Betting Sports Forum: 11 Questions With Chuck Todd
By RealClearSports Staff
RealClearSports recently interviewed Chuck Todd, Chief White House Correspondent and Political Director for NBC. He also serves as contributing editor to "Meet the Press." Formerly, Todd served as the editor-in-chief of National Journal's The Hotline.
RCS: Many of our readers will recognize you as the NBC Political Director and White House Correspondent, as well as the former Editor-in-Chief of National Journal’s Hotline. What fewer readers might not know, however, is that at only 24-years old, you were a co-founder and the first managing editor of the Sports Business Daily.
How did your experience in sports media prepare you for a career in political media?
Todd: There’s the same amount of quid pro quos. Everything is done on the side. There’s sports agents and lobbyists, who probably come from the same DNA. There’s probably the same original Adam for lobbyists; there’s probably the same original Adam for sports agents. Politicians and players, they’re both very good at saying clichés all the time: Just one game at a time; just one piece of legislation at a time.
There’s a lot of differences I think in covering it. But in elections, it’s amazing how many political experts you find that are very into baseball. The statistical aspect of it all and the way elections work, and the way baseball works -- all the sports in general, but particularly baseball. There’s the same amount of passion. It comes with people. Hardcore Republicans or hardcore Democrats have a pretty similar passion for sports, similar to, for instance, college football.
RCS: 47 states out of 50 are running deficits. In the same interview with the Sports Business Journal, you said “[T]he next great revenue generator for government is sports gambling.” A few weeks ago we had a discussion with Governor Jack Markell about his proposal to legalize sport betting in Delaware. He said, “Should we be successful, might other states try to emulate us in their state? They might.”
Do you believe legalized sports betting will spread to other states in the near future?
Todd: It’s going to spread like a virus. The New Jersey government essentially is suing. What they believe is they know Congress isn’t going to change the law when it comes to sports gambling, and New Jersey wants to have a sports book. Right now they can’t have a sports book. So what they want to do is say that that law is unconstitutional. This law that creates that somehow there’s an exception that allows sports betting for four states including Delaware and Nevada.
Now, I’ve interviewed New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine about this. It was the quick question I threw at him one morning on Morning Joe a couple of weeks ago. I asked him about it and he said we can’t get Congress to change the law. I said, “Why? Because Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader who happens to be from Nevada, would never support it?” But Reid’s not going to support some sort of change to law that’s going to hurt Nevada’s monopoly essentially on sports books. But with everybody capped out on the legalized gambling front: lotteries and even casino gambling feels a little bit saturated.
Where is money not staying in the United States? Well it’s in sports gambling, because if you’re not in Nevada you might be gambling with three sites that are based in the Caribbean or in Europe or whatever, and that’s where millions of dollars are going. That’s a potential revenue generator. With so many politicians afraid to raise taxes, or even fees, you go the gambling route. Slots is tapped out, lottery is tapped out, Card games tapped out. So it’s sports betting. It’s going to spread. They’re all going to figure out ways around this federal law or the Supreme Court is going to say what Congress passed is unconstitutional -- that somehow it’s in violation of the 10th Amendment; violation of a States right.
Now with the sports leagues, particularly the NCAA, but also the sports in professional leagues, they’re going to fight this like crazy because they’re fearful of it. But on the other hand, where would the NFL be without gambling? They’ll never admit it, but where would the NFL’s popularity be without gambling? I also consider Fantasy a version of gambling.
RCS: Are there still sports writers you make a habit of reading? And who are the ones, past or present, you most admire?
Todd: Well I grew up reading a guy named Edwin Pope of the Miami Herald. He was a legend down there. Everything for me began and ended with him. Then I came up here, and we were spoiled for a while between Kornheiser, Wilbon and Thomas Boswell. We had Shirley Povich. So with the Washington Post, we were really spoiled. I still try to read Boswell.
RCS: In your book, How Barack Obama Won, you paid tribute to Tim Russert, the man who brought you to NBC. “I kinda feel like Clete Boyer, the not so well-known third baseman for the New York Yankees in the early 1960s. Because the one thing you can’t take away from Boyer is this: he got to bat in the same lineup as Mickey Mantle. Well, I got to work with Tim Russert for a brief period of time; you can’t take that away from me.”
What is it about a good sports analogy that can accomplish so many things, from explaining a political strategy to providing comfort?
Todd: The thing is with sports –- even though and I’ll get an occasional complaint from women in my life: there are too many sports analogies out there and it’s not fair -- it is universal. People get it. It’s the ultimate escapism that Americans still have, even more so than the movies and television.
In politics there are winners and losers and in sports there are winners and losers. It’s just simple winners and losers sometimes. There’s immediate heartache, there’s drama and there’s all that stuff. It’s the ultimate reality show. It’s like politics. It works easily. People who are political junkies are sports junkies. Even if they’re not they have to pretend to be because it’s politically unpopular not to be a sports fan.
I really miss the Peter Gammons column from his Boston Globe days. I remember I would go out and buy the Sunday Boston Globe on Monday. They had Will McDonough doing their NFL column, which always had a bunch of news in it. You had Peter Gammons doing his baseball column. You had Bob Ryan. All these guys have now been swallowed up by television. None of them write as much as they used to anymore.
I’d say I read Bill Simmons, but he’s doing less columns. It always seems he’s doing some damn podcast or videocast this or whatever the hell it is. I just want to read a column again –- his rambling column. Not seven hour chat sessions. Just a 2500-word sports column. As they say, and I’ll leave it at this, something we can get through in one sitting.
RCS: With regards to online media, you’ve said that the ideal news site would in many ways emulate ESPN.com. What does ESPN do better than the typical news site?
Todd: Well I used to say that about ESPN.com two years ago. I’ll be honest. I don’t like the new format. It doesn’t feel as user friendly. It’s trying too hard to incorporate video. That’s just my opinion.
On a total side note here, a lot of websites are trying to incorporate video and text as one in the same. And everybody is waiting for this convergence. Obviously more and more people have broadband and more and more people are comfortable viewing video on the web, but it’s still really the secondary thing to do on the web, not the primary thing, which is to read.
That said, I still think the way ESPN.com is organized is still the best way to design a political site. If I were designing a political website for me I would still model it after some version of ESPN.com. Not quite the current version, but that’s OK.
RCS: A few months ago, RealClearSports conducted an interview with Tony Kornheiser in which he described the vision of Pardon The Interruption’s creator Erik Rydholm."[He]’s a genius. He created everything you see on the screen that’s being borrowed, and I use the word borrowed kindly -- that’s being lifted and stolen by every single network in the world. Erik Rydholm invented that. PTI is a great TV show…Now every network does it in every show they have. All the sports shows do it. The news shows do it. Everybody: MSNBC, CNBC, Fox News, ABC, NBC, CBS. They put people on clocks. They try and do games with people. They run a crawl. They run stuff on the screen. It’s too bad he didn’t patent it. It’s too bad he didn’t get paid for it, because he’d be a zillionaire."
You’re affiliated with three of the stations Kornheiser mentioned. How accurate is his statement? How much of the innovation in political media is driven by innovation in sports media?
Todd: Well, I certainly think he’s over-congratulating himself on that front, but I have heard that quite a few times.
I actually think that cable has failed to recreate PTI and what PTI does well. Trust me I know of couple of instances where we tried at MSNBC and it hasn’t worked. I think we could have done some things differently that maybe possibly would have made it work. There is an aspect that at least in Washington intelligence would respond well to a political Washington show that is truly modeled after PTI. But I actually think the problem is you haven’t seen, and there actually hasn’t been an exact copy. The fact is we haven’t done it. We’ve tried and failed so we’ve gone another way on that front when it comes to supposedly copying PTI. But I do think what sports media did -- and obviously ESPN was the first successful cable show to figure out how to make money and use business and all this stuff -- So of course anybody worth their salt is going to try to look at ESPN and see what works.
ESPN, on television, has always seemed to be ahead in dealing with societies ADD issue. We’re an ADD society now. We’re entering an age in which there’s no more context. Look at the stuff that’s not working on ESPN. E:60, their version of 60 Minutes. All their long form stuff isn’t quite working. But what worked was when they started ESPNEWS, or when they started PTI, or when they started stuff that moves, adding HD information bars that are all over the place and all over the TV. They’ve been very good at dealing with the ADD issue of television audiences. Which of course is a challenge for all cable news audiences.
In many ways though I think as much as these people may want to say it was CNBC that ripped this stuff, I think they ripped some stuff from CNBC. CNBC had to do it because of statistics. And just the tickers and all that stuff. I think that’s where some of that stuff gets started and some of the news programs do try to borrow a little bit from that.
RCS: You gave an interview with TV Guide in which you said, “For a few years I worked at a sports publication. I realized that I missed politics and that you shouldn't make your hobby your full time job.” But there are guys out there who have had success commenting on both. Gregg Easterbrook, George Will and Keith Olbermann come to mind. So is there part of you that’s tempted to put your sports background and knowledge into an occasional column?
Todd: Absolutely. I wrote one a few years ago. I had this idea of entirely remaking the competitiveness of baseball. If baseball wasn’t going to go to the NFL socialized system of fully sharing revenue so that the Yankees and the Kansas City Royals had the same amount of revenue coming in, then I had this idea that, because baseball is about statistics meets strategy, if you have a payroll of a certain amount of money, you end up in a certain division, and you have to compete more often with folks that have this similar amount of payroll. So you force the competitiveness and you force the strategy. There’s a lot more strategy now behind contracts, and how much money you’re going to spend in free agents and all this stuff. And also it decides which division you end up in and who you end up playing. That way the Pittsburgh Pirates, and the Oakland A’s, and the Kansas City Royals might have shots to make the playoffs more often than now.
So bottom line, yes, I do like to slip in an occasional sports thing every now and then. But I keep it occasional.
When I did it full time at Sports Business Daily, what I found was that it was the same story over and over again in the early 90’s when I was doing it. Is so-and-so going to get a new stadium? Are they going to get taxpayer funding? And when they get the new stadium, is it going be Miller or Bud? Is it going to be Coke or Pepsi? You just realized it was just really the same stories on the sports business world over and over again. The market would change, my line would change, the tagline would change, but the stories were the same. And now I went to a ballpark and that’s all I would look at. How much signage they had, who had the pour, who was doing anything original and innovative. So I stopped enjoying sports, and I realized politics is more what I want to throw myself into and sports would be my decompression.
RCS: Not sure you’re aware, but Bert Blyleven has recently started writing for NBCSports.com. With more shutouts than Bob Gibson; more strikeouts than Tom Seaver; more complete games with four hits or less than Jim Palmer, Blyleven has been campaigning for over a decade to be elected into the Hall of Fame.
Todd: Which makes me uncomfortable.
RCS: You are an expert on campaigns. As a player on the Hall of Fame bubble for 11 years, is it possible that Bert Blyleven’s candidacy suffers from a tragically unmarketable name?
Todd: The thing is you can’t campaign for yourself. You know Jim Rice had others campaigning for him. That’s what I think finally got Jim Rice in.
You have to have others do it for you, number one. I am surprised for instance that there isn’t more of a campaign for all of these power hitters of the 80’s to get new respect, in that their numbers in the pre-steroid era are pretty impressive now when you look back on it. The problem those guys suffered from, these power hitters from the 70’s and 80’s, is that when the time came up for the voting in the early 90’s their 32-home run, 100-RBI seasons that they had didn’t seem that impressive when we saw Brady Anderson pop 50 home runs.
Blyleven shouldn’t be doing his own campaigning, but I do think there should be different campaigns out there for how to deal with the hall of fame. For instance, I like Bill Simmons' idea for the Hall of Fame, which is to create that whole pyramid idea. The Hall of Fame is to honor the most interesting, and sometimes it’s the best moments in baseball but the biggest moments, and it’s the history. The Baseball Hall of Fame is the history of baseball. They either have to figure out how to deal with the steroid era or how to also keep people within their eras.
And this is totally biased, but I want my boy Steve Garvey in the Hall of Fame. It kills me. That’s who I grew up idolizing. There was no better clutch hitter in the late 70’s and early 80’s than Steve Garvey, other than Johnny Bench. I’ve been to the Hall of Fame. How is Garvey not there? He was one of the most feared hitters. It kills me as a Dodgers fan that he’s not in the Hall of Fame because he was the best player on the Dodgers. Don Sutton is in the Hall of Fame simply because he kept getting wins. The best player on the Dodgers, on a team that had an incredible run from ‘74 to ‘83, which is basically the years that Garvey was there. And, by the way, Garvey played for the San Diego Padres and somehow helped them get to their first world series back in ’84. And why is he not in the Hall of Fame?
You know sometimes numbers do lie. They sit there and they just judge him by the numbers, and his numbers are ok but his playoff numbers are great. So he deserves it. The problem with campaigning is you can’t do it by yourself. I think everybody gets turned off when somebody tries campaigning for themselves. Other than politics, which seems like the only place where it’s accepted.
Another campaign I’d like to start in baseball is that somebody needs to rethink Greg Maddux’s place in major league baseball history. When you think about what he did and accomplished in the steroids era for a guy that never threw more than 92 miles-per-hour, we need to rethink it. Everyone knows he’s a great pitcher and a Hall of Fame pitcher, but he may be one of the five greatest pitchers of all time, but he was stuck behind the shadow of Roger Clemens who now it turns out might be a phony. It’s been unfair to Maddux his whole career. I think we need to go back and re-appreciate how great Greg Maddux was.
RCS: In the last two years, two sports-related issues have permeated the national political agenda: steroids in baseball and the BCS. Do you think political intervention has helped to bring resolution to the problems?
Todd: Clearly it helped in baseball. As much as I was a cynic about it -- like I guess I didn’t like politicians grandstanding about it, who were they to do this? Don’t get involved -- there’s a lot more serious issues. You know what, I feel better about baseball today than I have in ten years. As somebody who witnessed Mark McGwire’s 61st home run, the one that tied Maris, I feel like that whole moment was snatched away for me. It’s a phony memory now. At the time I thought, oh, isn’t this great. I’m at Busch Stadium and I get to witness that moment and now it’s a moment I wish I didn’t witness and pretend it never happened. So in that respect I think that the intervention worked.
In college football, I don’t know. There’s actually a legitimate reason for Congress to get involved, since a lot of these institutions are public. The government could get involved a little bit here and perhaps claim some version of jurisdiction. Other than gaining access to the BCS I don’t think they can mandate a playoff. Obviously university presidents have always been completely hypocritical about college football versus college basketball when it comes to the playoff idea. But that’s for university presidents to have to reconcile.
RCS: In an interview with the Sports Business Journal, you said fans should care about “the anti-government tide and an anti-business populist movement. There is a lot of anger out there. I would think people in the sports industry should be very attuned to the idea that government is not going to be handing our money, tax breaks or land for teams to build stadiums.”
To what degree has the sports industry been insulated from the economic recession, and to what degree do you think it’s still going to get hit?
Todd: Well , it’s been insulated a little bit, I mean for instance, the NFL is lucky that it’s TV contract isn’t up this year or next year. It’s still a couple more years until it’s up.
I think that baseball is the one that’s going to get hit first. They’re going to get hit hard on this, because it is such a daily grind. Baseball clubs are more reliant on ticket sales. So the economic downturn is going to hurt them.
Now, as far as new stadiums, I think it’s going to be a very tough time. The idea that somehow state governments in some cases, or sometimes city governments, it’s not going to be politically feasible for them to grant tax breaks or give free land or something like these sweetheart deals that some of these people got for their stadiums over the last few years. It’s not going to be the same. It’s not going to happen. They’re going to have to be more innovative with their stadium proposals. In some cases do it themselves. In some cases just be a little more of a friend to the taxpayer about it.
The NFL is insulated from it somewhat because they don’t rely as heavily on ticket sales. You know, eight games a year, not 41. But baseball, basketball, and hockey I think are really going to get hit in the next year. I think you’re really going to start seeing next year.
I look at Washington and I think it’s happened in a lot of the bigger cities -- the good season tickets were never even marketed to individuals. They were only trying to market it to companies, so that they would buy these nice seats and use them as some sort of business expense. Well with businesses cutting back their expenses the first thing to go is stuff like that. And they’re going to have a hard time trying to figure out where to sell these things.
They’re going to have to drop their prices to a more reasonable level. It’s unbelievable. 20 rows back at the Verizon Center is a $160 seat. 20 rows back! It’s a $160! So my brother-in-law and his son really wanted to see Lebron James, so at face value the two of them together spent $320 for a father and son, one basketball game, and we didn’t even start in on the $20 or $40 parking. It costs $40 to park for the Nationals. They actually charge $40. It’s outrageous. It’s just crazy money and they’ve gotten away with it over the last few years because they figure, particularly here in Washington, that everybody is using other people’s money. Well, that isn’t going to work anymore and I think franchises are going to have to realize that they have to see that the fan is going to use their own money, their own power.
RCS: One last question about sports betting. You’re a pretty good basketball player, so hypothetically, if President Obama challenged you to a game of one-on-one under the conditions that if you won, you’d get a 30-minute exclusive interview; but if he won, you’d have to shave your goatee.
Would you accept the bet?
Todd: Oh man, I don’t know. He’s got a secret that is very difficult. I haven’t been able to play with him yet. He said he wants to. We’re just trying to figure out how we can do it so it’s off the record -- this feeling that you can’t do anything with the president anymore.
He’s got a left-handed jumper and he goes left and when you don’t play against a lot of lefties on the basketball court it’s tough. I’m sure a lot of people out there agree. He’s got old guy game and I mean that as a compliment. Old guy game. How many people have gone out there, like some of the 20-something’s that are going to read this -- they go out there and see the guy with grey hair on the court and think, Oh, I’m going to get him. Then they realize the guy passes smarter, gets someplace A to B faster, and then has that annoying set shot that can’t miss. Then, throw in the fact that he’s left handed… forget it.
So, I don’t know. I don’t know if I could risk the goatee.
Plus, are you really allowed to beat the President? Does that work? I think only Reggie Love is allowed to beat the President. Because he would get too much crap from Coach K if he lost to the President.
Betting Sports Forum: 11 Questions With Chuck Todd
Monday, April 27, 2009
Online Sports Betting Sites Buzzing About Possible Expanded NFL Season
Online Sports Betting Sites Buzzing About Possible Expanded NFL Season
Commissioner Roger Goodell is formulating his expanded season proposal that he will submit to NFL owners. While they will weigh the financial ramifications of accepting such a proposal, online sports gambling operators have their fingers crossed that the proposal will fly.
The proposal that will most likely be offered has the NFL cutting out two preseason games and adding two more regular season games. The possibility remains that the Super Bowl could be backed up until mid-February.
That is all music to the sportsbooks' ears. Their clientele is slow to gamble on preseason games, but they embrace the regular season. Two more regular season games would mean millions of extra dollars for these sportsbooks.
"If the NFL expands its season, the potential for increased revenue is immense for sportsbook operators. Not only the land based, but also online gambling sites would have an increase in business," said observer Barry Kepfield.
The players association would have to sign off on any of the scheduling changes, but that might not be that hard of a sell. The players do not like the long preseason, and for those who are playing for the love of the game, the decision would be an easy one.
The current collective bargaining agreement contract runs out at the end of the 2010 season. Any change in the current season structure would become a factor in trying to negotiate a new agreement. The commissioner has already had talks with the union's leaders regarding the issue.
The television networks would also have to be involved with expanding the regular season, but no group will be more pleased for the added games than the sportsbooks. Kepfield summed it up best when he said, "The NFL expanding its season would result in a gold mine for sportsbooks."
Online Sports Betting Sites Buzzing About Possible Expanded NFL Season
Commissioner Roger Goodell is formulating his expanded season proposal that he will submit to NFL owners. While they will weigh the financial ramifications of accepting such a proposal, online sports gambling operators have their fingers crossed that the proposal will fly.
The proposal that will most likely be offered has the NFL cutting out two preseason games and adding two more regular season games. The possibility remains that the Super Bowl could be backed up until mid-February.
That is all music to the sportsbooks' ears. Their clientele is slow to gamble on preseason games, but they embrace the regular season. Two more regular season games would mean millions of extra dollars for these sportsbooks.
"If the NFL expands its season, the potential for increased revenue is immense for sportsbook operators. Not only the land based, but also online gambling sites would have an increase in business," said observer Barry Kepfield.
The players association would have to sign off on any of the scheduling changes, but that might not be that hard of a sell. The players do not like the long preseason, and for those who are playing for the love of the game, the decision would be an easy one.
The current collective bargaining agreement contract runs out at the end of the 2010 season. Any change in the current season structure would become a factor in trying to negotiate a new agreement. The commissioner has already had talks with the union's leaders regarding the issue.
The television networks would also have to be involved with expanding the regular season, but no group will be more pleased for the added games than the sportsbooks. Kepfield summed it up best when he said, "The NFL expanding its season would result in a gold mine for sportsbooks."
Online Sports Betting Sites Buzzing About Possible Expanded NFL Season
Sports Betting Forum: Online Games of Luck Keep Risk Takers at Their PC’s
Sports Betting Forum: Online Games of Luck Keep Risk Takers at Their PC’s
Almost all risk takers should have discovered the phrase “offshore sports betting,” but a few may not be entirely sure what it alludes to. A foreign betting site in effect functions exterior to the rule of any particular country or alternatively it can also mean a computer accessible sports betting website that places its file servers inside the boundaries of a land in which internet based sports gaming is not at this time outlawed. Briefly, therefore, it’s best described as a wagering business active extraneous of the dominion of the country of the purchaser. Internet based gambling sites are by and large governed with the help of 3 institutions. These are titled OSGA (the Offshore Gaming Association), IGC (Interactive Gaming Council) and the Fidelity Trust Gaming Association (the FTGA).
The OSGA are a self ruling watch-dog office which presently oversees the current offshore sports betting business, they endeavor to also grant gamers the means to readily identify dependable organizations to play games on, without stress. It strives to champion the concerns of customers, additionally they do not levy any affiliation costs.
The association is a professional and objective third party company which voices unbiased viewpoints, indicated by customer feedback, unbiased investigation, phone conversations, inside information and in addition offers inside gossip.
The IGC is a non-commercially driven organization. The agency was designed to supply an arena for worried participants to discuss subjects and in addition to advance common concerns in the world-wide interactive sports gambling industry, to establish equitable and stable commercial standards and habits that endeavor to improve consumer faith in interactive sports gambling merchandise and services, also to serve as the sports gaming industry’s global strategy advocate and the IGC also functions as a data depot.
The Interactive Gaming Council have built a reputation for developing trustworthiness, candor also plausibility thanks to the industry ethics it displays, and its appeal for honorable sports gambling sites. The IGC regulates overseas gambling by applying a unique ten-point code of conduct and in addition bills sports gaming sites a fee to feature their logo. Frustrated gamers can, if they wish, state any of their conflicts to the Interactive Gaming Council.
The Fidelity Trust Gaming Association was founded in order to create a standard to reform the procedures of on-line gambling operations. The IGC hope that through associating with reputable businesses, they are able to cultivate an alliance of the fairest and most professional cyberspace gaming operations worldwide.
So, these are agencies that manage the conduct exercised by networked sports betting and which should assist to alleviate some of the trepidation felt by doubters. Live sports gaming sites are nowadays entirely dependable, because personal details should not be submitted and in addition the recompense not to mention the odds are as uniform and fair as in a normal Vegas-type stake. These internet sites cut travel expenditure, but nevertheless preserve the basic essence, only now you can play at your own pace.
Sports Betting Forum: Online Games of Luck Keep Risk Takers at Their PC’s
Almost all risk takers should have discovered the phrase “offshore sports betting,” but a few may not be entirely sure what it alludes to. A foreign betting site in effect functions exterior to the rule of any particular country or alternatively it can also mean a computer accessible sports betting website that places its file servers inside the boundaries of a land in which internet based sports gaming is not at this time outlawed. Briefly, therefore, it’s best described as a wagering business active extraneous of the dominion of the country of the purchaser. Internet based gambling sites are by and large governed with the help of 3 institutions. These are titled OSGA (the Offshore Gaming Association), IGC (Interactive Gaming Council) and the Fidelity Trust Gaming Association (the FTGA).
The OSGA are a self ruling watch-dog office which presently oversees the current offshore sports betting business, they endeavor to also grant gamers the means to readily identify dependable organizations to play games on, without stress. It strives to champion the concerns of customers, additionally they do not levy any affiliation costs.
The association is a professional and objective third party company which voices unbiased viewpoints, indicated by customer feedback, unbiased investigation, phone conversations, inside information and in addition offers inside gossip.
The IGC is a non-commercially driven organization. The agency was designed to supply an arena for worried participants to discuss subjects and in addition to advance common concerns in the world-wide interactive sports gambling industry, to establish equitable and stable commercial standards and habits that endeavor to improve consumer faith in interactive sports gambling merchandise and services, also to serve as the sports gaming industry’s global strategy advocate and the IGC also functions as a data depot.
The Interactive Gaming Council have built a reputation for developing trustworthiness, candor also plausibility thanks to the industry ethics it displays, and its appeal for honorable sports gambling sites. The IGC regulates overseas gambling by applying a unique ten-point code of conduct and in addition bills sports gaming sites a fee to feature their logo. Frustrated gamers can, if they wish, state any of their conflicts to the Interactive Gaming Council.
The Fidelity Trust Gaming Association was founded in order to create a standard to reform the procedures of on-line gambling operations. The IGC hope that through associating with reputable businesses, they are able to cultivate an alliance of the fairest and most professional cyberspace gaming operations worldwide.
So, these are agencies that manage the conduct exercised by networked sports betting and which should assist to alleviate some of the trepidation felt by doubters. Live sports gaming sites are nowadays entirely dependable, because personal details should not be submitted and in addition the recompense not to mention the odds are as uniform and fair as in a normal Vegas-type stake. These internet sites cut travel expenditure, but nevertheless preserve the basic essence, only now you can play at your own pace.
Sports Betting Forum: Online Games of Luck Keep Risk Takers at Their PC’s
Online Betting Sports On Its Way To Legalization In Switzerland
Online Betting Sports On Its Way To Legalization In Switzerland
By Ciara Trenton
Legal Casino News
Add Switzerland to the growing list of countries that are preparing to legalize and regulate online gambling. The country is readying to use the model from the UK to regulate the industry.
Online gambling in the UK is thriving because of laws that allow gaming operators to legally bring their product to the public. Some of the biggest online gambling companies in the world are located in the UK, and now Switzerland wants in on the action.
The online gaming industry is growing rapidly around the world, and Switzerland wants to be proactive in their approach to protecting their citizens. It is a stark contrast to the US government, which has been reactive to the online gaming boom.
In the US, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act is stopping some of the largest and safest online operators to steer clear of the market. That has left US online players having to play at less reputable online sites that still accept their business.
Representative Barney Frank has vowed to introduce legislation that would overturn the UIGEA. The legislation is due soon, but with other pressing needs being attended to, the legislation may have to wait.
Interactive television and gambling over the telephone would still be illegal in Switzerland under the proposed plan. Internet sports’ gambling is currently legal in Switzerland, so adding the casinos and the poker gambling would not be too difficult.
Online Betting Sports On Its Way To Legalization In Switzerland
By Ciara Trenton
Legal Casino News
Add Switzerland to the growing list of countries that are preparing to legalize and regulate online gambling. The country is readying to use the model from the UK to regulate the industry.
Online gambling in the UK is thriving because of laws that allow gaming operators to legally bring their product to the public. Some of the biggest online gambling companies in the world are located in the UK, and now Switzerland wants in on the action.
The online gaming industry is growing rapidly around the world, and Switzerland wants to be proactive in their approach to protecting their citizens. It is a stark contrast to the US government, which has been reactive to the online gaming boom.
In the US, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act is stopping some of the largest and safest online operators to steer clear of the market. That has left US online players having to play at less reputable online sites that still accept their business.
Representative Barney Frank has vowed to introduce legislation that would overturn the UIGEA. The legislation is due soon, but with other pressing needs being attended to, the legislation may have to wait.
Interactive television and gambling over the telephone would still be illegal in Switzerland under the proposed plan. Internet sports’ gambling is currently legal in Switzerland, so adding the casinos and the poker gambling would not be too difficult.
Online Betting Sports On Its Way To Legalization In Switzerland
A realistic look at Betting Sports: It's already rampant
A realistic look at Betting Sports: It's already rampant
By ISAAC SCHLECHT
DELAWARE VOICE
My roommate last semester at the University of Delaware, a Philadelphia native, has learned an awful lot about Delaware in the past few months. He's learned that we were the first state to ratify the constitution, the home of Bob Marley (for a little over a month), and that we're hurting just as much as any other state from the current economic downturn.
Delaware's historic budget shortfall is forcing our elected officials to make difficult decisions -- cutting employee salaries, raising fees and taxes and reducing the size and scope of government.
When I told him that the governor was considering the legalization of sports betting, a $55 million solution, his reaction was remarkable: "Oh, yeah, everyone does that." In fact, he was close to right. Jeff, down the hall, had $50 on Duke. His girlfriend, Katie, had just as much on Pittsburgh.
Sports betting is an everyday occurrence in the dorms of the University of Delaware. "In fact," my roommate told me, "I don't know anyone who loves the game who doesn't throw down a little money."
While its leadership shouts itself hoarse about the need to preserve the "integrity" of the game, the NCAA doesn't appear to realize that integrity would improve if sports gambling were made legal.
Players and teams don't engage in point shaving on a whim: They're caught up with illegal forces beyond their control, and resort to point shaving in order to sate bookies who very often maintain close ties to organized crime.
If sports betting were made legal, the real offenders behind the scandals that wracked Pete Rose in the late 1980's or the infamous Black Sox of 1919 would be easily caught, since players would have legal recourse to prosecute bookies who suggested illegal gaming.
States where sports betting is legal, like Nevada, maintain strict regulations and constant monitoring of the industry, eliminating the manipulation and trickery inherent in "underground" betting.
Dan Wetzel, one of the nation's foremost sports journalists, wrote this past Friday that "one of the best ways to guard against point shaving is to legalize and legitimize sports gambling," because regulation serves as a safety net, often with a fairly high proven rate of success. As Louis Brandeis famously wrote about a very different sort of crime, "sunlight is the best disinfectant."
Ironically, for an organization lead by a former Professor of Philosophy, Myles Brand, the NCAA masks a sizable core of hypocrisy beneath its external pretense of opposition to sports gambling. ESPN, the NCAA's primary network, publishes betting brackets and point spreads online and routinely discusses them on-air. Every year, NCAA teams play in the Las Vegas Bowl, and the NCAA holds a tournament slot for a team that wins a conference in Reno, Nevada.
The stark contradictions between bluster and reality in the NCAA are both logically inconsistent and morally unethical, concepts that I hope Mr. Brand would readily recognize.
Families up and down our state are hurting. Behind each dollar sign and decimal place, there are the faces and stories of real people who are counting on these $55 million for vital state services. There are students like myself, who need a world-class education to compete in the global marketplace of tomorrow. There are teachers and state employees who've dedicated their lives to public service and desperately need resources to continue their life's work. There are families of all walks of life whose need for police and fire protection hasn't dried up with the budget shortfall. The choice is clear. Our government is still shaking in the wake of the greatest economic downturn of my entire life, if not that of my parents as well. Legalizing sports betting will grant our state $55 million of revenue and drive problem gambling and point shaving out into the open, allowing for legal recourse and proper regulation.
The decisions that we make today have real dollar signs attached to them, and from here on out, the citizens of Delaware will use debate, discussion and dissent, the tools of democracy, to hammer out how we will make ends meet on a record-shattering $750 million budget shortfall. The NCAA's misplaced loyalties, shameful strong-arming and fallacy-ridden logic form no part of this democratic equation.
A realistic look at Betting Sports: It's already rampant
By ISAAC SCHLECHT
DELAWARE VOICE
My roommate last semester at the University of Delaware, a Philadelphia native, has learned an awful lot about Delaware in the past few months. He's learned that we were the first state to ratify the constitution, the home of Bob Marley (for a little over a month), and that we're hurting just as much as any other state from the current economic downturn.
Delaware's historic budget shortfall is forcing our elected officials to make difficult decisions -- cutting employee salaries, raising fees and taxes and reducing the size and scope of government.
When I told him that the governor was considering the legalization of sports betting, a $55 million solution, his reaction was remarkable: "Oh, yeah, everyone does that." In fact, he was close to right. Jeff, down the hall, had $50 on Duke. His girlfriend, Katie, had just as much on Pittsburgh.
Sports betting is an everyday occurrence in the dorms of the University of Delaware. "In fact," my roommate told me, "I don't know anyone who loves the game who doesn't throw down a little money."
While its leadership shouts itself hoarse about the need to preserve the "integrity" of the game, the NCAA doesn't appear to realize that integrity would improve if sports gambling were made legal.
Players and teams don't engage in point shaving on a whim: They're caught up with illegal forces beyond their control, and resort to point shaving in order to sate bookies who very often maintain close ties to organized crime.
If sports betting were made legal, the real offenders behind the scandals that wracked Pete Rose in the late 1980's or the infamous Black Sox of 1919 would be easily caught, since players would have legal recourse to prosecute bookies who suggested illegal gaming.
States where sports betting is legal, like Nevada, maintain strict regulations and constant monitoring of the industry, eliminating the manipulation and trickery inherent in "underground" betting.
Dan Wetzel, one of the nation's foremost sports journalists, wrote this past Friday that "one of the best ways to guard against point shaving is to legalize and legitimize sports gambling," because regulation serves as a safety net, often with a fairly high proven rate of success. As Louis Brandeis famously wrote about a very different sort of crime, "sunlight is the best disinfectant."
Ironically, for an organization lead by a former Professor of Philosophy, Myles Brand, the NCAA masks a sizable core of hypocrisy beneath its external pretense of opposition to sports gambling. ESPN, the NCAA's primary network, publishes betting brackets and point spreads online and routinely discusses them on-air. Every year, NCAA teams play in the Las Vegas Bowl, and the NCAA holds a tournament slot for a team that wins a conference in Reno, Nevada.
The stark contradictions between bluster and reality in the NCAA are both logically inconsistent and morally unethical, concepts that I hope Mr. Brand would readily recognize.
Families up and down our state are hurting. Behind each dollar sign and decimal place, there are the faces and stories of real people who are counting on these $55 million for vital state services. There are students like myself, who need a world-class education to compete in the global marketplace of tomorrow. There are teachers and state employees who've dedicated their lives to public service and desperately need resources to continue their life's work. There are families of all walks of life whose need for police and fire protection hasn't dried up with the budget shortfall. The choice is clear. Our government is still shaking in the wake of the greatest economic downturn of my entire life, if not that of my parents as well. Legalizing sports betting will grant our state $55 million of revenue and drive problem gambling and point shaving out into the open, allowing for legal recourse and proper regulation.
The decisions that we make today have real dollar signs attached to them, and from here on out, the citizens of Delaware will use debate, discussion and dissent, the tools of democracy, to hammer out how we will make ends meet on a record-shattering $750 million budget shortfall. The NCAA's misplaced loyalties, shameful strong-arming and fallacy-ridden logic form no part of this democratic equation.
A realistic look at Betting Sports: It's already rampant
Betting Sports Forum: Allowing Athletes In Casinos Not Gamble NCAA Should Take
Betting Sports Forum: Allowing Athletes In Casinos Not Gamble NCAA Should Take
By GORDON WHITE
Celebrations continue, and rightfully so, from Cape Hatteras to the Great Smoky Mountains. A National Championship is worth an extended revelry.
The North Carolina players did themselves proud with a dominance of the 71st National Collegiate Athletic Association Basketball Championship tournament not seen since the days of John Wooden's superb UCLA teams in the 1960s and 1970s.
The accolades showered down upon Tyler Hansbrough, Ty Lawson, Wayne Ellington, Danny Green, Deon Thompson, Ed Davis et al are well deserved. When totally healthy, this was by far the best team in the nation and proved it last Monday night in a game that, for all intents and purposes, was over in the first five minutes.
But before jumping on the Roy Williams band wagon to heap additional praise and superlatives on the Tar Heels' coach, I want a better explanation from him about just why he thinks it is "no big deal" to allow his players, coaches and himself to spend free time gambling. Few, if any other coaches in college basketball, would allow their players to gamble in the Detroit casinos that are so handy to anyone in Motown where the Final Four was held last week.
Does Roy Williams suffer from a severe case of nescience when it comes to gambling and basketball game fixing or is he somehow infected with an ostrich syndrome?
Ty Lawson, the Tar Heels' junior guard who was named Atlantic Coast Conference player of the year, said he won $250 shooting craps in one of those Detroit casinos.
Williams, who said he also gambled in a Detroit casino last week and last December when the Tar Heels played Michigan State during the regular season, said, "I have zero problems with Ty doing it. I went and did it myself."
Williams added, "If we don't want these kids doing it, don't put the Final Four in a city where the casino is 500 yards from our front door."
According to that school of thought, Williams, who probably does not want his players drinking while preparing for a National Championship game, would not allow basketball tournaments in cities with bars. There are very few of those cities in the United States, if any.
Jim Calhoun, the Connecticut coach, and Tom Izzo, the Michigan State coach, specifically forbade their players to enter any Detroit or neighboring Windsor, Ontario, casino, during the Final Four last month.
NCAA President, Myles Brand, said, "I warn against that slippery slope. We prefer not to regulate that. But it is highly discouraged."
The NCAA has rules against betting on sports events but not against individuals gambling with such as dice, cards or slot machines.
Does Roy Williams not recall the greatest of them all, Michael Jordan, who obvioUSly had a gambling problem that became quite a serious embarrassment to the NBA when he played professionally? Jordan is reported to have been a heavy poker player in his college days at Chapel Hill. Oh, but that was no big deal.
I wonder if Williams ever heard of Pete Rose or Art Schlichter, a couple of Ohio natives, who ended up in jail as a result of their sports gambling problems.
Schlichter was the Ohio State quarterback who regularly attended a ColumbUS race track to bet on the horses while his head coach, Earle Bruce, was also at that track betting on the nags. Remind you of Williams and Lawson gambling in a Detroit casino?
Under the Roy Williams' theory, Ohio State should move away from Columbus because the horse track was nearby to tempt athletes.
Maybe Williams should be reminded, also, of Salvatore Sollazzo, Jackie Goldsmith, Irving and Benjamin Schwartzberg, Nick and Tony Englises, Joe Benitende and Jack West. They were each sentenced to prison terms (8 to 16 years for Sollazzo) for their part in bribing college basketball players to fix games between 1947 and 1951.
Coach Williams might like to remember Sherman White of Long Island University, the Michael Jordan of his day, who was sentenced to one year in jail for dumping games while playing for the Blackbirds in 1949 and 1950. Maybe Williams never heard of Ed Warner, Ed Roman and Irwin Dambrot of City College; Gene Melchiorre of Bradley; Bill Waller of the University of Toledo, and many more who were arrested and charged in the 1951 college basketball fixing scandals.
District Attorney Frank Hogan of Manhattan arrested 32 players from seven colleges who fixed a total of 86 games between 1947 and 1950, according to reports. Most of these players appeared before and were sentenced by Judge Saul Streit of New York Supreme Court. He gave Sherman White the one-year sentence. White would have become the first NBA player to make $100,000 a year if he had not committed the crime.
Roy Williams would be well served to remember how Kentucky's great coach, Adolph Rupp, reacted when the fixing scandal first broke in January, 1951. Rupp claimed that his mighty Wildcats that won the NCAA championship in 1948 and 1949 could never be corrupted by fixers.
"They couldn't reach my boys with a 10-foot pole," said Rupp.
But nine months later on Oct. 20, 1951, Kentucky's Ralph Beard, Alex Groza and Dale Barnstable, were arrested for accepting a $500 bribe each to fix a game against Loyola of Chicago in the 1948 NIT at Madison Square Garden. These three athletes played on Kentucky's 1948 and 1949 NCAA championship teams.
Two other coaches greatly affected by the 1951 scandal were Clare Bee of Long Island University and Nat Holman of City College. Both of these highly respected coaches who are in the Basketball Hall of Fame dropped off the front sports pages as their programs downsized and never regained national stature.
Roy Williams should think of those coaches when he says gambling is "no big deal."
full of basketball players that week.
Betting Sports Forum: Allowing Athletes In Casinos Not Gamble NCAA Should Take
By GORDON WHITE
Celebrations continue, and rightfully so, from Cape Hatteras to the Great Smoky Mountains. A National Championship is worth an extended revelry.
The North Carolina players did themselves proud with a dominance of the 71st National Collegiate Athletic Association Basketball Championship tournament not seen since the days of John Wooden's superb UCLA teams in the 1960s and 1970s.
The accolades showered down upon Tyler Hansbrough, Ty Lawson, Wayne Ellington, Danny Green, Deon Thompson, Ed Davis et al are well deserved. When totally healthy, this was by far the best team in the nation and proved it last Monday night in a game that, for all intents and purposes, was over in the first five minutes.
But before jumping on the Roy Williams band wagon to heap additional praise and superlatives on the Tar Heels' coach, I want a better explanation from him about just why he thinks it is "no big deal" to allow his players, coaches and himself to spend free time gambling. Few, if any other coaches in college basketball, would allow their players to gamble in the Detroit casinos that are so handy to anyone in Motown where the Final Four was held last week.
Does Roy Williams suffer from a severe case of nescience when it comes to gambling and basketball game fixing or is he somehow infected with an ostrich syndrome?
Ty Lawson, the Tar Heels' junior guard who was named Atlantic Coast Conference player of the year, said he won $250 shooting craps in one of those Detroit casinos.
Williams, who said he also gambled in a Detroit casino last week and last December when the Tar Heels played Michigan State during the regular season, said, "I have zero problems with Ty doing it. I went and did it myself."
Williams added, "If we don't want these kids doing it, don't put the Final Four in a city where the casino is 500 yards from our front door."
According to that school of thought, Williams, who probably does not want his players drinking while preparing for a National Championship game, would not allow basketball tournaments in cities with bars. There are very few of those cities in the United States, if any.
Jim Calhoun, the Connecticut coach, and Tom Izzo, the Michigan State coach, specifically forbade their players to enter any Detroit or neighboring Windsor, Ontario, casino, during the Final Four last month.
NCAA President, Myles Brand, said, "I warn against that slippery slope. We prefer not to regulate that. But it is highly discouraged."
The NCAA has rules against betting on sports events but not against individuals gambling with such as dice, cards or slot machines.
Does Roy Williams not recall the greatest of them all, Michael Jordan, who obvioUSly had a gambling problem that became quite a serious embarrassment to the NBA when he played professionally? Jordan is reported to have been a heavy poker player in his college days at Chapel Hill. Oh, but that was no big deal.
I wonder if Williams ever heard of Pete Rose or Art Schlichter, a couple of Ohio natives, who ended up in jail as a result of their sports gambling problems.
Schlichter was the Ohio State quarterback who regularly attended a ColumbUS race track to bet on the horses while his head coach, Earle Bruce, was also at that track betting on the nags. Remind you of Williams and Lawson gambling in a Detroit casino?
Under the Roy Williams' theory, Ohio State should move away from Columbus because the horse track was nearby to tempt athletes.
Maybe Williams should be reminded, also, of Salvatore Sollazzo, Jackie Goldsmith, Irving and Benjamin Schwartzberg, Nick and Tony Englises, Joe Benitende and Jack West. They were each sentenced to prison terms (8 to 16 years for Sollazzo) for their part in bribing college basketball players to fix games between 1947 and 1951.
Coach Williams might like to remember Sherman White of Long Island University, the Michael Jordan of his day, who was sentenced to one year in jail for dumping games while playing for the Blackbirds in 1949 and 1950. Maybe Williams never heard of Ed Warner, Ed Roman and Irwin Dambrot of City College; Gene Melchiorre of Bradley; Bill Waller of the University of Toledo, and many more who were arrested and charged in the 1951 college basketball fixing scandals.
District Attorney Frank Hogan of Manhattan arrested 32 players from seven colleges who fixed a total of 86 games between 1947 and 1950, according to reports. Most of these players appeared before and were sentenced by Judge Saul Streit of New York Supreme Court. He gave Sherman White the one-year sentence. White would have become the first NBA player to make $100,000 a year if he had not committed the crime.
Roy Williams would be well served to remember how Kentucky's great coach, Adolph Rupp, reacted when the fixing scandal first broke in January, 1951. Rupp claimed that his mighty Wildcats that won the NCAA championship in 1948 and 1949 could never be corrupted by fixers.
"They couldn't reach my boys with a 10-foot pole," said Rupp.
But nine months later on Oct. 20, 1951, Kentucky's Ralph Beard, Alex Groza and Dale Barnstable, were arrested for accepting a $500 bribe each to fix a game against Loyola of Chicago in the 1948 NIT at Madison Square Garden. These three athletes played on Kentucky's 1948 and 1949 NCAA championship teams.
Two other coaches greatly affected by the 1951 scandal were Clare Bee of Long Island University and Nat Holman of City College. Both of these highly respected coaches who are in the Basketball Hall of Fame dropped off the front sports pages as their programs downsized and never regained national stature.
Roy Williams should think of those coaches when he says gambling is "no big deal."
full of basketball players that week.
Betting Sports Forum: Allowing Athletes In Casinos Not Gamble NCAA Should Take
Betting Sports is stimulus bill for lobbyists' lobby
Betting Sports is stimulus bill for lobbyists' lobby
By RON WILLIAMS
The News Journal
It's not often we see the Legislature and the governor's office in equal states of befuddledum over a single subject.
In what's turning into the worst fiscal crisis the state has faced -- and remember the Markell credo, "it may get worse" -- instead of dealing with personnel salary cuts, service disruptions and hospital closings, the entire General Assembly and Gov. Markell's administration is tied in knots with how to raise new bucks with increased gambling. But naturally, at least in Delaware, the obstructionists to accomplishing
this are -- rim shot, please -- are the existing casino owners.
Of course, there are also the various legislative types in Dover with relatives, friends and extended families who have employment connections to the racinos. You won't be hearing these people supporting gambling competition in the state would be healthy for everyone, including the taxpayers.
Then there are those like Speaker of the House Bob Gilligan, a close personal friend of Delaware Park owner Bill Rickman -- who also owns soon-to-be-competition-to-Delaware Ocean Downs in Maryland -- who, by all accounts, has put his public position ahead of his Rickman friendship. At least that's what he's told his Democratic caucus members. A couple years ago, Gilligan was in line for a top shelf executive job at Delaware Park. It never happened.
Then we have Rep. Bill Oberle, who concedes he has a family conflict in this matter because his wife sells trinkets to Delaware Park and his daughter works there.
It's difficult to keep track of the in-laws, cousins and neighbors of legislators who also owe their living to the slots machines. (Forget the ponies. They're going the way of newspapers any day now.)
The House lawmakers, including Majority Leader Pete Schwartzkopf, take great umbrage at the suggestion they are being strong-armed by the Monopoly Three. "I almost couldn't get that bill out of committee," Schwartzkopf said. "I had to agree not to work the bill that night to get it out." He also says he badly wants a new casino in Sussex, like the one planned by Del Pointe in Millsboro.
Schwartzkopf was behind authorizing a study of sports gambling venues outside the Monopoly Three and whether table games are a viable source of income. (Any takers on that study's outcome?) There is also the minor matter of whether they would be constitutional under the existing language. And we're still waiting for a Supreme Court ruling on the legality of what we already have.
The governor wanted the House to pass the bill before the two-week Easter recess so the Senate had a chance at it. That didn't happen. What mysteriously did happen is Schwartzkopf told the governor's office to work out a compromise while the House was on holiday leave. The problem with that, of course, is the governor's office doesn't vote on the bill, or any compromise. The bill is from the governor. Ifit were up to only him there'd be no compromise (although I think Markell has seen the light about adding three new casinos) and a sports betting bill with 10 free-standing parlors would be on his desk.
But let's not forget the real stars of this legislative ping-pong: the Monopoly Three and the Delaware Lobbyist Stimulus Package. As far as they are concerned they won the first round. And they did it without having to prove their wild, unsubstantiated threats, like having to go bankrupt or out of business if they're forced to pay 8 percent more of their take to the state.
The Monopoly Three used these absurd sob stories to especially influence the uninitiated rookie lawmakers, who apparently are deathly afraid of being blamed for putting Harrington Slots in Chapter 11. Don't worry, guys. You'll see pigs fly first.
But if they really can't make it work on their current revenue, I know a company or two that would be tickled to take the racinos off their hands.
Betting Sports is stimulus bill for lobbyists' lobby
By RON WILLIAMS
The News Journal
It's not often we see the Legislature and the governor's office in equal states of befuddledum over a single subject.
In what's turning into the worst fiscal crisis the state has faced -- and remember the Markell credo, "it may get worse" -- instead of dealing with personnel salary cuts, service disruptions and hospital closings, the entire General Assembly and Gov. Markell's administration is tied in knots with how to raise new bucks with increased gambling. But naturally, at least in Delaware, the obstructionists to accomplishing
this are -- rim shot, please -- are the existing casino owners.
Of course, there are also the various legislative types in Dover with relatives, friends and extended families who have employment connections to the racinos. You won't be hearing these people supporting gambling competition in the state would be healthy for everyone, including the taxpayers.
Then there are those like Speaker of the House Bob Gilligan, a close personal friend of Delaware Park owner Bill Rickman -- who also owns soon-to-be-competition-to-Delaware Ocean Downs in Maryland -- who, by all accounts, has put his public position ahead of his Rickman friendship. At least that's what he's told his Democratic caucus members. A couple years ago, Gilligan was in line for a top shelf executive job at Delaware Park. It never happened.
Then we have Rep. Bill Oberle, who concedes he has a family conflict in this matter because his wife sells trinkets to Delaware Park and his daughter works there.
It's difficult to keep track of the in-laws, cousins and neighbors of legislators who also owe their living to the slots machines. (Forget the ponies. They're going the way of newspapers any day now.)
The House lawmakers, including Majority Leader Pete Schwartzkopf, take great umbrage at the suggestion they are being strong-armed by the Monopoly Three. "I almost couldn't get that bill out of committee," Schwartzkopf said. "I had to agree not to work the bill that night to get it out." He also says he badly wants a new casino in Sussex, like the one planned by Del Pointe in Millsboro.
Schwartzkopf was behind authorizing a study of sports gambling venues outside the Monopoly Three and whether table games are a viable source of income. (Any takers on that study's outcome?) There is also the minor matter of whether they would be constitutional under the existing language. And we're still waiting for a Supreme Court ruling on the legality of what we already have.
The governor wanted the House to pass the bill before the two-week Easter recess so the Senate had a chance at it. That didn't happen. What mysteriously did happen is Schwartzkopf told the governor's office to work out a compromise while the House was on holiday leave. The problem with that, of course, is the governor's office doesn't vote on the bill, or any compromise. The bill is from the governor. Ifit were up to only him there'd be no compromise (although I think Markell has seen the light about adding three new casinos) and a sports betting bill with 10 free-standing parlors would be on his desk.
But let's not forget the real stars of this legislative ping-pong: the Monopoly Three and the Delaware Lobbyist Stimulus Package. As far as they are concerned they won the first round. And they did it without having to prove their wild, unsubstantiated threats, like having to go bankrupt or out of business if they're forced to pay 8 percent more of their take to the state.
The Monopoly Three used these absurd sob stories to especially influence the uninitiated rookie lawmakers, who apparently are deathly afraid of being blamed for putting Harrington Slots in Chapter 11. Don't worry, guys. You'll see pigs fly first.
But if they really can't make it work on their current revenue, I know a company or two that would be tickled to take the racinos off their hands.
Betting Sports is stimulus bill for lobbyists' lobby
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
