U.S. Supreme Court tosses sports gambling ban

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

We will see, my friend. I hope you are right. I also hope you remember what you said if and when a scandal happens.

By the way, would you say Pete Rose was rather well-off and had prospects for much, much more when he succumbed to temptation? Or was he hard up at the time? A legitimate question, for I don't know for sure.

So, you argue that athletes make too much money to indulge? ALL athletes in ALL sports? And nobody goes through his wad quickly and foolishly? Hmmm.

Rose, I do believe should have been banned. I have always maintained that. He did admit to betting on baseball.
But even his most die-hard critics have never been able to show that his bets influenced how he played or managed.

Every professional sport prohibits its athletes from betting on that sport or all sports.

I hope I am correct too. These kinds of scandals eat at the integrity of the game.

But I think gambling now being legal actually makes this sort of thing less probable. These sportsbooks are worth hundreds of millions and in some cases billions. If they were to be caught up in a scandal, it could threaten their business, which is the last thing they want.

[Boomcoach]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

We will see, my friend. I hope you are right. I also hope you remember what you said if and when a scandal happens.

By the way, would you say Pete Rose was rather well-off and had prospects for much, much more when he succumbed to temptation? Or was he hard up at the time? A legitimate question, for I don't know for sure.

So, your argument is that athletes make too much money to indulge? ALL athletes in ALL sports? And nobody goes through his wad quickly and foolishly? Hmmm.

There is no indication that Rose accepted money to throw games. The charge was that he bet on Reds games while he was player/coach.

I would agree that vigilance will be needed to avoid players getting involved with gambling interests, but that was already extant, which is why Rose was banned, well before anything like this was legalized.

I would respectfully disagree, however, with rudel that even league minimum players are too well paid to be tempted. It is not unusual for players to get into money issues, even with what may seem to be bountiful salaries.

To some extent, I think that the sports books have only themselves to blame if they make short term prop bets easily available and well known and they seem to get bit on the butt occasionally.

[Westheim]

Since c.1920 the rule was: if you bet on a game in which you have a duty to perform, you're getting tossed. It doesn't matter whether he bets on the Reds or the Mets when the Mets play the Reds - if he bets, his job goes to shreds.

I do not know to what extent that is true in the other sports.

[RochGull]

spammer removed.

[Déjà Bru]

It is incredible to me how dumb this is. Are we that stupid as a people to never learn from history? To throw out what previous generations learned for the sake of today's profits and pleasure?

I won't link to the New York Times article that I just read — it's been frowned upon to link to a paywalled news service — but here is the gist:

There are two main concernsabout legalized sports betting and the N.F.L.: first, that the game itself could be corrupted if players, coaches or referees “fix” games to help gamblers, and second, that users may risk developing gambling addictions with the prevalence of so many options for betting.

Plain and simple.

Sports betting scandals have happened in the past; what makes this go-round any different? Are we aware of this and just want to wish it away? What happens to the integrity of the sport itself in this case?

And, of course, the increased crime and strain on the social safety net that will result as fools and addicts impoverish themselves at the hands of a business that most certainly knows what it is doing. The odds are against you, folks. That's how they make money.

Then there is this:

Some with close ties to the league aren’t happy about the changes in recent years. In a conference call with reporters, the former Indianapolis Colts head coach Tony Dungy said that he didn’t support the N.F.L.’s new stance on betting. “I don’t think we should encourage people who are watching the N.F.L. to gamble, especially young people,” he said. “I’ve got boys, and I want them to enjoy the game for what it is, the headiness of it and those kind of things.”

We really are too stupid as a people to learn from history and previous generations. Girls and boys just wanna have fun.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

Sports betting scandals have happened in the past; what makes this go-round any different?

Afterthought: This go-round is different in terms of immensity and ubiquity. Never before has gambling received the marketing that it is receiving now and the number of outlets and opportunities to indulge is staggering. It is likely that many shenanigans will never even come to light, buried as they will be under this avalanche.

[monkeyman576]

Rose should not have been banned because MLB is only interested in policing anything when it suits their purposes or they are forced to by the media. They turned a blind eye to the steroids era. They didn't do anything about foreign sustances until they were forced to. Rose was one of the most competetive players in modern history and it's hard to believe that he would have done anything to negetavely effect the outcome of a game that he had bet on.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by monkeyman576

Rose should not have been banned because MLB is only interested in policing anything when it suits their purposes or they are forced to by the media. They turned a blind eye to the steroids era. They didn't do anything about foreign sustances until they were forced to. Rose was one of the most competetive players in modern history and it's hard to believe that he would have done anything to negetavely effect the outcome of a game that he had bet on.

I'm starting to agree with this sentiment. NFL is only just now jumping on the bandwagon on which MLB has been riding. MLB is now condoning gambling on sports and if that goes down, then they should reinstate Rose and put him in the Hall where he belongs.

Because, as you allude, Rose's only sin was betting on the outcome. There has never been any evidence that I know of that Rose tried to change the outcome of games, other than to win.

I'm glad you brought this up because, given the state of current affairs, it no longer makes sense to me to bar Rose from the game that was and is his life. I'm with you on this now.

Think about this: Does anyone honestly believe that no professional player ever goes near DraftKing or FanDuel? Does anyone think that there is a mechanism by which such interaction with gambling outlets can be satisfactorily monitored and controlled?

This proliferation of gambling on sports should have one silver lining: the reinstatement of Pete Rose.

[monkeyman576]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

I'm starting to agree with this sentiment. NFL is only just now jumping on the bandwagon on which MLB has been riding. MLB is now condoning gambling on sports and if that goes down, then they should reinstate Rose and put him in the Hall where he belongs.

Because, as you allude, Rose's only sin was betting on the outcome. There has never been any evidence that I know of that Rose tried to change the outcome of games, other than to win.

I'm glad you brought this up because, given the state of current affairs, it no longer makes sense to me to bar Rose from the game that was and is his life. I'm with you on this now.

Think about this: Does anyone honestly believe that no professional player ever goes near DraftKing or FanDuel? Does anyone think that there is a mechanism by which such interaction with gambling outlets can be satisfactorily monitored and controlled?

This proliferation of gambling on sports should have one silver lining: the reinstatement of Pete Rose.

I totally agree. I mean I'm sure Rose knew about the black sox scandal and he should have stayed away from betting in general. That being said, I trust Rose's integrity more than I trust MLB's integrity. Ironic that MLB is celebrating Shoeless Joe with the Field of Dreams game but villianizing Rose.

[Boomcoach]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

Because, as you allude, Rose's only sin was betting on the outcome. There has never been any evidence that I know of that Rose tried to change the outcome of games, other than to win.

Originally Posted by monkeyman576

That being said, I trust Rose's integrity more than I trust MLB's integrity. Ironic that MLB is celebrating Shoeless Joe with the Field of Dreams game but villianizing Rose.

I am a Reds fan, who was listening to just about every Reds broadcast while Rose was being a player/manager (an advantage to working 5p-4a, can listen to the games and get paid.) I can't agree with either of these sentiments.

Once the news of his gambling came out, my mind immediately started processing all of the weird coaching decisions made by Rose. Did he bring the closer in for a 3rd straight day because he had a grand on that game? Did he give players rest on certain days because he didn't have anything riding on it. That is the invidious part of players, and even more coaches, betting on games. For me, it is what makes gambling different than steroids, or sign stealing.

With gambling, a fan begins to wonder if the result on the field is actually being determined on the field, or is it pre-decided, a la WWE? With steroids or with the Astros and Red Sox, I may be angry, but I never question whether the people involved were trying to win or not.

There was a mention of Rose's competitiveness, but that is a double-edged sword, that same competitiveness could easily apply to his gambling and he may well be making decisions based on whether he will win a bet or not.

Lastly, using the words "Rose" and "integrity" in the same paragraph, much less the same sentence is almost laughable. One thing we have learned from the Rose saga, from his actions afterwards and from what we heard about him during his playing days, integrity is not a Rose trait. He was clearly willing to lie, then pull back slightly on the lie, over and over again, trying to find the precise level of truth that will get him what he wanted, and he wasn't going to be a bit more truthful than he had to be.

[billyray1984]

Originally Posted by Boomcoach

I am a Reds fan, who was listening to just about every Reds broadcast while Rose was being a player/manager (an advantage to working 5p-4a, can listen to the games and get paid.) I can't agree with either of these sentiments.

Once the news of his gambling came out, my mind immediately started processing all of the weird coaching decisions made by Rose. Did he bring the closer in for a 3rd straight day because he had a grand on that game? Did he give players rest on certain days because he didn't have anything riding on it. That is the invidious part of players, and even more coaches, betting on games. For me, it is what makes gambling different than steroids, or sign stealing.

With gambling, a fan begins to wonder if the result on the field is actually being determined on the field, or is it pre-decided, a la WWE? With steroids or with the Astros and Red Sox, I may be angry, but I never question whether the people involved were trying to win or not.

There was a mention of Rose's competitiveness, but that is a double-edged sword, that same competitiveness could easily apply to his gambling and he may well be making decisions based on whether he will win a bet or not.

Lastly, using the words "Rose" and "integrity" in the same paragraph, much less the same sentence is almost laughable. One thing we have learned from the Rose saga, from his actions afterwards and from what we heard about him during his playing days, integrity is not a Rose trait. He was clearly willing to lie, then pull back slightly on the lie, over and over again, trying to find the precise level of truth that will get him what he wanted, and he wasn't going to be a bit more truthful than he had to be.

Regarding this, we will never know for sure, and it's impossible to know for sure, if Rose's fate regarding the HOF would have been different had he fessed up as soon as he had been caught. Yes, Rose gambled on games, which was a direct and complete violation of clear cut rules, but he also lied and denied it for many years, even in the face of compelling evidence, probably hoping the whole thing would blow over and that he would get some form of pardon. For myself, I think that the result would have been the same for him, but his legacy would've been rosier for sure.

[monkeyman576]

To me it's not about Rose being a saint, it's about MLB not being a constant policer or caring about anyone besides #1.

[billyray1984]

Originally Posted by monkeyman576

To me it's not about Rose being a saint, it's about MLB not being a constant policer or caring about anyone besides #1.

The MLB treatment of gambling is THE only area where they have been a contant policer, I'll give you that. Can't say the same thing about domestic violence, ped, ball tampering, drug use, owner FA collusion, etc.

[Boomcoach]

Originally Posted by billyray1984

The MLB treatment of gambling is THE only area where they have been a contant policer, I'll give you that. Can't say the same thing about domestic violence, ped, ball tampering, drug use, owner FA collusion, etc.

To some extent that makes sense. Gambling is something that strikes directly at the core of the game. The rest affect competitive balance or, in the cases of drug use domestic violence, are more about ethics and PR than actually about the game. Doesn't mean I don't think they should be addressed and that the league should do a better job, but I think if you look at any sports reaction to gambling/fixing issues, all sports react quick and hard to those issues.

[Déjà Bru]

Reading all these good comments, I feel the need to clarify: Ideally, gambling and Pete Rose should be nowhere near Major League Baseball. But given MLB's embrace of gambling, it no longer makes sense to ban Rose from the game.

Side question, should anyone wish to tackle it: Why do professional sports accept and promote gambling on their results? How does MLB, for example, make money from gambling?

I just realized that I don't know the answers to these questions.

[BMW]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

Reading all these good comments, I feel the need to clarify: Ideally, gambling and Pete Rose should be nowhere near Major League Baseball. But given MLB's embrace of gambling, it no longer makes sense to ban Rose from the game.

Side question, should anyone wish to tackle it: Why do professional sports accept and promote gambling on their results? How does MLB, for example, make money from gambling?

I just realized that I don't know the answers to these questions.

The MLB had an investment stake in DraftKings starting in 2012. They were looking to divest themselves back in 2018 (https://www.espn.com/chalk/story/_/i...tkings-fanduel). Most of the sports leagues now get licensing fees from partnerships with these companies.

I don't know if anyone here has mentioned it but the CBPL (based in Taiwan) had a crazy amount of gambling and game fixing issues in the 1990s and 2000s.

[monkeyman576]

I know that MLB is allowing DraftKings to build a sportsbook building adjacent to Wrigley Field so I would "wager" to say that yes they are making money on gambling.

[Déjà Bru]

Thanks, guys.

Originally Posted by BMW

I don't know if anyone here has mentioned it but the CBPL (based in Taiwan) had a crazy amount of gambling and game fixing issues in the 1990s and 2000s.

Well, well. Something to learn from, yes? But no. We're too busy making money, having fun, and spinning all sorts of excuses why it won't happen this time or, even worse, who cares if it does?

A couple of Georges come to mind.

"If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens, how incapable must Man be of learning from experience." - George Bernard Shaw

"Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it." - George Santayana

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

Thanks, guys.

Well, well. Something to learn from, yes? But no. We're too busy making money, having fun, and spinning all sorts of excuses why it won't happen this time or, even worse, who cares if it does?

A couple of Georges come to mind.

"If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens, how incapable must Man be of learning from experience." - George Bernard Shaw

"Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it." - George Santayana

In 2018 the average salary in the CPBL was $61,200 USD.
It is hard to find salaries for all the years listed. But in the early 90s Taiwan was going through a hard recession and salaries may have been less in $25,000

So not very hard to bribe. I am not saying that high salaries mean there will never mean a match-fixing scandal. But the higher the salary, the harder it is to fix matches.

[Déjà Bru]

Well, still it's going to be a whole new sub-industry in professional sports, requiring all sorts of social media detectives, transactional data analysts, and computer forensics experts to keep an eye on things.

NHL finds no evidence San Jose Sharks forward Evander Kane bet on his own games, considers this 'specific matter closed'

"According to the NHL, the investigation into the gambling accusations included a detailed review of social media, public data and court filings -- from both Kane's bankruptcy proceedings and his pending divorce proceedings. The investigation also included a review of sports betting data and analysis provided by Sportsradar, as well as in-person and virtual interviews with members of the Sharks organization and Kane himself."

Here's an eye opener in that story: "In a January bankruptcy filing, Evander Kane listed $1.5 million in gambling debts owed." So, he's gambling like heck on sports in all probability, but no evidence on him gambling on the Sharks clears him.

So, Rudel, I imagine this could put a damper on your thinking that U.S. professional athletes make too much money to indulge in bad habits. The superstars, yes, perhaps. The 80% or more who are run-of-the-mill players, it's too much to hope for, really.