|Mess Hall Online Sportsbook Discussion|
| ||LinkBack||Thread Tools|
Wagering Info in the General Interest Press - Here we Go Again...By Nelson Lardner
Sports Editor of the Los Angeles Times for 25 years, Bill Dwyre has subsequently remained active with the Times since he left his editor's post in 2006. Dwyre keeps his hand in with a twice-weekly sports column in the Times.
One of last week's pieces was directly related to a pet peeve of Dwyre's . . . the publication of betting information within the sports section of a general-interest daily. Entitled "Sports Sections Walk A Fine Line, Too", you can read it, here: Sign Up. We urge its absorption. There'll be no test, but familiarity with its content will aid in enjoyably understanding the comments to come.
We're not in full agreement with everything Mr. Dwyre ever wrote, but he's a pro's pro, and deserving of full respect. That said, we have some significant issues with this piece, and will proceed in that direction.
But one wrinkle we find so interesting is that Dwyre's cause goes back a long way. And it's ironic, since the Chicago Tribune purchased the Los Angeles Times in 2000, that the man who first molded the Chicago Tribune into a great newspaper also had problems with gambling data gracing his sports pages.
That would be Joseph Medill, one of the most renowned newspaper publishers in the history of general-interest American dailies. Moving quickly and decisively after essentially assuming control of the Trib's editorial policies in mid-1855, Medill became a key operative in Abraham Lincoln's eventual election as U. S. President in 1860 . . . and even became Mayor of Chicago from 1871 to 1873, in the wake of the Great Fire.
We drag Medill into this, for as noted in John McPhaul's classic "Deadlines and Monkeyshines":
"(Medill) disliked the sports section. 'Gambling pages,' he said scornfully, and grudgingly gave space to athletic events only because their absence would have reduced circulation.
"A Medill anti-gambling crusade was a prime factor in a temporary shutdown of horse racing in Chicago. A casuality was the American Derby . . . In a distinctly unTribune like display . . . the sports editor, named Thompson, sought to upset his publisher's victory. (Local merchants) agreed the Derby should be restored, (as a) great shot in the arm for the city's economy. Smugly, editor Thompson set forth their views in a lengthy story.
With the article in hand . . . a furious Medill descended on the sports desk, and (fired) Thompson - and everyone else."
Medill could indulge himself in such isolated Quixotic jousts, bucking the twin tides of public desires and demands. Dwyre fills this role today, self-described as "an advocate of keeping betting lines and gambling information out of the (sports) section".
Dwyre's hypothetical story about the fictional arrest of citizens betting on sports is a giant step down an illogical path. Stop, right there. It isn't against the law for one citizen on the street to engage another citizen on the street in a wager - based on clear, mutually-agreed terms - on a sporting event. If it were, you might see arrests on golf courses, over bridge tables, and at private penny-ante neighborhood poker games throughout America. But you don't. Why? Because in broad terms, it's NOT illegal to make a bet.
Now, outside of Nevada, it IS illegal in most corners of America to make book on sporting events. And that state of affairs places the legal burden where it belongs - on those who have set themselves up to grind out percentage profits on sports wagers handled in volume - NOT on the private citizen who wants to bet on Notre Dame once in a while.
Since the bulk of Dwyre's argument is based on the dalse assumption that individual bettors are flagrant lawbreakers (they're clearly not, even when they're dealing with illegal bookmakers), we're left to deal with Dwyre's trio of supporting arguments (held by the vast majority) that he dismisses as paper tigers:
(1) "People want it".
They surely do. This is a significant constituency to be served. For Dwyre to loosely categorize this desire for information with a desire to see topless women on page 3 is disingenuous.
(2) "Everybody gambles".
To classify such information as "contributing to the misunderstanding and sugarcoating of a possible crime" is a considerable reach, in a world in which state lotteries float quite a few government boats - and legalized casinos (outside of Nevada!) and racetracks are happily humming along, thanks.
(3) "It is useful information".
Dwyre says, "The Pacers by 11 over the Cavaliers in February is useful for no other purpose than to bet."
Of course, this is a gruesomely bad example, given the realities of recent history, but taking it as face value, it's a legitimate indication that (a) the Pacers are a high-percentage favorite to capture this game outright, and (b) if you as a consumer with a choice in your TV sports viewing on that particular evening, and you're not a fan of either team, you might seek out an event which promises to be more competitive.
I hear the judge dismissing all charges, and Mr. Dwyre's stuck with the court costs.
Mr. Dwyre would be well-advised to carry on this crusade from a different direction. The handling of news revolving around sporting-interest issues in the NEWS pages of our general-interest dailies (with the Tim Donaghy case serving as a fine example) could be crafted and executed with much more precision than is currently being displayed.
Meanwhile, the current Times sports editor, Randy Harvey, is stepping up coverage of sports gambling in the Times' sports pages. As Dwyre acknowledges, "Harvey has taken the modernist view that all this gambling stuff is out there, and our responsibility is to address it, not ignore it. That is a persuasive argument."
We couldn't agree more.
Our local paper quit posting football lines shortly after the WA St anti-gambling law kicked in. Unreal! Seems like most fans would like to know how much teams are "officially" favored by even if they aren't gamblers.
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 14:32:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Jay Graziani" <email@example.com>
Subject: RE: Sports sections walk a fine line too
While your reputation as a journalist is stellar, I take issue with your recent article of July 28th "Sports sections walk a fine line too". Having been connected tangentially to the sports gambling industry for some time, I must point out that your article, and particularly the hypothetical example found therein, is based on incorrect assumptions.
Firstly, it is NOT illegal to place a wager on a sporting event throughout the United States. To my knowledge, there has been a grand total of ONE arrest of someone placing a wager on the internet (the preferred media of gamblers nowadays), which was not prosecuted under federal law, but instead under laws of the state of South Dakota. Notably this was punishable only by a small fine.
Likewise, people betting with "corner bookies" are nearly never prosecuted. That is, of course, because there is no federal regulation against placing a bet. There are regulations regarding the taking of bets, which are prosecuted quite vigorously. But for the bet maker, the "Moe and Curly" of your narrative, the legal implications are practically nil. Your hypothetical example would carry much more weight if it was even a remotely probable occurrence.
Secondly, your assertion that sports gambling is legal only in Nevada is also false. Perhaps you aren't familiar with the SportsAction game from the Oregon lottery (you can find details here: http://www.oregonlottery.org/sasb/). While recently discontinued (in order to bow down to the NCAA), this state-sponsored lottery allowed wagering against the pointspread in NFL games as recently as last football season. Furthermore, Delaware also has an exemption in place allowing them to operate sports gambling operations, though not currently acted upon.
Current law regulating sports gambling is mostly governed by the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (see details here: Professional Amateur Sports Protection Act Gambling Laws United States) Notably, the US Dept of Justice opposed this Act as an intrusion upon states rights (which it most certainly is). However, the law targets only those who "sponsor, operate, advertise, or promote...a lottery, sweepstakes, or other betting, gambling, or wagering scheme". Your subjects Moe and Curly (and even Larry or Shemp) are not affected by this federal statute in the least.
While state laws do indeed vary, your broad statements about the legality of sports gambling in the United States is, at best, misinformed.
Using betting lines for friendly wagers, office pools, etc, may be quite legal in many jurisdictions, and if not legal, it is certainly not prosecuted with any zeal. You may have your own opinions regarding the ethical and moral implications of sports gambling (and it certainly seems you do), but those are best left for the opinion page and not as directives for running your sports section.
I agree that gambling by the punter is legal at the Federal level. But many states have filled that gap. Its a misdemeanor to gamble online in Indiana, but a felony if you do it as part of a conspiracy, whatever that means (state legislators aren't the brightest bulbs), a misdemeanor in Illinois, not sure what the penalty is in Minnow's state of residence....I haven't done a 50 state blue sky survey on this one, but a lot of us are breaking the law, albeit a misdemeanor....but if each count is treated separately, whoa nellie
|Thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|Tim Donaghy - By The Numbers...By Nelson Lardner||Rogthedodger||Mess Hall||7||07-28-2007 11:01 AM|
|Around The Horn - What's Going On Around These Parts?...By Nelson Lardner||Rogthedodger||Mess Hall||3||06-29-2007 02:21 AM|
|Super Bowl XLI - What We've Learned...By Nelson Lardner||Rogthedodger||Mess Hall||1||04-18-2007 04:53 PM|
|I'm Just The Piano Player In The Bordello...By Nelson Lardner||Rogthedodger||Mess Hall||2||02-22-2007 06:47 PM|
|New, Under The Sun - Gulfstream Park, '07...By Nelson Lardner||Rogthedodger||Mess Hall||3||01-25-2007 01:23 PM|