We should be trying to get UIGEA repealed and that's probably the most government action we should be hoping for. Keeping lawmakers out of the industry is likely in everyone's best interest.

Finally a voice of reason. I was wondering when/if anyone would bring this up. I was beginning to think that I was the only one that was against regulation.

[blogguy]

All valid points DG, though apparently one of our writers didn't know about the connection...

Should our goal be just to repeal the UIGEA? Not saying I disagree with that. Just asking if that's it, or if there are other goal we should be pursuing. If we want to get the UIGEA repealed, what's the best way you think we should go about doing it. What points should we make?

Should we be addressing safeguards against organized crime involvement in offshore places, problem gambling, children gambling within the offshore world the way it was before UIGEA? Or do you believe those issues had already properly been addressed? One could make the point that a sportsbooks that pays on time, but uses its proceeds in the field of organized crime isn't necessarily the best option. As a customer, getting paid is very important obviously. Some customers might have issues with the fact that companies who are treating customers fairly in this industry might still be involved in other nefarious deeds.

And, does repealing the UIGEA help clear up the confusion about the Wire Act and the other areas where the DOJ and current government believe that laws are being broken? Is it enough to repeal the UIGEA if the government is still going to go after sportsbook owners anyway? The clear downsides of regulation that you point out still might be a better alternative than having sportsbook owners, banking instititutions, etc... arrested for violating these gray area laws. Some states to make it illegal to bet online. That's what Dicks was arrested for...placing a bet in Louisiana or something. New York didn't go through with the extradition as we know. Theoretically, the future world could see those states with such laws being more aggressive about arresting citizens. Legal regulation with crappy juice could still end up being better than the prior outlook with good juice in that sense.

Your thoughts?

[drunkguy]

homedog - doesn't really pay to be "anti-regulation" right now. 6 months ago, sure but it is all a moot point since UIGEA was passed. One thing the govt rarely does is back off regulating something once it starts. UIGEA is regulation, and I doubt we can ever go backwards from there, although i certainly wish we could

blogguy- we don;t need to make any points against UIGEA. Antigua has already done that work for us. What we need is people in power (WTO and other countries with legal gambling) to slap the U.S. govt in the face and wake them the fuck up to reality. Existing international treaties and agreements are already in place to address a lot of this.

The Wire Act is irrelevant at this point, unless the DOJ decides they want to start prosecuting players. Offshore operators are essentially immune to it unless they come into the US (no idea WTF Carruthers was thinking). My condolences to JC, but I think he was the only completely offshore operation ever convicted. All other prosecutions that I can recall had a large stateside component. Plenty of people have been indicted but as long as they stay off US soil they are fine. So that is not a real compelling problem to me.

Should our goal be just to repeal the UIGEA?

Yes, period.

I think the industry was perfect before the Carruthers arrest. No one was really worried about losing money. Most scams and frauds had already been exposed. We knew who the safe operators were. The industry advanced a lot in the last 10 years. Just leave it alone.

What points should I address?

underage gambling? If YOUR kids rack up debt on YOUR credit card, then that is YOUR problem. Govt is never the solution to child rearing. Raise your kids on your own. "Protecting the children" has never in my eyes been a legitimate excuse for prohibiting adults from pursuing "grown-up" activities.

terrorism? that's been addressed ad nauseum already. But if you think prohibiting money transfer from US to Costa Rica has any impact on planes being blown up, you are smoking a lot better shit than me. There are hundreds of miles of unpatrolled border, and the areas that are monitored have secret tunnels so drugs can come across the border...somehow., preventing me from using a credit card in my name to make a deposit to a sportsbook solves that problem? No.

Problem gambling? If you have a gambling problem, seek help. I don't. And to be blunt I really don;t give a shit about people who do. We all have our own problems to deal with. Are we banning alcohol because some people are alcoholics? Apparently a gopher or groundhog is the Pennsylvania state gambling mascot, and until he stops popping up on my TV every hour telling me to buy lottery tickets, the govt has no valid argument that they are addressing "problem gambling".

Organized crime? Las Vegas was BUILT on organized crime. That is somewhat of a circular argument because if you make something illegal of course it is now part of organized crime. Decriminalize it and it is not organized crime anymore. Problem solved. A company like BOS can be a legitimate company with no crime involvement if you let it.

[Hartley]

Blogguy how dare you suggest I purposely made misstatements. I've said David Carruthers was not involved in organized crime and I stick by that. You stated

AND OUR FRONT PAGE ARTICLE WRITER IS SAYING IN TWO DIFFERENT POSTS IN THIS THREAD THAT THERE'S NO PROOF THAT ONLINE GAMBLING HAD CONNECTIONS TO ORGANIZED CRIME, AND THERE'S NOT A CONNECTION BETWEEN CARRUTHERS AND ORGANIZED CRIME.

How much research could have gone into those statements? How stupid does that make us look when we had posted earlier articles detailing the connections? Now you're stating that "of course" organized crime had been involved in gaming. Why didn't Hartley know that?

I don't understand your analogy. There was a local bakery here that was set up from mob money. It has done very well and the owner (who is in the Russian mafia) decided to make one of the bakers there in charge of the bakery because she was very good at what she did and had good business sense. So this baker is now somehow involved in organized crime?

I never said that organized crime has never been involved in online gambling. Don't put words in my mouth. What I said is that the people the U.S. government has arrested were not involved in organized crime. So if organized crime is indeed their big concern with offshore gambling how come we haven't seen mafia people or similar arrested?

Drunkguy, I don't think regulation would be a bad thing provided it's done in the same way that Britain and Antigua have set it up. I have some ideas that I will put in the articles I plan to put up this month. If it's basically going to become another government run beaurocracy and a money pit like the lotteries then I agree with you wholeheartedly.

[Hartley]

Also blogguy you wrote

If we're going to convince voters, or decision-makers that online gaming should be regulated, we have to properly state what the anti-gambling position is so we can refute it. To show that it's "rhetoric" that shouldn't be shoved down our throats, we have to acknowledge what's correct in what they're saying, and expose what isn't. Name calling doesn't do that. Pointing this out doesn't mean I believe the full scope of the rhetoric, or that I'm supporting that side of the argument.

Why is it this site's job to convince voters and decision makers of anything? The articles on this site are 2 fold - opinion pieces and to try and provide information to the readers. Just because I don't agree with a position of the government or anyone for that instance doesn't make it infactual. The government has said that they believe organized crime is a concern with regards to online gambling and I'm saying prove it. If organized crime at online casinos is truly a concern then let's see them arrest someone from the Cleveland Mob or the Sicilian Mafia or .. Don't arrest Jay Cohen and say it's proof that organized crime is a concern for online gambling.

[drunkguy]

Originally Posted by Hartley

The government has said that they believe organized crime is a concern with regards to online gambling and I'm saying prove it. If organized crime at online casinos is truly a concern then let's see them arrest someone from the Cleveland Mob or the Sicilian Mafia or .. Don't arrest Jay Cohen and say it's proof that organized crime is a concern for online gambling.

here's one from 3/6

Suspected Mafia underboss boasts of $1-billion sports betting network

here's an older one

Betonsports and Safe Deposit Sports

"They stated that the ring had constituted a highly sophisticated criminal enterprise controlled by the Bonanno organized crime family and, that it had handled illegal wagers on horse racing, professional baseball and football and other sporting events totaling in two years $360 million."

Bonanno is synonmous with organized crime in the US

There are dozens of articles like these out there. Most of them were posted by clevfan here in the messhall. Hell, probably every week there is a story of a stateside operation getting broken up, and of course they all have an online/offshore connection.

I honestly don't know how you can say online gambling is not tied to organized crime at all. Practically all the U.S.-facing sportsbooks either were originally stateside operations or got off the ground by bringing in large stateside agents. I'm pretty sure all U.S.-based sports gambling falls under the "organized crime" tag, at least in the court of public opinion.

It shouldn't be a big deal though. Like Russ said, there is crime in every industry. Doesn't mean you shut the whole industry down. Organized crime might be involved in penny-stock schemes. Does that mean we shut down the whole stock market? No. You let legitimate people operate and just go after the people that are breaking laws.